Looks like its getting really serious....
-
This recent financial market scare (not over yet) exposes the danger of the pXp policies of making ordinary Singaporeans indebted and taking as much of their money as possible.
They take as much of Singaporeans money through direct and indirect taxes, monopolies under the control of Temasek, the CPF system and worse of all, by pushing up property prices so they can channel Singaporeans CPF into their coffers.
Instead of Singaporeans having lots of savings, for themselves and their children and grand children, pXp is only interested first and foremost how much they can take from Singaporeans and how much public money they can put into their own pocket.
There is also the cronyism where they get their Ho Jinz daughter (some say son) in law into position where she can go shopping on foreign lands and lose the money to them.
The money that Temasek apparently profiteers from Singaporeans through its monopolies is lost to foreigners.
Imagine what happens if the financial scare plays out and property prices drop by 50%?
Singaporeans will be working for nothing for the next half of their lives paying for property that has lost half its value.
Do you think that pXp will give Singaporeans back the money they took in the form of exorbitant HDB prices?
They would sooner increase their own million dollars salaries.
Think, demand accountability, transparency and an end to nepotism and cronyism.
Target a minister or two to kick out (to teach them a lesson) or support Dr Chee in his effort to open up the system or if you prefer, support the quieter opposition parties... just don't be apathetic and let the despots destroy your lives and the lives of your children with their take as much of you money as possible and get you indebted policies. -
-
-
13)
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!! -
... thanks for bumping up the thread, coolie... please bumpz it up when it gets outside of the top 50 newest posts.... don't forget ah... I am going to sleep...
-
I know, you have to wake up early to report the news.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... thanks for bumping up the thread, coolie... please bumpz it up when it gets outside of the top 50 newest posts.... don't forget ah... I am going to sleep...
-
A few questions:Originally posted by CX:Public Transport objective -> make transport affordable for the public
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.
1) Does cheap = No quality?
2) Does SBS truly really accomplish its A to B effectively? I remember surveys saying that bus punctuality is still a huge problem
3) Is running it like a cooperative truly going to make it a loss-making machine?
4) Kindly do not compare with NTUC, its a useless cooperative that is doing EVERYTHING EXCEPT for what it was formed for.
Reask another question:
1) Does making public transport private necessarily make it better?
2) Why must it be a profit-oriented enterprise to help with urban planning?
And also kindly elaborate on what you mean by them not being contradictory. -
The same as you say about other countries' governments, you are committing the same thing that you yourself say we cannot do (compare govt to govt's pay).Originally posted by deathbait:I hate public transport. But come on, everyone does=)
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.
So why are you comparing another country's transport when there are other possible factors such as:
- cheaper private transport
- cheaper gasoline
- etc
? -
1) And in turn, the govt should report back to the people. That's my stand. You can say that we cannot question. My question is, why can't we question?Originally posted by deathbait: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.
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.
3) Again, you cannot disagree that their pay is so high that it has stunned so many people around the world. Therefore, whether they have frequent payrise is no longer an issue, since their pay is so high to begin with
4a) That is not exactly true. A well oiled system runs without any major problems. You can wipe up our entire cabinet, and our ministries can still function without the snakeheads.
I think the chinese saying you use might not be very applicable given today's emphasis on building operational processes to ensure a consistent method of handling tasks.
Take for instance an IT system. Its always the creation that is the main pain. After that, a well oiled system has less pain, less fire to fight, and less work to do to ensure it runs smoothly
Again, I say. The Elite will CREATE, so where is that super accomplishment that justifies their elite pay?
b) Again, you did not disagree with me. Great leaders must step down to allow new blood to work their ideas. This is something which we Asians fail miserably, but the westerners are really good at.
Coming back to the older generation.
HDB, CPF, these are policies that impact the people positively, though of course people at that time will have their concerns.
What can I remember about our current leadership?
- COE? ERP? Foreign Talent? Pay Increase? GST?
Do these benefit the people? NO. Does it benefit them? YES.
Look, I don't HATE them per se, but I do not like their elitist and high-handed approach in making changes beneficial to themselves. -
Originally posted by soul_rage:
For public transport, to me at least, quality suggests a certain degree of comfort, cleanliness, efficiency and generally all round high standards in terms of service, punctuality and performance.
A few questions:
1) Does cheap = No quality?
No. Cheap does not equal no quality. But cheap can almost certainly mean LOW quality.
Face it: quality costs something and someone always ends up paying in the end. the question as always, is who? It has to be the commuters.2) Does SBS truly really accomplish its A to B effectively? I remember surveys saying that bus punctuality is still a huge problem
There are comparative studies done that suggests that Delgro does quite well when compared with other regional competition.
I take a bus and a train to work every morning. Granted, my workplace is pretty central and my neighbourhood is relatively well connected, but I'm very seldom ridiculously late for work even if I press the snooze button a few more times then I should.
If our public transport system is sub-par, then I must say that I must be very lucky cos I haven't encountered that many unpleasant situations on the public transport systems in my many years of commuting.
Put into its proper perspective, its an above average system by most measures. I don't exactly spend a fortune on public transport every month either.3) Is running it like a cooperative truly going to make it a loss-making machine?
That was not my point but you've answered your own question. Like NTUC, Co-ops can be profitable. Like NTUC, Co-ops don't necessarily turn out to achieve its intended purpose and they certainly do not always pass on savings back to the consumers.
4) Kindly do not compare with NTUC, its a useless cooperative that is doing EVERYTHING EXCEPT for what it was formed for.Reask another question:
In my view, yes. Privatization isn't the miracle cure to all problems but it helps. Freeing up a transport operator from being run through a government bureaucracy definitely helps.
1) Does making public transport private necessarily make it better?
Money is more forthcoming from either institutional investors, shareholders or bank loans rather than from the annual government budget.
The link between paid service to the commuter and its own bottom line is also clearer. No confusion about who pays the salary. It can help foster a more "customer oriented" service culture in the company.
The company has more freedom to experiment with new concepts and technology in public transport and has to do so with its own money. Proof of concept has to come quickly because even if the commuters don't have a competing company to defect to, it remains to be seen if a board accountable to its shareholders is willing to reinforce a failed concept with more money that could be better spent elsewhere.2) Why must it be a profit-oriented enterprise to help with urban planning?
Because they will pick up part of the tab! It is in the interest of a city planner to ensure that buses that plies its streets are clean, modern buses so they do not become an eyesore or a source of air pollution. A pauper of a bus company will be in no position to do so.
Not to mention the construction of bus shelters? I'm honestly not very sure if its done by Delgro or LTA or if there's cost sharing but certainly, in a hypothetical situation, a stakeholder thats able to pay its own way is certainly better than one thats just waiting for a hand-out from the govt.
In fairness to your comment, urban planning is a multi-faceted affair with diverse stakeholders. Not all are "profit driven" or publicly listed, more than a few are government agencies and in this complex process, everyone comes to the table and tries to make the city better.
My view is that a privatized transport operator is probably in a better position to contribute and impose a degree of objectivity to those stakeholders who may be more driven by ideals than commercial viability.
The irony is, one might think that a profit oriented enterprise will attempt to squeeze every single bus for all that its worth and work it to death, but the truth is, its not in its interests to do so. Having a decrepit fleet is unsafe for commuters, damaging to public image and investor's confidence and chalks up excessive maintenance costs.
A government owned bus operator or a co-op won't have to worry about all of the above (except maybe public safety, if its mission is to merely provide cheap transport)
Will a govt owned or co-op bus operator be better run than a public listed, profit driven one? I think its debatable but I would place my bets on latter.And also kindly elaborate on what you mean by them not being contradictory.
I mean that they are not contradictory goals because in the case of a privatized public transport operator, it is possible to make good money while providing quality and affordable transport for commuters.
The profit motive does not work against affordable transportation for the masses because there are many reasons for a privatized operator to keep the bus fleet safe, efficient and comfortable while at the same time charging a meaningful fare that almost everyone can afford. -
good coolie... remember to always make short sweet statements like this to bumpz up my thread.... the US stocks are up strongly at the moment (while I am writing this) ... please don't make a fool of yourself (like the last time when you were PWNED so badly) ... trying to commenting on it so as to criticize me...Originally posted by Gazelle:I know, you have to wake up early to report the news.
... .. remember to always make short sweet statements like this to bumpz up my thread.... without making a fool of yourself... -
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! -
So when DJ move up there will be no chart huh?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:good coolie... remember to always make short sweet statements like this to bumpz up my thread.... the US stocks are up strongly at the moment (while I am writing this) ... please don't make a fool of yourself (like the last time when you were PWNED so badly) ... trying to commenting on it so as to criticize me...
... .. remember to always make short sweet statements like this to bumpz up my thread.... without making a fool of yourself...
bloody wanker!! -
I thot you said you have laptop, desktop, newspapers, magazines etc ect... and now I must provide you the chart? hmmmmmm PWNEDZ again...Originally posted by Gazelle:So when DJ move up there will be no chart huh?
bloody wanker!!
Told you not to try to be smart and just be my good coolie and bumpz up my threads? You never listen and make a fool of yourself again.... -
14)
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!! -
This are yesterday's charts... as you can see there is a possibility that the US CENTRAL bank is trying to save the US Stock markets at the expense of currency stability...
As I have said earlier, this problem has many dangers and that is why Looks like its getting really serious....
US Stock market stability will help the USA but currency instability (not so damaging to the US since the pseudo democracies and dictatorships lend the US money in US Dollars) might cause chaos and possibly regime change in China...
Watch this space.... -
Remember that the 1997 crisis was the result of Currencies instability.
Did the Singapore despotic dictators learned from that?
Ask yourself...
1 are they still trying their best to take as much money from Singaporeans as possible?
2. are the still pushing up property prices?
3. are they still trying their best to get Singaporeans to become indebted as much as possible or have as little savings as possible?
They might have learned the lesson, but because they can take so much public money to pay themselves, they don't care if Singaporeans suffer from a meltdown.,.. because they can always take more public money...
Stop being Silliporeans and support Dr Chee Soon Juan or anyone of the opposition parties... actively... -
... or send them some money to show your support...
So please join us and contribute to the cause. You can make your contributions either by:
Directly depositing your donation into our account:
Account No: 025-006978-1
Bank Name: DBS
Address: 6 Shenton Way, Tower 2, DBS Building, Singapore 068809
Swift Code: DBSSSGSG
(You can make an anonymous contribution by going to the bank in person and depositing cash into the above account via a deposit slip.)
or
Sending your cheque (payable to Singapore Democratic Party) to:
Singapore Democratic Party
Yishun Central P.O. Box 0025
Singapore 917601
If you have any questions, please feel free to write to us at:
[email protected]
Support the party that stands up and speaks out for you. -
... you people want to listen to my coolie... let me warn you that he is only authorized to bumpz up my threads...
-
Then perhaps you might want to change the word cheap to very affordable. Its all subjective. In your opinion, any cheap almost certainly means low quality, but that is not necessarily so. Even Japan has a 100 Yen shop, where all its products are of pretty good quality.Originally posted by CX:For public transport, to me at least, quality suggests a certain degree of comfort, cleanliness, efficiency and generally all round high standards in terms of service, punctuality and performance.
No. Cheap does not equal no quality. But cheap can almost certainly mean LOW quality.
Face it: quality costs something and someone always ends up paying in the end. the question as always, is who? It has to be the commuters.
There are comparative studies done that suggests that Delgro does quite well when compared with other regional competition.
I take a bus and a train to work every morning. Granted, my workplace is pretty central and my neighbourhood is relatively well connected, but I'm very seldom ridiculously late for work even if I press the snooze button a few more times then I should.
If our public transport system is sub-par, then I must say that I must be very lucky cos I haven't encountered that many unpleasant situations on the public transport systems in my many years of commuting.
Put into its proper perspective, its an above average system by most measures. I don't exactly spend a fortune on public transport every month either.
That was not my point but you've answered your own question. Like NTUC, Co-ops can be profitable. Like NTUC, Co-ops don't necessarily turn out to achieve its intended purpose and they certainly do not always pass on savings back to the consumers.
In my view, yes. Privatization isn't the miracle cure to all problems but it helps. Freeing up a transport operator from being run through a government bureaucracy definitely helps.
Money is more forthcoming from either institutional investors, shareholders or bank loans rather than from the annual government budget.
The link between paid service to the commuter and its own bottom line is also clearer. No confusion about who pays the salary. It can help foster a more "customer oriented" service culture in the company.
The company has more freedom to experiment with new concepts and technology in public transport and has to do so with its own money. Proof of concept has to come quickly because even if the commuters don't have a competing company to defect to, it remains to be seen if a board accountable to its shareholders is willing to reinforce a failed concept with more money that could be better spent elsewhere.
Because they will pick up part of the tab! It is in the interest of a city planner to ensure that buses that plies its streets are clean, modern buses so they do not become an eyesore or a source of air pollution. A pauper of a bus company will be in no position to do so.
Not to mention the construction of bus shelters? I'm honestly not very sure if its done by Delgro or LTA or if there's cost sharing but certainly, in a hypothetical situation, a stakeholder thats able to pay its own way is certainly better than one thats just waiting for a hand-out from the govt.
In fairness to your comment, urban planning is a multi-faceted affair with diverse stakeholders. Not all are "profit driven" or publicly listed, more than a few are government agencies and in this complex process, everyone comes to the table and tries to make the city better.
My view is that a privatized transport operator is probably in a better position to contribute and impose a degree of objectivity to those stakeholders who may be more driven by ideals than commercial viability.
The irony is, one might think that a profit oriented enterprise will attempt to squeeze every single bus for all that its worth and work it to death, but the truth is, its not in its interests to do so. Having a decrepit fleet is unsafe for commuters, damaging to public image and investor's confidence and chalks up excessive maintenance costs.
A government owned bus operator or a co-op won't have to worry about all of the above (except maybe public safety, if its mission is to merely provide cheap transport)
Will a govt owned or co-op bus operator be better run than a public listed, profit driven one? I think its debatable but I would place my bets on latter.
quote:And also kindly elaborate on what you mean by them not being contradictory.
I mean that they are not contradictory goals because in the case of a privatized public transport operator, it is possible to make good money while providing quality and affordable transport for commuters.
The profit motive does not work against affordable transportation for the masses because there are many reasons for a privatized operator to keep the bus fleet safe, efficient and comfortable while at the same time charging a meaningful fare that almost everyone can afford.
The word "Quality" is also subjective. To me, a bus service with air con is sufficient. To you, you might prefer better seats, Mobile TV etc. Remember the main purpose of public transport, is to ensure that it is affordable even to the poor
As for your personal case on how you travel to work, its again subjective. You have a convenient location. Others don't. Certain bus services are better than others, certain are not. The point is, a survey on Singaporeans island-wide gave a general view that bus punctuality is still not acceptable, and that is a fact.
By the way, in no way did I say our transport is sub-par. But its definitely still not up to the 'world-class' standards that we claim we are, because even the basic bus punctuality is not met.
By using an example of NTUC, you seek to stereotype cooperatives. If a cooperative is setup with the correct fundamentals, in which it ensures that it covers its cost adequately (without govt funding), and be used as a form of distribution of wealth, I am sure it will benefit many Singaporeans than the current monopolistic system we have.
And your idea that a private company will participate in urban planning and contributing to costs, is again not a guarantee. Its up to each private company to decide whether they want to participate.
And kindly note that privatising a public transport (which itself is already a contradictory statement) is contradictory, because a private company first and foremost cares about its shareholders and its profits. Its not 'public-oriented', but is 'profit-oriented'. Given a monopolistic market, where they can easily apply for fare increase, its already running against the public objective of making transport affordable.
You can say that in a cooperative, its unclear who pays the wages. I can say that in a cooperative, we can ask it to steer clear of additional costs (such as mobile TV, better seats, etc), and focus instead on its core, that is, affordable and punctual transport.
That being said, I agree that each model has its own merits, but currently, I am against privatization of public transport company because its, simply put, a monopoly. And all monopolies are bad for the end user (simple as that)
In a monopoly, increasing prices is the direct approach they use to increasing their bottom line. If we really should continue on the privatization approach, then we should have true competitors to ensure that fare increases are controlled by the market, and not some PWC council whose formulas are also questionable. -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
1) Lowing interest rate is not about saving the stock market, it is about easing credit crunch and encourage more spending from home owners, especially those who are caught with ARM.
This are yesterday's charts... as you can see there is a possibility that the US CENTRAL bank is trying to save the US Stock markets at the expense of currency stability...
As I have said earlier, this problem has many dangers and that is why [b]Looks like its getting really serious....
US Stock market stability will help the USA but currency instability (not so damaging to the US since the pseudo democracies and dictatorships lend the US money in US Dollars) might cause chaos and possibly regime change in China...
Watch this space.... [/b]
2) Lowing of US$ will have big impact on US consumers as oil price will rise as US$ slide, and all imported goods will be most costly for consumers. -
They are selling rejected and firesale goods.Originally posted by soul_rage:Even Japan has a 100 Yen shop, where all its products are of pretty good quality. -
Your claim vs my japanese friends.Originally posted by Gazelle:They are selling rejected and firesale goods. -
There is dont need to use japanese friends to win an arguement because it doesnt carry any weight.Originally posted by soul_rage:Your claim vs my japanese friends.
companies like one.99, 200yen Factory Outlet are not new, they are everywhere in the world. Even Singapore mustafa is using similar business model to compliment their other businesses.
All these company, they make money from selling firesale goods, dead stocks and rejected items direct from factories and traders -
Don't need to listen to you then since you also don't carry any weightOriginally posted by Gazelle:There is dont need to use japanese friends to win an arguement because it doesnt carry any weight.
companies like one.99, 200yen Factory Outlet are not new, they are everywhere in the world. Even Singapore mustafa is using similar business model to compliment their other businesses.
All these company, they make money from selling firesale goods, dead stocks and rejected items direct from factories and traders
Its just your word.