![](https://i.imgur.com/CLvY2jA.png")
22-01-2025, 08:05 PM
Singapore needs foreigners to survive but 'significant safeguards' in place to protect local jobs: Tan See Leng
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapor...012025_cna
Here's an analysis of the article:
# Inconsistencies and Contradictions
1. *Tan See Leng emphasizes the need for foreign workers, but also assures that safeguards are in place to protect local jobs*. This balance between openness to foreign workers and protection of local jobs might be perceived as contradictory.
# Ambiguities
1. *"Significant safeguards" are mentioned, but not explicitly defined*. This lack of clarity might raise questions about the effectiveness of these safeguards.
2. *The article mentions "local workers" but doesn't specify whether this refers to Singaporean citizens or also includes permanent residents*.
# Flaws
1. *The article relies heavily on statements from Tan See Leng without providing opposing views or critical analysis*. This might create an imbalance in the presentation of information.
2. *No concrete data or statistics are provided to support the claims about the need for foreign workers or the effectiveness of safeguards*.
# Weasel Words and Loaded Language
1. *"Significant safeguards" could be seen as a vague term aimed at reassuring the public without providing concrete details*.
2. *The phrase "to survive" might be perceived as loaded language, implying that Singapore's survival depends on foreign workers*.
# Data Discrepancy
1. *The article mentions that foreign workers make up about 30% of the workforce, but doesn't provide a source for this statistic*.
# Propaganda and Fallacies
1. *Appeal to authority*: The article primarily presents Tan See Leng's views without critically evaluating them, potentially creating an appeal to authority fallacy.
2. *Lack of concrete evidence*: The article relies on assertions rather than providing concrete data or evidence to support the claims.
# Motherhood Statement
1. *"We want to make sure that our local workers are protected and that they have good jobs."* This statement is a general, feel-good assertion that might be difficult to disagree with, but lacks concrete details.
# Roundabout Answer
1. *Tan See Leng's response to the question about safeguards for local jobs might be seen as evasive, as he emphasizes the need for foreign workers rather than providing specific details about the safeguards*.
# Bias
1. *The article presents a largely positive view of the need for foreign workers, with limited critical evaluation or opposing views*.
# Hedging Statement
1. *"We will continue to monitor the situation and adjust our policies accordingly."* This statement might be seen as a hedging tactic, allowing for flexibility without making concrete commitments.
# Buzzwords
1. *"Significant safeguards" and "good jobs" are used without clear definitions, potentially creating a positive impression without substance*.
# Gaslighting and Dark Psychology Techniques
1. *None apparent in this article*. However, the lack of concrete evidence and reliance on assertions might be seen as a subtle attempt to influence public opinion.
Please note that this analysis is subjective and might not be exhaustive.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapor...012025_cna
Here's an analysis of the article:
# Inconsistencies and Contradictions
1. *Tan See Leng emphasizes the need for foreign workers, but also assures that safeguards are in place to protect local jobs*. This balance between openness to foreign workers and protection of local jobs might be perceived as contradictory.
# Ambiguities
1. *"Significant safeguards" are mentioned, but not explicitly defined*. This lack of clarity might raise questions about the effectiveness of these safeguards.
2. *The article mentions "local workers" but doesn't specify whether this refers to Singaporean citizens or also includes permanent residents*.
# Flaws
1. *The article relies heavily on statements from Tan See Leng without providing opposing views or critical analysis*. This might create an imbalance in the presentation of information.
2. *No concrete data or statistics are provided to support the claims about the need for foreign workers or the effectiveness of safeguards*.
# Weasel Words and Loaded Language
1. *"Significant safeguards" could be seen as a vague term aimed at reassuring the public without providing concrete details*.
2. *The phrase "to survive" might be perceived as loaded language, implying that Singapore's survival depends on foreign workers*.
# Data Discrepancy
1. *The article mentions that foreign workers make up about 30% of the workforce, but doesn't provide a source for this statistic*.
# Propaganda and Fallacies
1. *Appeal to authority*: The article primarily presents Tan See Leng's views without critically evaluating them, potentially creating an appeal to authority fallacy.
2. *Lack of concrete evidence*: The article relies on assertions rather than providing concrete data or evidence to support the claims.
# Motherhood Statement
1. *"We want to make sure that our local workers are protected and that they have good jobs."* This statement is a general, feel-good assertion that might be difficult to disagree with, but lacks concrete details.
# Roundabout Answer
1. *Tan See Leng's response to the question about safeguards for local jobs might be seen as evasive, as he emphasizes the need for foreign workers rather than providing specific details about the safeguards*.
# Bias
1. *The article presents a largely positive view of the need for foreign workers, with limited critical evaluation or opposing views*.
# Hedging Statement
1. *"We will continue to monitor the situation and adjust our policies accordingly."* This statement might be seen as a hedging tactic, allowing for flexibility without making concrete commitments.
# Buzzwords
1. *"Significant safeguards" and "good jobs" are used without clear definitions, potentially creating a positive impression without substance*.
# Gaslighting and Dark Psychology Techniques
1. *None apparent in this article*. However, the lack of concrete evidence and reliance on assertions might be seen as a subtle attempt to influence public opinion.
Please note that this analysis is subjective and might not be exhaustive.
![[+]](https://sgtalk.net/images/bootbb/collapse_collapsed.png)
![[Image: Ceca.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/ZmqbLfX/Ceca.jpg)
