Looks like its getting really serious....
-
EVERYONE PLEASE STOP FEEDING TROLLS....
-
10)
Andrew there is no point telling us you are smart by reporting DowJones and yesterday news because my notebook and internet connection is already capable for feeding me more accurate and timely information.
If you want to show us how smart an investor you are, let me ask you.
a) Suppose if your running a investment company that manage $100m worth of fund. Am I right to say that since July 2007 (as you claim is the time have predicted the market will crash)you would have already exit the stock market?
b) Suppose if Yes. What will you be doing with the $100m worth of funds?
c) Suppose your answer is NO, will you be able to tell us which are the stock which you will continue to hold starting from today (reason I asking starting from today is because I know you will dig out the best performing stocks from the last 3 months and say thats your prediction)
Over to you Andrew!! -
Let me just try Gazelle's questions for funOriginally posted by Gazelle:9)
Andrew there is no point telling us you are smart by reporting DowJones and yesterday news because my notebook and internet connection is already capable for feeding me more accurate and timely information.
If you want to show us how smart an investor you are, let me ask you.
a) Suppose if your running a investment company that manage $100m worth of fund. Am I right to say that since July 2007 (as you claim is the time have predicted the market will crash)you would have already exit the stock market?
b) Suppose if Yes. What will you be doing with the $100m worth of funds?
c) Suppose your answer is NO, will you be able to tell us which are the stock which you will continue to hold starting from today (reason I asking starting from today is because I know you will dig out the best performing stocks from the last 3 months and say thats your prediction)
Over to you Andrew!!
if I am managing $100m fund, hmm... I would exit the higher risk stocks and consolidate the profits, and move those into safer instruments like bonds and deposits. But as a fund manager, I would be constrained by the fund (some funds require a 75% equity and 25% bonds target for eg).
I would buy into blue chip's that are performing well now at a price that looks reasonable (based on certain factors like PE, competitive advantages etc), since the market has corrected quite a bit since the sub-prime crisis. Blue chips generally are a safer investment during bearish corrections. I will stay out of the finance companies, and wait abit to see how the sub-prime plays out before re-investing into them
Anyway, I am not a fund manager so those are my guesses on what I will do. -
OK thanks ... because I won't be....
-
Are we actually sure we have perfect checks and balances in place, since Temasek itself isn't really transparent, for eg?Originally posted by deathbait:i never said they weren't accountable.
There's a perfect check and balance system in place. You elect alternatives if you're dissapointed in the current one.
But you should not question, if they are currently fulfilling their end of the bargain. It's the core basic of agreements. You want something, they provided. Deal done.
Don't like how it's done? Perhaps next time you'll vote better. Or better yet, go around educating your neighbours. But we DID elect them. So suck it up. I don't like it either, but I don't whine when I lost. Especially when it isn't even THAT bad.
You see what happened to the charities? Years ago, we say there are perfect checks and balances, but now the can of worms have been opened.
In addition, as I mentioned alternatives are next to impossible given the stifling political games this current regime plays. You also did not disagree that the comparisons of the private sector to justify their pay is unreasonable
Anyway, you are RIGHT that it ain't that bad. But we should not become complacent and continue to allow them to harp on past achievements that weren't even theirs (HDB, CPF, etc).
Anyway, I don't whine, I just merely put forth my views, since they always say their policies are the best, but I seriously doubt so
And I also don't whine, coz I define whining to be without any alternative solutions but just complaints, but I do think of alternate solutions to illustrate how their policies are not necessarily the best (for the people), but only best (for themselves) -
I think you should just tell us that you CUN'tOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:OK thanks ... because I won't be.... -
11)
Andrew there is no point telling us you are smart by reporting DowJones and yesterday news because my notebook and internet connection is already capable for feeding me more accurate and timely information.
If you want to show us how smart an investor you are, let me ask you.
a) Suppose if your running a investment company that manage $100m worth of fund. Am I right to say that since July 2007 (as you claim is the time have predicted the market will crash)you would have already exit the stock market?
b) Suppose if Yes. What will you be doing with the $100m worth of funds?
c) Suppose your answer is NO, will you be able to tell us which are the stock which you will continue to hold starting from today (reason I asking starting from today is because I know you will dig out the best performing stocks from the last 3 months and say thats your prediction)
Over to you Andrew!! -
Just remain a coolie and bumpz up my threads, you have such poor thinking skills.... let me remind you...Originally posted by Gazelle:I think you should just tell us that you CUN't
As things stands, I have been right since July...Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... yesterday you had a big laugh telling everyone that I was wrong... meaning? You are laughing at my analytical skills... meaning? ... when I am right, it is due to my superior analytical skills... PWNED!
You still don't get it, I was playing nice to you when you showed your 5 days chart, refer back to that page and see how nice I was to you... so as to set you up for... (see quote above in this post)...
now you want me to answer your questions?.... you can go and sniff panties...Originally posted by gigabyte14:
-
I am still laughing at your 16th Nov 12.20pm post which prediction that mother of all black mondays will strike on 19th Nov 2007. (see below for original version)Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... yesterday you had a big laugh telling everyone that I was wrong... meaning? You are laughing at my analytical skills... meaning? ... when I am right, it is due to my superior analytical skills... PWNED!
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=290788&page=4
And your attempt to edit the same post on 17th Nov 2007 10am morning after reading DowJones recovered some of the loses on Friday 16th Nov (17th Nov Singapore time)
Orginal post was dated 16 Nov 2007.
I am not sure what anal skill you are talking about.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:WATCH OUT PEOPLE!
This coming Monday might the mother of Black Mondays - hope it doesn't happen! -
andrew, so nice of you not to make fun of 5 day charts that are put up to make fun of you in the first place for making specific day predictions
what was that? something about short term predictions? -
4 quick pointsOriginally posted by soul_rage:Are we actually sure we have perfect checks and balances in place, since Temasek itself isn't really transparent, for eg?
You see what happened to the charities? Years ago, we say there are perfect checks and balances, but now the can of worms have been opened.
In addition, as I mentioned alternatives are next to impossible given the stifling political games this current regime plays. You also did not disagree that the comparisons of the private sector to justify their pay is unreasonable
Anyway, you are RIGHT that it ain't that bad. But we should not become complacent and continue to allow them to harp on past achievements that weren't even theirs (HDB, CPF, etc).
1) temasek is not required to be transparent. It is an investment house. I'm not sure who you've been talking to, but this is an industry shrouded with mystery.
2) Charities do not fall under the government. They are subsidised by it. There's a difference. In fact, as a donator, we had more responsibility to keep an eye on it.
3) change takes time. and the time taken is proportional to effort. as for the comparisons to private sector, that was just spin. It's a pay raise, pure and simple. But they predicted the citizens wouldn't understand this concept due to their idea of leaders equating to martyrs. What, ministers can't have pay raises? That's rubbish.
4) They aren't harping their past achievements. If you realise, they are trying to improve on it. Andrew was the one who brought those up, so I had to defend them, seeing as no one else would. Those were remarkable achievements, and did not deserve Andrew's slander. -
Originally posted by soul_rage:The refusal to implement a staggered GST (0% tax for necessities) due to the excuse of the system being too complex, is unacceptable to me. Try telling that to your boss next time when he asks you to complete a task. You probably will end up with a bad performance grading. You are PAID to come up with solutions, not coming up with excuse.Originally posted by CX:I am actually sympathetic to their explanation It is a potential chimera and it is really complicated because it will be almost impossible to properly categorize a "necessity".
There are also other implications: what about import GST? Are we going to allow 0% import GST for a "necessity" like say... rice flour?
And what about service GST on value add to "necessities" imported? Like, for example, if I import rice flour and make it into rice noodles and sell it to a supermarket? The "value-add" would have been taxable, even if the cost of the flour was not. Should it be waived?
And then, will the supermarket be allowed retail it for 0% GST?
The compliance costs for a company to track all these requirements will be onerous and they will quite simply pass on this cost to the consumers, GST or not.
Here's another crap example just for fun: what if i made the rice flour into udong, or ramen, or spaghetti? are they are same as rice noodle? should they be duty free too?
The list goes on... So really... the "its too complicated" rationale is not an "excuse"... its an oversimplification of a tragically complicated issue.
From IRAS's perspective, it will be impossible to regulate such a tax regime. They will probably have to hire more leeches... errm... sorry, "tax officers" to monitor the regime... that's gonna drive up costs even more.
Then, u'll find that the govt will need to spend more money to make sure that they collect less money and u don't have to pay more GST... its an impossible situation.
I quite agree that the GST is a regressive tax... But I don't find the exemption of so called "necessities" equitable as well.
It might be more equitable to waive GST for goods on importation, but to apply it fairly across the board for all other transactions and services performed in the economy, post-importation.
This may even stimulate foreign trade on top of slightly reducing the tax burden across the board.
I think in Taxation, both income tax has to work together with good and service tax to help the poor. Fix the good and service tax and adjust the income tax lower for the poor (variable)? Is that how it work on the poor?Originally posted by soul_rage:Either way, if there is a willingness to implement a staggered GST, there are ways to circumvent those excuses they came up with to convince us that staggered system is impossible. For eg, use the simplest solution by just categorizing all rice types to 0% GST, regardless. After all, you gain much more from other types of goods, so what's the problem about letting some types of rice that are more 'luxurious' get thru the loophole?
Anyway, the importation idea you have is worth considering.
However, Is Consumption tax for revenue as well as a tool for economic growth?
This one says GST encourages public saving and promotes economic growth
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/6/39495382.pdf
This one says GST will harm the economic?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg940.cfm
So which is which?
Andrew
bumz up for you -
Quick response back to youOriginally posted by deathbait:4 quick points
1) temasek is not required to be transparent. It is an investment house. I'm not sure who you've been talking to, but this is an industry shrouded with mystery.
2) Charities do not fall under the government. They are subsidised by it. There's a difference. In fact, as a donator, we had more responsibility to keep an eye on it.
3) change takes time. and the time taken is proportional to effort. as for the comparisons to private sector, that was just spin. It's a pay raise, pure and simple. But they predicted the citizens wouldn't understand this concept due to their idea of leaders equating to martyrs. What, ministers can't have pay raises? That's rubbish.
4) They aren't harping their past achievements. If you realise, they are trying to improve on it. Andrew was the one who brought those up, so I had to defend them, seeing as no one else would. Those were remarkable achievements, and did not deserve Andrew's slander.
1) Temasek is not required to be transparent, that's true. But Temasek does hold the public's money (its the govt's investment arm) and uses it for funding of their investments. How would you know proper checks and balances are in place if they are not transparent? Remember the GIC case where 3 executives were caught insider trading, and not much punishment was meted to them.
2) Yes. You are right. I am just using an example, that a so-called proper checks and balances charity sector has screwed up. What more to say about the less-than transparent 'trust-fund' of our govt?
3) I did not say they cannot have pay raises, but is the pay already overpayment? Name me one minister that can go out to the private sector and can earn more. Most of them are just holding onto their dear jobs for life because the benefits are far much better than in the private sector. Bear in mind that private sector's accountability is much higher (that explains the change of higher management frequently), as compared to our public sector, where the same person can be in the job for many many years (if that's not iron rice bowl, I don't know what is)
4) So what other achievements do they have? As I said, ERP, and COE are not achievements as far as citizens look at those. And as far as I can see, the global economy goes up, we go up, the global economy goes down, we go down.
So far, they take credit if singapore does well, but push the blame to the global economy when we do not do well. If that is not irresponsibility, I don't know what is *shrugs* -
This is not called "bumpz up" only those with no / stupid contents and with or without vulgarities (see what my coolies do and the troll do and you will have a good idea) is bumpz... sorry hor, you don't qualify to be my coolie... but I have no manger position open...Originally posted by Mitell:I think in Taxation, both income tax has to work together with good and service tax to help the poor. Fix the good and service tax and adjust the income tax lower for the poor (variable)? Is that how it work on the poor?
However, Is Consumption tax for revenue as well as a tool for economic growth?
This one says GST encourages public saving and promotes economic growth
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/6/39495382.pdf
This one says GST will harm the economic?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg940.cfm
So which is which?
Andrew
bumz up for you
... because you have brought up an important point... and that is, there will always be conflicting interests and like you asked, "So which is which? "
... that is why we must have an honorable people in power and not those that make decisions considering which family member to employ and which "property sector to push up and how to make as many Singaporeans indebted as possible..... and because there are conflicting interpretations ("So which is which? " ) they then use their propaganda press to sell their version and the typical Silliporean laps it up...
... more and more Silliporeans will see, that they only way out is to support Dr Chee Soon Juan because by the looks of it, there will be more cronyism, they will be become more despotic and less accountable and less transparent... because "absolute power corrupts... absolutely..." -
12)
Andrew there is no point telling us you are smart by reporting DowJones and yesterday news because my notebook and internet connection is already capable for feeding me more accurate and timely information.
If you want to show us how smart an investor you are, let me ask you.
a) Suppose if your running a investment company that manage $100m worth of fund. Am I right to say that since July 2007 (as you claim is the time have predicted the market will crash)you would have already exit the stock market?
b) Suppose if Yes. What will you be doing with the $100m worth of funds?
c) Suppose your answer is NO, will you be able to tell us which are the stock which you will continue to hold starting from today (reason I asking starting from today is because I know you will dig out the best performing stocks from the last 3 months and say thats your prediction)
Over to you Andrew!! -
it's so refreshing to find someone who can exchange arguments in a proper manner(looking at you Andrew)Originally posted by soul_rage:Quick response back to you
1) Temasek is not required to be transparent, that's true. But Temasek does hold the public's money (its the govt's investment arm) and uses it for funding of their investments. How would you know proper checks and balances are in place if they are not transparent? Remember the GIC case where 3 executives were caught insider trading, and not much punishment was meted to them.
2) Yes. You are right. I am just using an example, that a so-called proper checks and balances charity sector has screwed up. What more to say about the less-than transparent 'trust-fund' of our govt?
3) I did not say they cannot have pay raises, but is the pay already overpayment? Name me one minister that can go out to the private sector and can earn more. Most of them are just holding onto their dear jobs for life because the benefits are far much better than in the private sector. Bear in mind that private sector's accountability is much higher (that explains the change of higher management frequently), as compared to our public sector, where the same person can be in the job for many many years (if that's not iron rice bowl, I don't know what is)
4) So what other achievements do they have? As I said, ERP, and COE are not achievements as far as citizens look at those. And as far as I can see, the global economy goes up, we go up, the global economy goes down, we go down.
So far, they take credit if singapore does well, but push the blame to the global economy when we do not do well. If that is not irresponsibility, I don't know what is *shrugs*
1) Regarding checks and balances, we definately have no knowledge of them, that's true. But as I've said before, investment firms are notorious for being secretive. It comes with the territory. And it's not going to change anytime soon. This is how it works industry wide, not isolated to temasek holdings. You can't single it out just because it works on behalf of the government.
2) point one seems to merge these two topics.
3) There is no such thing as overpayment. When you go to work, with a salary above the industry standard, do you still expect pay raises in the future? Or are you content to wait till the industry pay standard catches up with you? Ministers are people too. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but they want more money too. And if they have indeed been doing well, I would say a pay raise is long deserved. When was the last time they had a decent raise? How long do you think you'll stay at your job without a raise and not grow resentful? Do you REALLY want resentful ministers? Not a good combination, trust me. End of the day, you have to realise they are people too, with normal expectations. And I don't really understand why people wanting to stay on at their jobs is seen as a bad thing, no matter the incentive. If I had a great job with great pay, i'm clinging on too. You're lying if you say you wouldn't.
4) We have above average infrastructure. We have above average education. We have above average housing. We're pretty much well taken care of. Be honest to yourself and ask if you want to bring up your kids anywhere else. There aren't many better places, are there? ERP and COE are taxes. Obviously no one looks as those as achievements, and i never said they were. Here, let's ask ourselves an honest question. What would you do that would make sg better if YOU were king of this pretty island? In these turbulant times, it's a pretty amazing accomplishment just to stay afloat during the bad times. And I don't see any problem claiming credit when the good times come.
I'm being honest here. I think our current gov structure is bad. It's a been described by other countries as both a dictatorship and a monarchy. We don't want that now, at least I don't. But even I have to admit with the accessment that it's run by a "kind dictator". LKY stepped up when we needed him. Now that we're enjoying the luxuries from his efforts, I think he deserves a little more respect from the rest of us who weren't even there at that time.
The reign won't last forever. Dynasties rise and dynasties fall all the time. His sons may not be as competent. But while he's still here, show a little respect. He gave his life so we may enjoy ours. Don't for one moment think you're better than he is. There's time enough to rebuild the government after he's gone. -
Dont bother speaking to Andrew. He always loops his "argument" just like eddy current.
A complete waste of time if u were to argue with him. -
...good I have another volunteer coolie that is so smart, he simply makes a nonsense remark as an excuse to bumpz up the thread......
-
There seems to be quite a few persons with Ah Q mentality here.....Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:...good I have another volunteer coolie that is so smart, he simply makes a nonsense remark as an excuse to bumpz up the thread...... -
Same for me. I prefer a more neutral discussion than one where both parties start calling each other names, though I have to admit sometimes I get pulled into one.Originally posted by deathbait:it's so refreshing to find someone who can exchange arguments in a proper manner(looking at you Andrew)
1) Regarding checks and balances, we definately have no knowledge of them, that's true. But as I've said before, investment firms are notorious for being secretive. It comes with the territory. And it's not going to change anytime soon. This is how it works industry wide, not isolated to temasek holdings. You can't single it out just because it works on behalf of the government.
2) point one seems to merge these two topics.
3) There is no such thing as overpayment. When you go to work, with a salary above the industry standard, do you still expect pay raises in the future? Or are you content to wait till the industry pay standard catches up with you? Ministers are people too. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but they want more money too. And if they have indeed been doing well, I would say a pay raise is long deserved. When was the last time they had a decent raise? How long do you think you'll stay at your job without a raise and not grow resentful? Do you REALLY want resentful ministers? Not a good combination, trust me. End of the day, you have to realise they are people too, with normal expectations. And I don't really understand why people wanting to stay on at their jobs is seen as a bad thing, no matter the incentive. If I had a great job with great pay, i'm clinging on too. You're lying if you say you wouldn't.
4) We have above average infrastructure. We have above average education. We have above average housing. We're pretty much well taken care of. Be honest to yourself and ask if you want to bring up your kids anywhere else. There aren't many better places, are there? ERP and COE are taxes. Obviously no one looks as those as achievements, and i never said they were. Here, let's ask ourselves an honest question. What would you do that would make sg better if YOU were king of this pretty island? In these turbulant times, it's a pretty amazing accomplishment just to stay afloat during the bad times. And I don't see any problem claiming credit when the good times come.
I'm being honest here. I think our current gov structure is bad. It's a been described by other countries as both a dictatorship and a monarchy. We don't want that now, at least I don't. But even I have to admit with the accessment that it's run by a "kind dictator". LKY stepped up when we needed him. Now that we're enjoying the luxuries from his efforts, I think he deserves a little more respect from the rest of us who weren't even there at that time.
The reign won't last forever. Dynasties rise and dynasties fall all the time. His sons may not be as competent. But while he's still here, show a little respect. He gave his life so we may enjoy ours. Don't for one moment think you're better than he is. There's time enough to rebuild the government after he's gone.
1) Well an investment firm still has to report its performance of funds back to the fund investors, don't they? Temasek so far is very elusive about its dealings and whether it truly is achieving the sort of ROI (>= 8% per year) that is required of it.
2) Yes yes. I am just giving an example. Let's kill point 2
3) If this is an open market (as with all people in the private sector), would you think they would have gotten such high salaries? For eg. if you were in the Engineering sector, there is always this thing about market rates. Only a monopoly (like our leaders) can set incomprehensible rates that they can't even justify properly.
If my argument to you is not reasonable, then why are so many people (Singaporeans and foreigners alike) so stunned and shocked with the ridiculous amounts they pay themselves? I am not the only one questioning this.
Even LHL discreetly acknowledged he cannot justify his pay by pledging donations of his salary increment to charity for 5 years (and it may well have gone to NKF)
Another question, a 30% payrise? Have you ever seen a 30% payrise in your working life? I bet most of us only get a single digit percentage payrise. What sort of leaders do we have that give themselves payrises that are incredible, and yet, the people continue to only get meagre rewards from a booming economy?
4) Education, Housing, Infrastructure. Most of it were the achievements of the past leaders, not this batch of leaders. If they are so elite as they claim themselves to be, why can't we remember ONE SINGLE outstanding achievement they should make as an elite?
Remember, an elite creates, not maintains.
LKY and his old guard WERE elites at that time, turning a young nation with no resources into what we have today.
Coming back to LKY, I don't get involved in discussions where the thread starts with ("Why don't you just die, LKY..." ) . I still give him the respect, though I think he has outlasted his welcome in the leadership.
All leaderships MUST change, otherwise, stagnation sets in, LIKE NOW.
Truly great leaders know when to take a step back and let the new blood take over. New blood can only truly perform when they are given the opportunity to make decisions, make mistakes, and learn from them. Right now, the leadership stagnates coz of LKY.
A good leader, but not a great one, sadly. -
Originally posted by deathbait:
Coming back to your opinions above, I am not afraid to share my opinions on how I think we can do things better, but since better is subjective, let's just say alternative solutions.
4) We have above average infrastructure. We have above average education. We have above average housing. We're pretty much well taken care of. Be honest to yourself and ask if you want to bring up your kids anywhere else. There aren't many better places, are there? ERP and COE are taxes. Obviously no one looks as those as achievements, and i never said they were. Here, let's ask ourselves an honest question. What would you do that would make sg better if YOU were king of this pretty island? In these turbulant times, it's a pretty amazing accomplishment just to stay afloat during the bad times. And I don't see any problem claiming credit when the good times come.
[/b]
Let's take an example which I have illustrated before.
We did well in education, but we aren't doing well in public transport by privatizing our public transport (a paradoxical situation actually), and with our private public transport companies running literally monopolistic routes, what's with the privatization?
Public Transport objective -> make transport affordable for the public
Private companies objective -> optimize profits
The two above runs afoul of each other. You know you are in a monopolistic situation when all the company thinks of is price increases year after year after year to meet its profit targets. In an actual competitive market, price is not the only factor to meet profit targets, and in fact, any increase in price will cause its demand to fall, if correspondence customer satisfaction did not increase accordingly.
I thought that we should dump all the private companies, and change our public transport to a cooperative. Run the transport on the objective of ensuring affordable transport for everyone, while at the same time ensuring that the costs are covered. At the end of the year, any excess cash is then returned to the public, preferably more to the lower income family, thus becoming an income gap-bridging tool.
Right now, all we get are monopolistic-like companies increasing prices every year, and returning our hard earned money back to Temasek. -
1)you misunderstand. You are not the investor in this case. The government is. And even then, no there is no complete transparency. Temasek has only obligation to tell you your current standing. ROI is published yes, but not everytime they make a trade. That's just silly.Originally posted by soul_rage:Same for me. I prefer a more neutral discussion than one where both parties start calling each other names, though I have to admit sometimes I get pulled into one.
1) Well an investment firm still has to report its performance of funds back to the fund investors, don't they? Temasek so far is very elusive about its dealings and whether it truly is achieving the sort of ROI (>= 8% per year) that is required of it.
2) Yes yes. I am just giving an example. Let's kill point 2
3) If this is an open market (as with all people in the private sector), would you think they would have gotten such high salaries? For eg. if you were in the Engineering sector, there is always this thing about market rates. Only a monopoly (like our leaders) can set incomprehensible rates that they can't even justify properly.
If my argument to you is not reasonable, then why are so many people (Singaporeans and foreigners alike) so stunned and shocked with the ridiculous amounts they pay themselves? I am not the only one questioning this.
Even LHL discreetly acknowledged he cannot justify his pay by pledging donations of his salary increment to charity for 5 years (and it may well have gone to NKF)
Another question, a 30% payrise? Have you ever seen a 30% payrise in your working life? I bet most of us only get a single digit percentage payrise. What sort of leaders do we have that give themselves payrises that are incredible, and yet, the people continue to only get meagre rewards from a booming economy?
4) Education, Housing, Infrastructure. Most of it were the achievements of the past leaders, not this batch of leaders. If they are so elite as they claim themselves to be, why can't we remember ONE SINGLE outstanding achievement they should make as an elite?
Remember, an elite creates, not maintains.
LKY and his old guard WERE elites at that time, turning a young nation with no resources into what we have today.
Coming back to LKY, I don't get involved in discussions where the thread starts with ("Why don't you just die, LKY..." ) . I still give him the respect, though I think he has outlasted his welcome in the leadership.
All leaderships MUST change, otherwise, stagnation sets in, LIKE NOW.
Truly great leaders know when to take a step back and let the new blood take over. New blood can only truly perform when they are given the opportunity to make decisions, make mistakes, and learn from them. Right now, the leadership stagnates coz of LKY.
A good leader, but not a great one, sadly.
2) NULL
3a) The point stands. Even if you pay is not justified, there is no value in staying if there is no potential for increase. Ministers are paid highly here. That's how it works. We do not express shock that american presidents hold more power than our own. That's how THEY work. And you do elect your own leaders. Our prime minister wouldn't stay the prime minister for long if he loses in his own constituency. But he won. We DID elect him. Deal with it. If you hate this, help out in the opposition campaign next election. Did you work against the PAP last election season? If not, why are you complaining?
3b) 30% payraise. mmm. When was the last time ministers had a payraise? It's all relative. And people can get higher payraises in the private sector all the time. I've seen it happen.
4a) I remember a chinese proverb that translates roughly to this : to build something is easy, to maintain it is hard. Which is pretty true in today's turbulent times. Take the recent bloomberg article on Chile for example. The government is hoarding money, refusing to distribute wealth from the recent boom in copper exports, in the expectation that the boom will not last. That makes it an extremely unpopular administration. Sometimes doing the right things may seem wrong, and unpopular. But someone has to do it. Just because you don't see anything new doesn't mean no one's working. Thermodynamics baby, it's all about attrition. Someone has to constantly upgrade to maintain the status quo. Who's doing that work? Certainly not me.
I give credit where credit's due. If they weren't doing anything, the country would already by falling apart.
4b) Furthermore, look back in the times when the early leaders were implementing their plans for the future. Do you think putting so much money into infrastructure was at that time applauded by our fathers? At that time, do you really think people had the foresight that this investment would pay off? Much like the recent "foreign talent" debate, there would have been people raising doubts. Doomsday predictions would have been pretty common in the early days of independence. There IS progress. But progress is change. And people hate change. Hate blinds us. We never see the progress. Take a look around you. Think back to the days when you were a child. Maybe a decade ago. Has singapore REALLY stagnated?
To all the people who wish LKY die, I can only hope i hear your cries of regret when he really does. Because it will be a time of turmoil in Singapore. His sons may not be as great as he is, but thus far, I've yet to see better candidates. -
I hate public transport. But come on, everyone does=)Originally posted by soul_rage:Coming back to your opinions above, I am not afraid to share my opinions on how I think we can do things better, but since better is subjective, let's just say alternative solutions.
Let's take an example which I have illustrated before.
We did well in education, but we aren't doing well in public transport by privatizing our public transport (a paradoxical situation actually), and with our private public transport companies running literally monopolistic routes, what's with the privatization?
Public Transport objective -> make transport affordable for the public
Private companies objective -> optimize profits
The two above runs afoul of each other. You know you are in a monopolistic situation when all the company thinks of is price increases year after year after year to meet its profit targets. In an actual competitive market, price is not the only factor to meet profit targets, and in fact, any increase in price will cause its demand to fall, if correspondence customer satisfaction did not increase accordingly.
I thought that we should dump all the private companies, and change our public transport to a cooperative. Run the transport on the objective of ensuring affordable transport for everyone, while at the same time ensuring that the costs are covered. At the end of the year, any excess cash is then returned to the public, preferably more to the lower income family, thus becoming an income gap-bridging tool.
Right now, all we get are monopolistic-like companies increasing prices every year, and returning our hard earned money back to Temasek.
Here's the kicker though. Go to any country and stay there for awhile. Then come back and tell me that you think singapore's public transport is subpar.
The reality is, despite the rising prices, or the heavier traffic, we have one of the best(i won't say best) transport systems around. And it's one of the cheapest to boot.
Seriously, try to get around in, say Melbourne. Cabs cost 3 times as much, buses and trams come infrequently and with less diverse routes. Oh and they cost alot more too. -
Public Transport objective -> make transport affordable for the publicOriginally posted by soul_rage:Coming back to your opinions above, I am not afraid to share my opinions on how I think we can do things better, but since better is subjective, let's just say alternative solutions.
Let's take an example which I have illustrated before.
We did well in education, but we aren't doing well in public transport by privatizing our public transport (a paradoxical situation actually), and with our private public transport companies running literally monopolistic routes, what's with the privatization?
Public Transport objective -> make transport affordable for the public
Private companies objective -> optimize profits
The two above runs afoul of each other. You know you are in a monopolistic situation when all the company thinks of is price increases year after year after year to meet its profit targets. In an actual competitive market, price is not the only factor to meet profit targets, and in fact, any increase in price will cause its demand to fall, if correspondence customer satisfaction did not increase accordingly.
I thought that we should dump all the private companies, and change our public transport to a cooperative. Run the transport on the objective of ensuring affordable transport for everyone, while at the same time ensuring that the costs are covered. At the end of the year, any excess cash is then returned to the public, preferably more to the lower income family, thus becoming an income gap-bridging tool.
Right now, all we get are monopolistic-like companies increasing prices every year, and returning our hard earned money back to Temasek.
Private companies objective -> optimize profits
I don't necessarily see them as contradictory goals.
Truth be told, I'll much rather have QUALITY public transport than outright CHEAP public transport... With regards to that, don't even get me started on the recent taxi fare debate!
I think that all public transport operations must, beyond accomplishing the simple task of getting pple from point A to point B, be financially viable, must be able to grow and change with the times and must be comfortable for commuters.
Financially viable: Lets take the extreme - Are we willing to contemplate a tax-payer's bailout of the local bus service if they do not make money? Taking into account opportunity costs, every dollar pumped there is less money for other things. Is that something tax-payers are willing to pay for?
Growth & change + Comfort: It brings to mind my ride on a jeepney in Manila earlier this year... Sure, it gets you places and its dirt cheap, but the experience was so unpleasant that I did not repeat it for the entire duration of my trip...
The streets are a mess with numerous smog belching jeepneys plying different routes.
A profitable public transport company will be able to invest in newer vehicles that offers more creature comforts (tv mobile anyone? ) and emits less noxious fumes. And we have seen Delgro do all of the above.
It will also be able to invest in new amenities that makes the overall public transport experience more enjoyable. (i.e. air con bus interchange, more comfortable bus stops, display panels that shows bus arrival timings, etc.
A co-op can potentially fulfill these roles, but I would be less confident about its willingness to return savings to the public it serves I don't remember getting any substantial discounts from NTUC from my years of support... (tough luck for me... not a union member).
In fact, Cold Storage seems more generous and more professional to me (Choice Card! Yeah! ) and I do find their pricings competitive as well.
I digress with that of course... But seriously: a public transport provider does not just provide public transport. It needs to be a serious stake-holder in a country's urban planning and to do this, it needs to be a robust, well run and profit oriented enterprise. -
Originally posted by wisefool83:There seems to be quite a few persons with Ah Q mentality here.....