GP Lesson

1. GP Lesson 10 March 2013

2. White Paper Policy Review

3. White Paper Population Question • The White Paper would create more problems than it purports to solve. • Paragraph 1 (What the White Paper purports to solve) • Paragraph 2 (Problem 1) • Paragraph 3 (Problem 2) • Problems: • Difficult to integrate foreigners into local community • Further widening of income disparity • Increased cost of living • Excessive strain on existing infrastructure (transport, housing, ‘space’ in general) • Demand on healthcare (shortage of nurse & doctors?) • Crime? (maybe?) • Erosion of Singapore Core? • Etc. etc.

4. Maverick • Good introduction which sets out the problem and background • “respect for one another’s culture within a broad common space” • Illegible hand-writing • “Increasing our population can also lead to many problems such as the increased cost of living and the demand of healthcare, ? and infrastructure”  Rather broad • “As more and more foreigners”  as more foreigners … • “more doctors and nurses would be requested in the demanding workforce”  expression • The feeling of overcrowding stems from congested public transportation and not so much from the effects of lack of doctors & nurses • Try to use a variety of vocabulary; you used this phrase putting a ‘strain’ in this paragraph about 4 times.

5. Donavan • Start of the disastrous “silver tsunami”  rather offensive • There was a general lack of focus on the requirement I was looking for in the introduction (what the WP purports to solve) • “with much influx of foreign workers”  expression • “disrupt the racial harmony”  need to elaborate • Good points about “heavy reliance” and “depression of wages”, but in this paragraph, you were discussion on the erosion of the Singapore core; therefore these points are tangential to your topic sentence • “people going homeless” This might be too speculative because more houses are being constructed to accommodate the foreigners • “peak hour situations is a sight to behold”  expression • The frequent use of “!” is not really necessary

6. Clover • “white paper is here to ensure sustainable working population”  expression • White paper … “vitality and not breeding an atmosphere of dullness”  what does this mean • You need to adopt a bigger font for your handwriting as I had quite a hard time trying to decipher what you wrote. However, this was an excellent point that you brought up. I liked the whole idea about how Singapore should take into consideration not just economic growth but also on other aspects of quality of life. The link to worsening of productivity stemming from over-congestion of public transportation was a good point too. • “material and non-material quality of life”  need to refine this statement • Again handwriting! But good point that the problem of the WP is that it is not a long term solution and you proposed increasing birth rates and labour productivity as solutions.

7. Mark • “economic growth would be lowered”  expression • “this would provide an issue for Singapore as with low economic growth …”  expression • If SG is not able to keep up, future workers would rather go to other countries such as Japan  language barrier? Japan too is an ageing society with its own problems • What was the problem that is created by the WP? This paragraph doesn’t really answer the question • “more foreigners are also attracted to … Singapore, although this does increase the total population”  ? • In general, you focused too narrowly on the M&P Scheme which is just one aspect of the WP policy. In the 2nd paragraph, the topic sentence should have been about increased competition due to more foreigners which is a problem created

8. ZhengShuan • “to increase population growth in economy”  expression • Introduction was too brief and note some grammatical errors you have made “debates … of the WP has (X) .. Doubts has (X) …” • Combine paras. 1 & 2. Overall you highlighted what the WP purports to solve well • Improve your topic sentence such that it directly addresses the point on what is the other problem that the WP would create • I did mention about the possibility of the immigrants causing some racial conflicts/friction in society but do you have any examples say from another country which can prove this? Otherwise, it would seem to speculative at this juncture. However, note that the point on difficulty integrating into our society is generally accepted • ‘Kiasu spirit’ is not exactly a meritorious Singapore identity – debatable • ‘Singlish’ – maybe the focus is on local accent rather than broken/colloquial language • ‘probably only one in a million’  this kind of statement is too speculative which lacks any kind of substantiation: who provides this statistic?

9. Yi Ting • I don’t think it has ever been on the government’s agenda to promote xenophobia in the public • It is the purpose of the WP to increase foreigners in Singapore, SG govt. is not shunning them • You did not highlight a clear problem that the WP creates. You did mention things like increased competition and integration problem and these can be stand-alone points which should have been developed separately. You also mentioned meritocracy but you did not show exactly how meritocracy was undermined by the influx of foreigners • “xenophobic is a big problem”  xenophobia • This paragraph also didn’t address a problem created by the WP. Overall, you didn’t answer the question.

10. Anne • “balance the ageing of our citizen population”  expression • Introduction was lengthy and should have focused on what the WP purports to solve in a few clear sentences rather than over-elaborating at this juncture • Young Singaporeans migrating  internal conflict?  ‘brain drain’ • Not to the point where foreigners ‘take over our country’, taking over our jobs – yes but taking over our country means our country is run by a foreign government • “defeats our purpose of calling our country Singapore”  expression • Whether foreigners appreciate meritocracy depends on which society they come from • You need to draw the link between increase in foreigners and increase cost of living to be able to successfully argue this point. It used to be that under the Financial Investor Scheme, high network foreigners park at least SGD10 million in Singapore for 5 years to gain PR status. Up to SGD2 million of this investment can be used to buy property in Singapore. But at the end of Apr 2012, this was removed. Under the GIP scheme foreigners have to invest SGD2.5 million in a new company or to expand an existing business in Singapore and company should have an annual revenue of at least SGD30million

11. Timothy • Its true that one of the ways of losing our Singapore identity is by ‘forgetting’ but note the circumstances that may make it easier for us to ‘forget’ our identity (like being in the presence of a large percentage of people who do not respect our values) • The problem with a lot of these foreigners is that they do not make Singapore as a place of permanent residence. They use Singapore as a launch pad for quick investment and take these profits back home. Another group is foreign students coming to Singapore to study and returning home once they have benefitted from our education system or when it is time to do NS • Why use this definition? It sounds more like the definition of a patriot rather than a plain citizen • Appreciate it that you tried to offer a different perspective but you should have a clear structure and arguments to debunk the ‘so called problems I have written in the power-point slide’

12. Wilson • The WP was not created as a result of the government giving in to the demands of the public to request for information about the government’s plans • “Increase in population would bloom our economy”  expression • You did not mention & elaborate what the WP purports to solve • Avoid such sentences • “The WP claims heart”  what does this mean • I think you made a good point about the fact that integration process may not be that effective because foreigners did not grow up in Singapore and it is difficult for them to have a change in mindset and habits: But you should have also talked about foreigners who bring their families in with children and whether they are able to integrate into our society? • Avoid such sentences • Also, you did not phrase this topic sentence such that it reflects a problem that the WP creates