[Bigiron]

From 'flexible rents' to foreign manpower: PSP's proposals on supporting hawkers and what the government says


Govt sets out ways it helps sustain hawker culture, alleviate cost pressures on S’poreans | The Straits Times
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...n-sporeans

 https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapor...112024_cna

[Cmpunk]

We need this kind of oops keep barking them non stop.

[Bigiron]

Govt sets out ways it helps sustain hawker culture, alleviate cost pressures on S’poreans | The Straits Times
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...n-sporeans


Analysis of "Govt sets out ways it helps sustain hawker culture, alleviate cost pressures on S’poreans"
 
This article from The Straits Times, published on November 14, 2024, discusses the Singaporean government's efforts to support hawker culture while addressing rising food costs. The article presents a debate in Parliament where the government defends its policies against criticisms from the Progress Singapore Party (PSP).
 
Here's a breakdown of the flaws, inconsistencies, contradictions, weasel words, loaded language, and fallacies found in the article:
 
1. Inconsistent Arguments:
 
- Hawker Identity vs. Manpower Shortage: The government argues that allowing Work Permit holders as stall assistants would compromise the local identity of hawker culture. However, they simultaneously acknowledge a manpower shortage and allow long-term visit pass holders to work in hawker centers from January 2025. This suggests a contradiction in their stance on maintaining hawker identity while addressing manpower needs.

- Balloting vs. Frivolous Applications: The government claims that a balloting system for stall allocation would encourage frivolous applications and excess demand. However, they don't provide evidence to support this claim. Additionally, it's unclear why frivolous applications would be a greater concern than the current tender system, which can lead to higher rents and potentially exclude genuine hawkers.
 
2. Weasel Words and Loaded Language:
 
- "Safeguarding the long-term sustainability of their trade": This phrase is vague and doesn't specify what measures the government is taking to ensure sustainability. It could be interpreted as a promise of support without concrete actions.

- "Unique local hawker culture and identity": This phrase is loaded with positive connotations and implies that any change to the system would threaten this unique cultural heritage. This is a form of emotional appeal that doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of hawker culture.

- "Calibrate any relaxation on restrictions": The word "calibrate" suggests a careful and measured approach to change, but doesn't specify the criteria used for this calibration. This phrase could be used to justify inaction or slow progress.
 
3. Fallacies:
 
- Appeal to Tradition: The government argues that the current system preserves the UNESCO heritage of hawker centers, implying that any change would be detrimental to this heritage. This is an appeal to tradition fallacy, suggesting that something is good simply because it's old or traditional.

- False Dichotomy: The government presents a false dichotomy between the interests of consumers and hawkers, suggesting that addressing one group's concerns necessarily comes at the expense of the other. This ignores the possibility of finding solutions that benefit both parties.

- Straw Man Argument: The government argues against a fixed rent model by claiming it would lead to higher rents for nearly half of all tenderers. This is a straw man argument, as it misrepresents the proposed model and ignores the potential benefits of a fixed rent system.
 
4. Lack of Evidence:
 
- The government claims that the current rental process is "open, transparent and straightforward," but doesn't provide any evidence to support this claim.

- They also claim that 97% of patrons and stallholders are satisfied with the SEHC model, but don't specify the methodology or source of this data.
 
Overall:
 
The article presents a biased perspective that favors the government's position. It uses weasel words, loaded language, and fallacies to downplay criticisms and justify existing policies. While the government acknowledges the need to support hawker culture and address cost pressures, its arguments lack concrete evidence and fail to address the concerns raised by the PSP.

[Bigiron]

weasel words found in the article, along with explanations of how they create ambiguity:

Govt sets out ways it helps sustain hawker culture, alleviate cost pressures on S’poreans | The Straits Times
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...n-sporeans
 
- "Safeguarding the long-term sustainability of their trade": This phrase is vague and doesn't specify what measures the government is taking to ensure sustainability. It could be interpreted as a promise of support without concrete actions. It doesn't tell us how they are actually safeguarding the trade.

- "Unique local hawker culture and identity": This phrase is loaded with positive connotations and implies that any change to the system would threaten this unique cultural heritage. This is a form of emotional appeal that doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of hawker culture. It's not clear what specific elements of the culture are being protected.

- "Calibrate any relaxation on restrictions": The word "calibrate" suggests a careful and measured approach to change, but doesn't specify the criteria used for this calibration. This phrase could be used to justify inaction or slow progress. It doesn't tell us what the specific parameters for "calibration" are.

- "Continue to finetune and improve its policies": This phrase suggests ongoing efforts to improve policies, but it lacks specifics. It doesn't say what specific changes are being considered or how the policies will be improved.

- "Chart the best way forward": This phrase is a general statement of intent without any concrete plans or actions outlined. It doesn't tell us what the "best way forward" actually entails.
 
These weasel words allow the government to make broad statements about support and action without committing to specific details or timelines. This creates ambiguity and makes it difficult to hold them accountable for their promises.