"(In) some other countries, they went round consulting 'shall we, shall we not, shall we, shall we not raise taxes?' In the end, you don't have to be very well-informed to guess what the answer was. In the end there was no conclusion and no tax increase."
Let us exercise our brain cells and learn together how we decipher hidden messages and half truths.
First, the definition of 'discussion' is a one-sided one. Observe how he states quite clearly that it was meant to be a discussion: 'If I'm discussing ......'. However, his discussion is meant to arrive at the conclusion he had set out to achieve: 'I think I will never finish that discussion .....'.
The 'I' in his statement is a very loud and clear 'I'. And when the discussion fails to achieve his objective, his only course of direction is to say: 'ok, I have to decide, I have to do this ...'. And his reason? 'Because otherwise it's not workable'.
Now, where is the discussion? It always has been that any discussion anyone have had with the PAP were nothing but staged opportunities for the PAP to propagate and make its own arguments look good. There had been no real attempt to listen out for viable options and approaches which Singaporeans may have had offered. In local lingo parlance, it's plain old simple 'WAYANG'.
There are just to many hidden messages in his message and reasoning. Much like the National Conversation, a discussion must begin with a blank sheet of paper, not with slides and presentation prepared in advance to convince the people you attempt to have a conversion with.
Second; the comparison - those countries bad, Singapore good.
In this instance, the PM was playing the rose petal peeling game of 'he loves me, he loves me not' when he played the card of fear. He said; 'In some countries, they went round consulting 'shall we, shall we not, shall we, shall we not raise taxes?' - with the final outcome of a stalemate.
Again, as with the first point above, the mind was already made up before the question was asked. As a government looking after the citizens' interests, the first question to ask is not whether taxes should be increased. There are many other questions that precede it. Primarily, the first question should be (when there is a dire need to increase tax for whatever reason), is whether any tax increase is necessary? If it is necessary, the next question should be what are the options available before considering tax increment as an option?.
And in Singapore's context, and where tax increase is still necessary, the question ought to be asked is whether the foreigner should help pay for any necessary increment first; if not in full, then in part. By doing this and asking all these questions, and implementing all the tax reduction options which are feasible, the end result, if citizen taxation is still necessary, would be a much less painful one. That, I believe, would be the right way to govern.
So you see, the half truth here is quite clear to all. Why does our PM have to resort to this, to hoodwink and tell half truths to scare Singaporeans, young Singaporeans, so that they would buy into half a picture?