targeted approach is better.
Quoting Ho Kwong Ping:
But I also think it is somewhat disingenuous of Prof Lim's detractors to simply use scare tactics like 'investors will flee' or 'we will have a drastic economic decline' to reject his proposals out of hand. Critics of the plan - many of whom have access to economic modelling capabilities - should run their models and share with everyone their findings. I suspect that the cost impact will not be that high, given that only the lowest wage levels will be affected, and most multinational corporation investors - except perhaps the foreign bar and restaurant operators - will have only marginally higher operating costs. There are other reasons not to favour Prof Lim's proposals than the potential cost increase for businesses.
That had left a bad taste in the mouth especially from Lim Swee Say. The Labour chief ought to know better. Many of us are tired of fear mongering. We were right to feel insulted and indignant. He and the MOSes who had chimed in on this issue lost some respect.
Again from Ho Kwon Ping. He concluded:
I am personally not in favour of Prof Lim's proposals, but I admire him for having the gumption to make radical proposals. If we are to have a thoughtful society, we should debate the merits of his proposals with equally coherent arguments, grounded in data and reason.
"coherent arguments, grounded in data and reason" What if the true reason was practicing Social Darwinism in Singapore? They will never offer that rationale and they will lose the argument.
Lee Kuan Yew's ideas on genes and inheritance is simplistic and superseded by better Science since he made up his stubborn mind. Has he boned up on say, epigenetics? He had jumped to conclusions about gene action when it was basically a black box to even the leading investigators. His position was based more on prejudice than reason. Unfortunately that prejudice drove key policy initiatives to our detriment.
"Seek truth in the facts" I urged policy makers to take to heart Deng Xiaoping's advice.