27-11-2024, 07:14 AM
Analysis Having the resources for a strong economy and society 'not a fairy tale', requires prudence: Lawrence Wong
Having the resources for a strong economy and society 'not a fairy tale', requires prudence: Lawrence Wong
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapor...112024_cna
The ambiguities in Lawrence Wong's statements. While he makes certain claims, he also leaves room for interpretation, creating uncertainty and potentially weakening his argument. Here are some of the key ambiguities:
1. Ambiguity Regarding Future GST Increases:
- Statement: Mr. Wong states that there is no need to increase GST further until 2030. However, he also mentions that post-2030, the need for further increases will depend on the fiscal situation.
- Ambiguity: This creates ambiguity because he initially provides a clear timeline but then introduces uncertainty regarding future GST increases. This leaves Singaporeans unsure about the long-term trajectory of GST and its impact on their finances.
2. Ambiguity Regarding the PAP's Commitment to Fiscal Responsibility:
- Statement: Mr. Wong claims that the PAP will not deviate from its principles of fiscal responsibility, even if policies change. However, he acknowledges that the PAP's approach to returning money used from reserves has changed.
- Ambiguity: This creates ambiguity because he initially asserts unwavering commitment to fiscal responsibility while admitting to a change in practice. This leaves open the question of whether the PAP's commitment to fiscal responsibility is truly unwavering or subject to change based on political expediency.
3. Ambiguity Regarding the Definition of "Fiscal Prudence":
- Statement: Mr. Wong repeatedly emphasizes the importance of fiscal prudence, but he doesn't clearly define what he means by this term.
- Ambiguity: This ambiguity allows for different interpretations of fiscal prudence, potentially leading to disagreements about what constitutes responsible fiscal management. For example, the opposition might argue that using reserves for social programs is fiscally prudent, while the PAP might argue that it is not.
4. Ambiguity Regarding the Future of Reserve Usage:
- Statement: Mr. Wong criticizes the opposition for wanting to use more reserves, but he doesn't provide a clear roadmap for how the PAP plans to manage reserves in the future.
- Ambiguity: This ambiguity leaves Singaporeans unsure about the government's long-term plans for reserve usage, potentially creating anxiety about the future of public finances.
These ambiguities weaken Mr. Wong's arguments by creating uncertainty and leaving room for different interpretations. They also highlight the need for greater clarity and transparency from the government regarding its fiscal policy and its commitment to long-term economic sustainability.
contradictions! While Lawrence Wong presents a case for fiscal prudence, his arguments contain several contradictions that undermine his position. Here are some key examples from the article:
Contradiction 1: Emphasis on Saving vs. Criticism of Opposition Proposals
- Statement 1: "Singapore must maintain its commitment to set aside enough not just for the current generation, but also for the future." (Emphasizing saving)
- Statement 2: "What will this mean? Basically, we will end up with less for ourselves in the future, and we will also leave less behind for our children and the next generation." (Criticizing opposition proposals to use reserves)
Contradiction 2: Claiming Unwavering Commitment vs. Acknowledging Change in Practice
- Statement 1: "This must never be compromised. This must never change. These principles were put in place by our founding leaders. They have continued under successive leaders of the PAP and they will certainly continue under my watch." (Claiming unwavering commitment to fiscal responsibility)
- Statement 2: "A PAP government yesterday would return the money that it has used from the reserves as a matter of principle. But today a PAP government may not return the money it uses from the reserves." (Acknowledging a change in practice regarding returning money used from reserves)
Contradiction 3: Criticizing Opposition on Reserve Usage vs. Accepting GST Increase
- Statement 1: "According to Mr Wong, the opposition wants the government to use more of the reserves for current spending, such as through using revenue from land sales, waiving land costs for public flats and increasing the percentage of the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC)." (Criticizing opposition proposals to use reserves)
- Statement 2: "But now, WP has accepted the GST increase to 7 per cent, he said, asking if Mr Singh’s party will also accept the increase to 9 per cent as reality." (Acknowledging the WP's acceptance of the GST increase, which implies a shift away from relying solely on reserves)
These contradictions highlight a lack of consistency in Mr. Wong's arguments. He presents a strong case for fiscal prudence while simultaneously contradicting his own position by criticizing the opposition's proposals and acknowledging changes in the PAP's approach to reserve management. This inconsistency weakens his credibility and raises questions about the PAP's commitment to transparency and long-term economic sustainability.
Having the resources for a strong economy and society 'not a fairy tale', requires prudence: Lawrence Wong
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapor...112024_cna
The ambiguities in Lawrence Wong's statements. While he makes certain claims, he also leaves room for interpretation, creating uncertainty and potentially weakening his argument. Here are some of the key ambiguities:
1. Ambiguity Regarding Future GST Increases:
- Statement: Mr. Wong states that there is no need to increase GST further until 2030. However, he also mentions that post-2030, the need for further increases will depend on the fiscal situation.
- Ambiguity: This creates ambiguity because he initially provides a clear timeline but then introduces uncertainty regarding future GST increases. This leaves Singaporeans unsure about the long-term trajectory of GST and its impact on their finances.
2. Ambiguity Regarding the PAP's Commitment to Fiscal Responsibility:
- Statement: Mr. Wong claims that the PAP will not deviate from its principles of fiscal responsibility, even if policies change. However, he acknowledges that the PAP's approach to returning money used from reserves has changed.
- Ambiguity: This creates ambiguity because he initially asserts unwavering commitment to fiscal responsibility while admitting to a change in practice. This leaves open the question of whether the PAP's commitment to fiscal responsibility is truly unwavering or subject to change based on political expediency.
3. Ambiguity Regarding the Definition of "Fiscal Prudence":
- Statement: Mr. Wong repeatedly emphasizes the importance of fiscal prudence, but he doesn't clearly define what he means by this term.
- Ambiguity: This ambiguity allows for different interpretations of fiscal prudence, potentially leading to disagreements about what constitutes responsible fiscal management. For example, the opposition might argue that using reserves for social programs is fiscally prudent, while the PAP might argue that it is not.
4. Ambiguity Regarding the Future of Reserve Usage:
- Statement: Mr. Wong criticizes the opposition for wanting to use more reserves, but he doesn't provide a clear roadmap for how the PAP plans to manage reserves in the future.
- Ambiguity: This ambiguity leaves Singaporeans unsure about the government's long-term plans for reserve usage, potentially creating anxiety about the future of public finances.
These ambiguities weaken Mr. Wong's arguments by creating uncertainty and leaving room for different interpretations. They also highlight the need for greater clarity and transparency from the government regarding its fiscal policy and its commitment to long-term economic sustainability.
contradictions! While Lawrence Wong presents a case for fiscal prudence, his arguments contain several contradictions that undermine his position. Here are some key examples from the article:
Contradiction 1: Emphasis on Saving vs. Criticism of Opposition Proposals
- Statement 1: "Singapore must maintain its commitment to set aside enough not just for the current generation, but also for the future." (Emphasizing saving)
- Statement 2: "What will this mean? Basically, we will end up with less for ourselves in the future, and we will also leave less behind for our children and the next generation." (Criticizing opposition proposals to use reserves)
Contradiction 2: Claiming Unwavering Commitment vs. Acknowledging Change in Practice
- Statement 1: "This must never be compromised. This must never change. These principles were put in place by our founding leaders. They have continued under successive leaders of the PAP and they will certainly continue under my watch." (Claiming unwavering commitment to fiscal responsibility)
- Statement 2: "A PAP government yesterday would return the money that it has used from the reserves as a matter of principle. But today a PAP government may not return the money it uses from the reserves." (Acknowledging a change in practice regarding returning money used from reserves)
Contradiction 3: Criticizing Opposition on Reserve Usage vs. Accepting GST Increase
- Statement 1: "According to Mr Wong, the opposition wants the government to use more of the reserves for current spending, such as through using revenue from land sales, waiving land costs for public flats and increasing the percentage of the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC)." (Criticizing opposition proposals to use reserves)
- Statement 2: "But now, WP has accepted the GST increase to 7 per cent, he said, asking if Mr Singh’s party will also accept the increase to 9 per cent as reality." (Acknowledging the WP's acceptance of the GST increase, which implies a shift away from relying solely on reserves)
These contradictions highlight a lack of consistency in Mr. Wong's arguments. He presents a strong case for fiscal prudence while simultaneously contradicting his own position by criticizing the opposition's proposals and acknowledging changes in the PAP's approach to reserve management. This inconsistency weakens his credibility and raises questions about the PAP's commitment to transparency and long-term economic sustainability.