Nuanced discussion needed on S’pore’s population, without toxicity

FROM BI

- 

intentionally extreme positions, claiming a policy is either an existential threat or an unmitigated good - even if they do not personally hold such a view.

In Britain, Germany and France, nativist right-wing parties whose platforms hinge on anti-immigration stances were surging in popularity polls in 2025, and are seen as possible contenders to form governments in the near future — unthinkable just several years ago. They have used this modus operandi of extreme positioning, tapping into visceral prejudice and hostility to ethnic diversity in pockets of the population, while also channelling legitimate grievances about overcrowding, jobs and the impact on the social fabric.

But it is not just the right that should be faulted here. Parties on the political left have also been found wanting, staking out positions on immigration rooted in ideology that swing the other way in a black-or-white, “open or closed” borders discourse: insisting there can only be net gain from open borders, underplaying legitimate grievances ~ and most importantly, in places like the US and Britain, the law and order concerns linked to an influx of illegal immigrants.

The result of such extreme positioning is that each political tribe speaks about immigration in a way that severely underplays trade-offs misaligned with their preferences — and creates conversational no-go areas.