Bullshit in 
PAP's West Coast-Jurong West GRC team plans to extend, intensify Jobs @ West Coast initiative if elected: Desmond Lee
"We want to support them (with the) initiatives that we see rolled out today. (By) bringing jobs directly into the heartlands to cater to a few groups of people," Lee said, adding that the team is focused on helping workers in trade-exposed, external-facing sectors, middle-aged and older workers as well as younger residents who are anxious to land a job after graduation.
READ: https://asia1.news/3RtleGK
Follow @AsiaOnecom for all the latest updates.
1. **Vague Definition of “Jobs @ West Coast Initiative”**
- The article doesn’t explain what the Jobs @ West Coast initiative actually entails. It mentions “bringing jobs directly into the heartlands” but provides no details on how this will be achieved, what types of jobs, or the scale of the program. Without specifics, it’s hard to assess whether this is a meaningful plan or just a feel-good promise.
- *Why it’s problematic*: Vague promises of job creation are common in political campaigns and often lack follow-through or measurable outcomes.
2. **Broad, Undefined Target Groups**
- Lee mentions catering to “workers in trade-exposed, external-facing sectors, middle-aged and older workers, as well as younger residents.” These groups are so broad they encompass nearly everyone in the workforce. There’s no clear prioritization or explanation of how the initiative will address the specific needs of these diverse groups.
- *Why it’s problematic*: Casting a wide net without tailored solutions can signal a lack of focus or understanding of the unique challenges each group faces (e.g., retraining for older workers vs. entry-level opportunities for graduates).
3. **Assumption of Job Creation Feasibility**
- The claim of “bringing jobs directly into the heartlands” assumes that businesses or industries can be easily persuaded to set up operations in specific residential areas. The article doesn’t address potential barriers like infrastructure, cost, or market demand, which could make this promise unrealistic.
- *Why it’s problematic*: Job creation depends on economic conditions and private sector cooperation, which politicians often overpromise without acknowledging external constraints.
4. **Lack of Evidence or Track Record**
- The article states the team plans to “extend and intensify” the initiative but doesn’t provide evidence of its past success or current scope. Without data on how many jobs were created previously or who benefited, the claim feels like an empty commitment.
- *Why it’s problematic*: Without a track record, it’s hard to trust that the initiative will deliver meaningful results, especially if it’s being pitched as a reason to vote for the team.
5. **Potential Electioneering Tactic**
- The article notes the plan is contingent on the team being elected, which ties the initiative to a political campaign. This framing suggests the promise is partly a vote-getting strategy rather than a guaranteed policy, especially since job programs typically require broader government coordination beyond a single GRC team.
- *Why it’s problematic*: Conditional promises tied to elections can be manipulative, creating false hope without a clear commitment to follow through regardless of electoral outcomes.
6. **No Mention of Funding or Resources**
- The article omits any discussion of how the initiative will be funded or what resources will be allocated. Job creation programs require significant investment, and the lack of clarity on this front raises questions about feasibility.
- *Why it’s problematic*: Unfunded or underfunded initiatives often fizzle out, and voters deserve transparency about costs and logistics.
7. **Overly Optimistic Tone Without Addressing Risks**
- The article presents the initiative as a straightforward solution to job concerns, with no acknowledgment of potential challenges like global economic uncertainty (e.g., U.S.-China trade tensions impacting Singapore’s trade-exposed sectors, as noted in web results). This overly rosy framing ignores real-world complexities. [](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna-insider/southeast-asia-manufacturers-trump-tariff-war-us-china-asean-5071786)[](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/shares-fall-asia-nvidia-curbs-023849824.html)
- *Why it’s problematic*: Failing to address risks or challenges can mislead residents into expecting easy solutions to complex problems.
PAP's West Coast-Jurong West GRC team plans to extend, intensify Jobs @ West Coast initiative if elected: Desmond Lee"We want to support them (with the) initiatives that we see rolled out today. (By) bringing jobs directly into the heartlands to cater to a few groups of people," Lee said, adding that the team is focused on helping workers in trade-exposed, external-facing sectors, middle-aged and older workers as well as younger residents who are anxious to land a job after graduation.
READ: https://asia1.news/3RtleGK
Follow @AsiaOnecom for all the latest updates.
1. **Vague Definition of “Jobs @ West Coast Initiative”**
- The article doesn’t explain what the Jobs @ West Coast initiative actually entails. It mentions “bringing jobs directly into the heartlands” but provides no details on how this will be achieved, what types of jobs, or the scale of the program. Without specifics, it’s hard to assess whether this is a meaningful plan or just a feel-good promise.
- *Why it’s problematic*: Vague promises of job creation are common in political campaigns and often lack follow-through or measurable outcomes.
2. **Broad, Undefined Target Groups**
- Lee mentions catering to “workers in trade-exposed, external-facing sectors, middle-aged and older workers, as well as younger residents.” These groups are so broad they encompass nearly everyone in the workforce. There’s no clear prioritization or explanation of how the initiative will address the specific needs of these diverse groups.
- *Why it’s problematic*: Casting a wide net without tailored solutions can signal a lack of focus or understanding of the unique challenges each group faces (e.g., retraining for older workers vs. entry-level opportunities for graduates).
3. **Assumption of Job Creation Feasibility**
- The claim of “bringing jobs directly into the heartlands” assumes that businesses or industries can be easily persuaded to set up operations in specific residential areas. The article doesn’t address potential barriers like infrastructure, cost, or market demand, which could make this promise unrealistic.
- *Why it’s problematic*: Job creation depends on economic conditions and private sector cooperation, which politicians often overpromise without acknowledging external constraints.
4. **Lack of Evidence or Track Record**
- The article states the team plans to “extend and intensify” the initiative but doesn’t provide evidence of its past success or current scope. Without data on how many jobs were created previously or who benefited, the claim feels like an empty commitment.
- *Why it’s problematic*: Without a track record, it’s hard to trust that the initiative will deliver meaningful results, especially if it’s being pitched as a reason to vote for the team.
5. **Potential Electioneering Tactic**
- The article notes the plan is contingent on the team being elected, which ties the initiative to a political campaign. This framing suggests the promise is partly a vote-getting strategy rather than a guaranteed policy, especially since job programs typically require broader government coordination beyond a single GRC team.
- *Why it’s problematic*: Conditional promises tied to elections can be manipulative, creating false hope without a clear commitment to follow through regardless of electoral outcomes.
6. **No Mention of Funding or Resources**
- The article omits any discussion of how the initiative will be funded or what resources will be allocated. Job creation programs require significant investment, and the lack of clarity on this front raises questions about feasibility.
- *Why it’s problematic*: Unfunded or underfunded initiatives often fizzle out, and voters deserve transparency about costs and logistics.
7. **Overly Optimistic Tone Without Addressing Risks**
- The article presents the initiative as a straightforward solution to job concerns, with no acknowledgment of potential challenges like global economic uncertainty (e.g., U.S.-China trade tensions impacting Singapore’s trade-exposed sectors, as noted in web results). This overly rosy framing ignores real-world complexities. [](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna-insider/southeast-asia-manufacturers-trump-tariff-war-us-china-asean-5071786)[](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/shares-fall-asia-nvidia-curbs-023849824.html)
- *Why it’s problematic*: Failing to address risks or challenges can mislead residents into expecting easy solutions to complex problems.