No, that's not what I understand of TS's position. Read his passage again. He didn't state anywhere that he believed in 'growth that will benefit Singaporeans but crowd Singapore out further'. What he simply said was, instead of restating and re-justifying at length WP's position on the white paper – of which we're all aware – he should have used the opportunity to whack Pinkie's self-satisfied concept of 'growth' and its horrendous ramifications.
Never allow your opponent to put you on the back foot, on the defensive.
When gay Loong puts it to you like this, don't micro manage the reply. Instead, reply in a manner that will resonate with the population. When gay loong says "we have continued to grow", you have to ask him "at what cost", and " who does this growth benefit.?" You should have informed him that the only growth that the PAP has be responsible for is the growth of 2 million new jobs to FTs. You should have told him the so called growth has not benefited the singaporean men and women on the street. And that this growth has come at the expense of riots, crowded public transportation, expensive housing, etc. Under this circumstances, zero growth is better than the PAP's kind of growth. why bother to talk simi lancheow population white paper with him?
