Will u Vote for PAP or Opp?
-
Originally posted by MSPElite:
Just look at our neighbours...who minister maybe only 30% of ours minister. BUT thier wealth is definitelly >300% > then our ministers. And , they never perform even 10% of our minister performance.
So we rather have a high pay ministers that delivered then a low pay ministers who perform little BUT yet njoy greater wealth (somehow)...
Important , Spore is a safe and great place to stay compare to all our neighbours....so why compare our neighours pay then?Spore dun have water....yet we manage to find a solution. Msia supply us water , yet they need us to add value to raw water to sell back to them as drinakble at subsidised price....Johorian owe Sporean for thier water. Remind Msian not to forget our kindness......
Yes. I am sure if you are an old person who is sick and poor, you can just travel to Johor Bahru for treatment.
Malaysia and Singapore are symbiotic, one big brother , the other little brother. Like it or not, they will use Singapore like how Singapore will use them. At the end , both benefits. Both owe each other nothing.
-
Singapore Pte Ltd – a letter
Dearest PAP,You have been running Singapore like a business, like a corporation, where you are the top management, where the people of Singapore are your employees and where all other institutions like education, health and transport, are your subsidiaries. No sir, this is not Singapore Pte Ltd, and we are not working for you.
Every policy that you have come up with has been made with economic growth in mind, i.e., to increase profitability for Singapore Pte Ltd, with retained earnings going into the national reserves.
Our education model has been structured to produce a quality workforce so that we can contribute efficiently and effectively to the nation’s economic growth. You dispense with the arts and concentrate on the commerce and sciences. You bring in plenty of foreigners into our schools so that we have to learn to work and study harder in the face of more competition. And you have succeeded. We now work one of the longest hours in the world with low wages.
This has been done at the expense of social costs. As human beings, we have needs to get married, to start a family, to have kids. As human beings, we have needs for work-life balance, needs for social activities, and needs for communal living. The culture and environment you have so delicately created have come at the expense of those needs. We don’t have time to play football and therefore we suck at it. Ok, in fact we suck at everything that does not make money. And we definitely suck at making children.
When you look at our low fertility rate, which you have so created because of the environment you have made, you try to improve it by offering stop-gap solutions in baby bonuses and tax reliefs. And in fact, the reasons you want the fertility rate to rise is to continue providing quality workers to work for Singapore Pte Ltd, put more money into the reserves through taxes, HDB profits, consumption, investment, i.e. increase Singapore’s GDP.
And of course, the other viable solution is to attract talented foreigners to fill up this institutional void. This causes another set of problems, like whether locals find it harder to get jobs, and whether these diasporic communities will take up citizenship, or leave without further contributing to birth rates. Well, what the hell, talented foreigners are always good for Singapore Pte Ltd.
You privatize our transportation system. You couldn’t run such a basic necessity of a first-world country with the same efficient and effective fervor. So, running it as a private entity was the only viable way? You talk about health tourism. Is that what the health sector is about, making money from foreigners?
Once in a while you declare dividends (grow and share) to appease us, so that we don’t remove you from your managerial posts.
Perhaps the most telling of Singapore Pte Ltd are the KPIs of top management. Our CEO, earning $3 million per annum, has his wages pegged to GDP growth, and so are the wages of the COOs, the CFOs, and the various department heads. Your main motivation is Singapore Pte Ltd’s profitability. And given that at least 60% of Singapore’s GDP is contributed by Temasek Holdings and GIC, it certainly makes sense to increase the coffers of the national reserves.
It’s all about economic growth, economic growth, and economic growth.
However, countries are not just rated by economic growth. There are many other indicators that one may use to determine a country’s standing in the world, such as the purchasing power of the average citizen, the culture and ease of living, the efficiency of transportation, the range of quality education, the cleanliness of the streets, personal safety risks, and so on and so forth.You have undoubtedly excelled in some areas, but certainly not in others.
You forget that Singapore is not a corporation, but a community of individual human beings who have feelings, who can discern between what is good for us and what is not, what is fair and unfair. We, who have basic needs to have a roof put over our heads, and food to eat, have willingly contributed to your goal of building up the nation’s economy not because we are your employees but because we want Singapore to prosper, to achieve the vision of a first-world nation in which its citizens do not have negative emotions of fear, fear to vote, fear to speak freely, fear of the struggles of putting food on our table.So, let me remind you, dearest PAP, that we have voted to put you where you are today. This makes us the shareholders. We are social beings, not economic assets. Together, we the citizens of Singapore own Singapore. It is us, the citizens, with our problems of rising costs of living, and not the profitability of the country that you have to care more about. And if you, dearest PAP, continue to run Singapore not as a nation of citizens but as a business, there will come a time when us, the shareholders, the real board of directors, vote you out and replace you with another management team.
Yours sincerely,
A shareholder of Singapore Pte Ltd -
fymk and 4SG,
It really makes me very troubled to hear that a mediocre white ang mo man can stroll into S'pore by getting a simple admin job which eventually leads to him gaining a S'pore citizenship in just a few months.
It is just so unfair to locals who had to struggle under the stringest education system and the local men who had to perform NS.
Does it mean that utterly educated locals who scored fulls As in 'O' and 'A' levels and go thru the extreme pressure cooker of NUS cannot even fill simple executive posts?
Of course local talent can fill these easy posts.
Relying on angmo foreign talent makes no logic.
That is why I always say that we are 2nd class citizens in our country and it is better we give up S'pore citizensip and then come back to S'pore as foreign talent.
-
Singaporeans, you need to realise you ultimately decide how you get treated by Singaporeans and by foreigners.
If you act like weak and fearful sheep who gets told by the wolves that without the wolves all the sheep will be dead, you will get treated like sheep the rest of your life.
If you continue to let people get away with lousy results without holding them to task, you will get treated like no one owes you any accountability.
If you let a group keep harping on the good work they have done 40 years ago and ignore their poor job the past 5 years, they will know they can get away with doing a poor job the next 40 years. By the time you finally get the guts to change or decide enough is enough it would be too late.
-
Originally posted by Bhw33:
fymk and 4SG,
It really makes me very troubled to hear that a mediocre white ang mo man can stroll into S'pore by getting a simple admin job which eventually leads to him gaining a S'pore citizenship in just a few months.
It is just so unfair to locals who had to struggle under the stringest education system and the local men who had to perform NS.
Does it mean that utterly educated locals who scored fulls As in 'O' and 'A' levels and go thru the extreme pressure cooker of NUS cannot even fill simple executive posts?
Of course local talent can fill these easy posts.
Relying on angmo foreign talent makes no logic.
That is why I always say that we are 2nd class citizens in our country and it is better we give up S'pore citizensip and then come back to S'pore as foreign talent.
This is very much a regime on its last legs - in many ways, it does draw so many parallels with the final days of the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc.Is it very much rocket science that the half-baked policies enacted in recent years serves as nothing more than a desperate attempt at reviving failed policies?
As you may very well know, in simple economic terms, your output is derived from the fundamentals of costs of capital and labour. While the costs of capital is very much beyond the control of these "extraordinary talents", they're enhancing your economic output by decreasing the cost of labour through the vast influx of cheap labour.
Is this really sustainable? 20 years ago, the bulk of these foreigners were Malaysians who lived across the border. Right now, this lot have been displaced by even cheaper labour from China, Myanmmar, India, Vietnam and other parts of the emerging economies. Would this lot someday be displaced by Kenyans, Ethiopians and Eritreans? That seems the only solution the incompetent lot of fascists have got - as a matter of fact, even by fascist standards, they're an abject failure compared to what Hitler achieved in slightly over 6 years on a far grander scale.
Obviously, in light of these circumstances, how then can the fascists then advocate minimum wage when the very principle of it is to weed out and stem out the enhanced economic output achieved through such artificially-induced means?
It is truly amazing that, therefore, millions are paid to a bunch of spineless clowns who believe productivity could be enhanced when the very policies put in place are intended to undermine productivity and prostituting the workforce through artificially-induced wage suppression from the outset.
Draw your own conclusions as to how such a flawed economic principle could flourish...
-
I want to add in something to the pap.
"Without sporean, without us, without our dearest and precious vote, you will not be in govt for so long. Remember this, treat sporean as your national treasure. For they are the one who make you stay in the govt."
Be kind to the people, help the people, reduce the ns to 1 yr so the boys can come out and work and compete with the foreigners. Be kind to our roof, be humble with our pub bills, be gracious with our transportation cost. I dont ask much, only this.
-
I see no future with this PAP.
Voting for PAP is like entering a black hole, everything is dark, hopeless.
-
Originally posted by walesa:
Are you having a laugh? You're trying to make a case for "two separate factors" which are not mutually exclusive, but necessarily contradictory in what is a moot point at best? Your points are nothing short of hilarious at best.
Contradictory for someone who doesn't understand.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
Contradictory for someone who doesn't understand.
I see the delusional is indeed learning very well from his masters. -
Originally posted by Vote PAP OUT to Save SG:
I see no future with this PAP.
Voting for PAP is like entering a black hole, everything is dark, hopeless.
They have touch light, they will shine the way for us to move in one direction.We need another bigger torch light to make sure the fist touch light will not show the pple the wrong path.
-
To 4SG, you bring out a great point, which is people ultimately behave according to what their incentives are.
If you tie my KPIs and bonuses to increasing GDP, I will do everything to increase GDP. Never mind if it doesn't make sense. If importing a corpse in a coffin plus enough cash in the coffin to Singapore allows me to increase GDP via provision of funeral services, I will do it, get a promotion plus a bonus.
If my KPI is to increase reserves, I will think of ways to extract money from the people to increase reserves. I will get promoted and a bonus.
If my KPI is to increase the prices of flats, I will do my best to reduce supply and increase demand. I will then get promoted and collect a nice cheque.
Which leaves us to the next point - conflict of interest. Conflict of interest is when what is good for the owners / people, isn't necesarily good for the managers / government.
For example, causing housing prices to increase quickly may be good for somebody's KPI and personal financial well being, but not so good for the people.
What is the best way to prevent conflict of interest? A good set of governance and robust checks and balances.
-
Originally posted by walesa:
You're quite deluded, aren't you? The characteristic of the person? Are you looking for a best friend or a soul mate?
Right, so I guess it's perfectly reasonable for you to vote for someone who doesn't represent your interest better at the socio-economic level in the legislature, but connects better with you in an affable manner socially. Are you therefore nothing more than a brainwashed drone espousing seemingly irreconcilable, yet contradicting schools of thought?
If you know the person on a personal level, you will understand that you cannot entrust this person the rights despite the person giving a fantastic speech on what he intends to perform for the country.
Like I said previously, it is contradicting for someone who had only one focus, instead of looking at different key factors before making a decision.
You are like someone who buys a printer, who only cares about printer's ability to print in colour. On my end, I tend to understand how many prints the ink can also last, whether the ink splurges occur frequently.
If you don't know someone personally, you can give a benefit of doubt. Refer to the first person's post, he can trust a loanshark runner even as opposition. I believe the loanshark runner will pass a bill to make it legal.
-
Originally posted by walesa:
I see the delusional is indeed learning very well from his masters. I see someone is drawing conclusions from his own warped understandings.
-
Originally posted by walesa:
It beats being the muddle-headed, confused soul you irrefutably are. You're confused enough as you stand trying to reconcile seemingly contradictory logic, nevermind your political stand.
If "high-handedness of the PAP/opposition" was what concerned you, you'd be better off voting in a popularity contest where the prize in question would be some blossom friendship with confused souls like yourself, rather than someone whose sole function is to represent your interests in parliament.
Well if you say so, I garner that you probably don't feel the necessity to discuss politics but rather try to trample the entire forum nitpicking like it was some wrestling arena to you? Well, you do have the makings of a keyboard warrior.
-
pap must see level with the people so that they know what the people wants and needs.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
If you know the person on a personal level, you will understand that you cannot entrust this person the rights despite the person giving a fantastic speech on what he intends to perform for the country.
Like I said previously, it is contradicting for someone who had only one focus, instead of looking at different key factors before making a decision.
You are like someone who buys a printer, who only cares about printer's ability to print in colour. On my end, I tend to understand how many prints the ink can also last, whether the ink splurges occur frequently.
If you don't know someone personally, you can give a benefit of doubt. Refer to the first person's post, he can trust a loanshark runner even as opposition. I believe the loanshark runner will pass a bill to make it legal.
As mentioned previously, what are you electing - a MP or a playmate?So kindly fill me in on the favourite food of the 163 candidates contesting the polls then since you claim to know them personally (or at least endeavour to).
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
I see someone is drawing conclusions from his own warped understandings.
I see sowing confusion is the best form of defending the indefensible and inadmissible ramblings.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
Well if you say so, I garner that you probably don't feel the necessity to discuss politics but rather try to trample the entire forum nitpicking like it was some wrestling arena to you? Well, you do have the makings of a keyboard warrior.
By your senseless logic, you aren't discussing politics, are you? On second thoughts, can you even spell politics (nevermind understand it)?Since you'd rather vote against the person who pissed on you, despite being in a better position to represent your socio-economic interests, what vendetta are you harbouring, really?
Once again, what is it you're really voting for - a playmate?
-
Originally posted by walesa:
As mentioned previously, what are you electing - a MP or a playmate?So kindly fill me in on the favourite food of all 164 candidates contesting the polls then since you claim to know them personally (or at least endeavour to).
Well, what you propose is just give the job to any Tom, Dick or Harry opposition just because MIW did bad?
Then what different are we from the ones who keep voting these MIW in without even bothering to read the manifesto of the MIW?
The question is "IF" you know them personally. Not everyone has the chance and if you don't have the chance to know them, then the factor has no value. Then we look at other factors such as manifestos etc. You tend to limit yourself to your own little corner because you think everyone didn't have the chance to work with some of these people.
Similarly, those who didn't had the chance should try to engage them, read the manifestos and engage them to understand how they are trying to help Singapore. We help them help us. Whether your choice is the MIW or the Opposition.
Anyway, you seemed so happy to be happy to defend a forum troll who just runs around changing from pro-Christian to anti-Christian overnight and then back again and then act as if you are a smart alec.
-
Originally posted by walesa:
By your senseless logic, you aren't discussing politics, are you? On second thoughts, can you even spell politics (nevermind understand it)?Since you'd rather vote against the person who pissed on you, despite being in a better position to represent your socio-economic interests, what vendetta are you harbouring, really?
Once again, what is it you're really voting for - a playmate?
I feel sad for your pitiful existence.
-
Originally posted by likeyou:
pap must see level with the people so that they know what the people wants and needs.
I doubt MIW are empowered to see half.
Even if they see, there is "no debate" and "increase your pay".
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
Well, what you propose is just give the job to any Tom, Dick or Harry opposition just because MIW did bad?
Then what different are we from the ones who keep voting these MIW in without even bothering to read the manifesto of the MIW?
The question is "IF" you know them personally. Not everyone has the chance and if you don't have the chance to know them, then the factor has no value. Then we look at other factors such as manifestos etc. You tend to limit yourself to your own little corner because you think everyone didn't have the chance to work with some of these people.
Similarly, those who didn't had the chance should try to engage them, read the manifestos and engage them to understand how they are trying to help Singapore. We help them help us. Whether your choice is the MIW or the Opposition.
Anyway, you seemed so happy to be happy to defend a forum troll who just runs around changing from pro-Christian to anti-Christian overnight and then back again and then act as if you are a smart alec.
When did I suggest giving the job to anyone in particular? I was merely addressing your simplistic fallacy of questioning if you'd actually vote for someone who "pissed on you" even though he may be in a better position to address your socio-economic concerns?So, are you therefore daft enough to suggest you're actually advocating throwing your support behind someone who actually doesn't better represent you, but has actually been less evil? So much for objectivity indeed!
As mentioned previously, do you know any candidate "personally"? What do you think you're voting for? A playmate who shares your hobbies, interests?
So how would you define knowing them personally? Travelling to the Carribean together, playing a game of monopoly or colluding to loot the treasury?You're indeed quite pathetic at making a reasonable case of an objective issue. So, really, besides realizing your utopian fantasy of getting cosy with your dream playmate, what's the primary criterion in your decision?
I am pretty sure you don't mean engaging in the opposition's manifesto isn't a viable option for you for it is simply far-fetched for your simple mind to absorb these are nothing more than skullduggery utopian ideals that can never be realized.
After all, aren't you gonna come back with more hogwash that the opposition hasn't done anything for you besides further rubber-stamping the fascists' policies (conveniently ignoring the fact that they've been powerless to do anything on virtue of them commanding 2.3% of seats in the Legislature)?
Oh, and I certainly take heart from the fact a "smart alec" like me is still lightyears more intelligent than naive idiots like you who advocate evaluating the merits of each candidate/party in its entirety, yet contradicting yourself by suggesting this rule wouldn't then apply to someone who "pissed on you" even if he ultimately better represents your political interests. So much for objectivity...
-
whatever you guys say, the bottom line at my constituency is that both sides are douchebags...
i'm still trying to figure out which side i hate less
-
Originally posted by walesa:
When did I suggest giving the job to anyone in particular? I was merely addressing your simplistic fallacy of questioning if you'd actually vote for someone who "pissed on you" even though he may be in a better position to address your socio-economic concerns?So, are you therefore daft enough to suggest you're actually advocating throwing your support behind someone who actually doesn't better represent you, but has actually been less evil? So much for objectivity indeed!
As mentioned previously, do you know any candidate "personally"? What do you think you're voting for? A playmate who shares your hobbies, interests?
So how would you define knowing them
personally? Travelling to the Carribean together, playing a game of
monopoly or colluding to loot the treasury?You're indeed quite pathetic at making a reasonable case of an objective issue. So, really, besides realizing your utopian fantasy of getting cosy with your dream playmate, what's the primary criterion in your decision?
I am pretty sure you don't mean engaging in the opposition's manifesto isn't a viable option for you for it is simply far-fetched for your simple mind to absorb these are nothing more than skullduggery utopian ideals that can never be realized.
After all, aren't you gonna come back with more hogwash that the opposition hasn't done anything for you besides further rubber-stamping the fascists' policies (conveniently ignoring the fact that they've been powerless to do anything on virtue of them commanding 2.3% of seats in the Legislature)?
Ok, keyboard warrior.
You seemed to know me so well. What a fantastic understanding you have.
Yes, you are the best, drawing the conclusions from just simple apolitical statements. Fantastic. Wonderful. You jumped the gun. You the best keyboard warrior.
Just because people have different views, they must be MIW supporter. It reflects how intelligent our keyboard warrior here is.
Fantastic.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
I feel sad for your pitiful existence.
You should feel sorry for your naivety and feeble attempt at derailing your valiant efforts to defend your brand of objectivity. Perhaps, you just about epitomise the perfect poster child of what propaganda is intended for.