MR DONALD Low dismisses the dangers of spending beyond our means ("Budget 2015: In deficit, yet very prudent at heart"; last Saturday).
He is right that the Government is fiscally conservative. But he is wrong to be dismissive about the concerns raised by me and other MPs that social spending must be sustainable.
Government spending is going up steadily. The new social programmes - for example, Silver Support, higher subsidies for health care and MediShield Life, and the Pioneer Generation Package - are necessary and right.
But we must proceed carefully. As our economy matures and growth moderates, revenue growth will slow. Spending programmes, once committed to, cannot be cut back without the utmost pain and political resistance, as seen in every advanced society. There will be constant pressure to spend more; indeed, Mr Low's article is a prime example.
Moreover, often, more government spending alone has not solved social problems. Many countries went overboard on welfare with the best of intentions but with unintended results, including massive unsustainable deficit. Now they are forced to cut back and restore financial sustainability, with the harshest impact on the young.
Mr Low ignores this and argues that if something cannot be financed sustainably by the Government, with its ability to pool risks, it cannot be done by households either, which is an unacceptable outcome.
This is a false dichotomy between two extreme choices. Every society must support those with less, find the right balance between personal responsibility and state welfare, and muster and safeguard the resources to meet essential needs.
No government can spend to meet all possible wants, or ignore how its spending will impact individual and family responsibility. Singapore is no different.
Mr Low had earlier posted an intemperately worded version of his commentary on his Facebook page which asserted that "there is something inherently flawed with the concept of sustainability".
Significantly, he omitted this radical claim from last Saturday's commentary in The Straits Times. But he has not retracted his earlier version, which was circulated widely online. Instead, he described it (on Facebook) as a "rant", and thanked a Straits Times journalist for turning his "rant against the sustainability prudes into an op-ed".
How are we to read a commentary which represents, not the writer's sincerely held position, but a pose to gull us into believing that he holds reasonable views?
Liang Eng Hwa
MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC
Chairman, Government Parliamentary Committee for Finance, Trade and Industry
*Letter first appeared on ST Forums (11 Mar)