05-03-2025, 12:13 PM
![[Image: IMG-20250305-094546.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/ch5nd77h/IMG-20250305-094546.jpg)
05-03-2025, 12:20 PM
The mention of "support for the involuntarily unemployed" through SkillsFuture contradicts the optimistic claim that new jobs are being created—if the situation were truly positive, there wouldn’t be a need for new schemes for the unemployed.
The government is acknowledging that job displacement is happening but frames it as a positive transformation rather than an economic challenge.
Implication:
The email does not acknowledge that some workers will struggle despite retraining efforts.
There is no mention of whether the new jobs created will be of the same or better quality than the lost ones (e.g., full-time vs. gig work, high-paying vs. low-paying jobs).
---
5. Lack of Accountability for Economic Challenges
Claim in the Email:
"With constant industry transformation and changes to the economic environment, existing jobs will be redesigned and new jobs will be created."
Flaw:
The phrase "changes to the economic environment" is vague and avoids responsibility.
The email does not address whether government policies (e.g., foreign labor policies, CPF policies, business regulations) played a role in job losses or economic difficulties.
By attributing challenges only to "industry transformation" and "economic changes," the government sidesteps accountability for policy choices that may have contributed to job instability.
Implication:
It downplays the struggles of workers who lost jobs due to factors that government policies may have influenced.
The email presents the government as an entity merely reacting to global trends rather than shaping policies that could have mitigated economic hardships.
---
Conclusion:
The email attempts to justify the government’s actions but contains contradictions and logical flaws:
1. Fiscal Strength Contradiction – The country was supposedly in a good position, yet it needed a GST hike and unexpected revenue to avoid a deficit.
2. Lack of Justification for GST over Alternatives – It dismisses other tax options without explanation.
3. GST Delay Contradiction – If the GST hike was urgent, why was its impact postponed for years?
4. Job Creation vs. Job Loss – It claims job opportunities are growing but acknowledges involuntary unemployment, creating a contradiction.
5. No Accountability for Economic Challenges – Blames external factors instead of acknowledging how government policies contributed to job insecurity.
The government is acknowledging that job displacement is happening but frames it as a positive transformation rather than an economic challenge.
Implication:
The email does not acknowledge that some workers will struggle despite retraining efforts.
There is no mention of whether the new jobs created will be of the same or better quality than the lost ones (e.g., full-time vs. gig work, high-paying vs. low-paying jobs).
---
5. Lack of Accountability for Economic Challenges
Claim in the Email:
"With constant industry transformation and changes to the economic environment, existing jobs will be redesigned and new jobs will be created."
Flaw:
The phrase "changes to the economic environment" is vague and avoids responsibility.
The email does not address whether government policies (e.g., foreign labor policies, CPF policies, business regulations) played a role in job losses or economic difficulties.
By attributing challenges only to "industry transformation" and "economic changes," the government sidesteps accountability for policy choices that may have contributed to job instability.
Implication:
It downplays the struggles of workers who lost jobs due to factors that government policies may have influenced.
The email presents the government as an entity merely reacting to global trends rather than shaping policies that could have mitigated economic hardships.
---
Conclusion:
The email attempts to justify the government’s actions but contains contradictions and logical flaws:
1. Fiscal Strength Contradiction – The country was supposedly in a good position, yet it needed a GST hike and unexpected revenue to avoid a deficit.
2. Lack of Justification for GST over Alternatives – It dismisses other tax options without explanation.
3. GST Delay Contradiction – If the GST hike was urgent, why was its impact postponed for years?
4. Job Creation vs. Job Loss – It claims job opportunities are growing but acknowledges involuntary unemployment, creating a contradiction.
5. No Accountability for Economic Challenges – Blames external factors instead of acknowledging how government policies contributed to job insecurity.
05-03-2025, 12:32 PM
The email presents several inconsistencies and flaws in its justification for the GST increase and its handling of employment issues. Here's a breakdown:
1. Contradictory Fiscal Position: The email claims Singapore is in a "strong fiscal position" due to prior planning, yet simultaneously states that without the GST increase and unexpected corporate tax revenue, the country would have been in a deficit. This is contradictory. A strong fiscal position shouldn't hinge on unexpected revenue windfalls. It suggests either poor financial planning or an overly optimistic budget.
2. Unsubstantiated Claims about Alternative Revenue Options: The email dismisses alternative revenue-raising measures as "unsustainable" without providing specifics. It doesn't explain why progressive options like wealth taxes or increased corporate taxes on multinationals were deemed unsustainable, while a regressive tax (GST) was chosen. This lack of transparency weakens the argument.
3. Inconsistent Messaging on GST Urgency: The email highlights the Assurance Package as delaying the impact of the GST increase, contradicting the claim of urgency. If the GST increase was truly crucial for immediate revenue needs, delaying its impact wouldn't make sense. This suggests the urgency was either overstated or the Assurance Package was a political maneuver.
4. Lack of Data on Job Quality: The email focuses on job creation but lacks data on the quality of these new jobs. Are they comparable to jobs lost in terms of pay, stability, and benefits? The absence of this crucial information makes the claim of successful job creation unconvincing, especially given concerns about rising underemployment.
5. Ignoring Government Policy's Role in Economic Challenges: The email attributes economic challenges to external factors like "industry transformation" and "changes to the economic environment" while neglecting the potential impact of government policies on labor market conditions. Policies regarding foreign labor, CPF contributions, and business regulations could significantly influence job security and wages. This omission makes the explanation incomplete and avoids accountability.
6. Lack of Specifics in Response to Concerns: The email fails to answer many of the specific questions raised in the original emails. Instead of providing concrete data or detailed explanations, it offers general statements and avoids addressing the inconsistencies.
In summary, the email's justification for the GST increase and its approach to employment issues are weak due to internal contradictions, lack of transparency, and a failure to address critical concerns. The email relies heavily on assertions without providing sufficient evidence or detailed explanations.
1. Contradictory Fiscal Position: The email claims Singapore is in a "strong fiscal position" due to prior planning, yet simultaneously states that without the GST increase and unexpected corporate tax revenue, the country would have been in a deficit. This is contradictory. A strong fiscal position shouldn't hinge on unexpected revenue windfalls. It suggests either poor financial planning or an overly optimistic budget.
2. Unsubstantiated Claims about Alternative Revenue Options: The email dismisses alternative revenue-raising measures as "unsustainable" without providing specifics. It doesn't explain why progressive options like wealth taxes or increased corporate taxes on multinationals were deemed unsustainable, while a regressive tax (GST) was chosen. This lack of transparency weakens the argument.
3. Inconsistent Messaging on GST Urgency: The email highlights the Assurance Package as delaying the impact of the GST increase, contradicting the claim of urgency. If the GST increase was truly crucial for immediate revenue needs, delaying its impact wouldn't make sense. This suggests the urgency was either overstated or the Assurance Package was a political maneuver.
4. Lack of Data on Job Quality: The email focuses on job creation but lacks data on the quality of these new jobs. Are they comparable to jobs lost in terms of pay, stability, and benefits? The absence of this crucial information makes the claim of successful job creation unconvincing, especially given concerns about rising underemployment.
5. Ignoring Government Policy's Role in Economic Challenges: The email attributes economic challenges to external factors like "industry transformation" and "changes to the economic environment" while neglecting the potential impact of government policies on labor market conditions. Policies regarding foreign labor, CPF contributions, and business regulations could significantly influence job security and wages. This omission makes the explanation incomplete and avoids accountability.
6. Lack of Specifics in Response to Concerns: The email fails to answer many of the specific questions raised in the original emails. Instead of providing concrete data or detailed explanations, it offers general statements and avoids addressing the inconsistencies.
In summary, the email's justification for the GST increase and its approach to employment issues are weak due to internal contradictions, lack of transparency, and a failure to address critical concerns. The email relies heavily on assertions without providing sufficient evidence or detailed explanations.