What I hate about the current Singapore

[3Boys]

kiddo:

:hi5: :hi5: :celebrate: :snuggles: :hugs: :grphug: you mean like this
with just one or two like this still ok :stompfeet:
:evil:
I think i will learn to be Vegan but i think eat fish better ...not meat

:rotflmao:

I don't think Singaporeans taste very good, too much bitterness

[limlim]

3Boys:

limlim:

hmm let's look at what are some of the non-populist policies..

Ah.... privatized the profits, nationalize the cost..

Four letter word for you.....P I G S.

You know what they are.....

Social policy and high subsidies, anyone?

No I don't.

Nationalized public transport also charges fares. And it is funded by the govt for infrastructure. And you can be transparent too, and increase the fares as necessary. It is not necessary to be heavily subsided. When I say nationalize public transport, it is NOT the same as welfare state or the like. Just that profits are directed BACK to govt coffer instead of private pockets.

They say privatize increases performance. BullSh!t. The result is the companies are profit oriented and not mission oriented.

Look at Singpost.. venturing into loans,.. but can't even managed a reliable postal service which is their CORE biz. There's a thread on that. And now, they expect customer to collect their own parcels? what BS is that?

Look at SMRT, trains frequently breakdown, but they are are looking at rental biz..?

You look at NS line performance for the first decade of operation, and the circle line breakdown within ONE week of operation.. same company, different management.

Now, infrastructure funded by govt and taxpayer BUT profits are privatized. How can this be good? Please explain.

[BeContented]

tuition_czar:

3Boys:

And when might that be? If we love the place, then we have a responsibility to not eat each other.

Responsibility is overrated; just look at the way things are being managed by the government-the blame for hot potato issues being balled around around Tachi-style . Do not forget while you love this country, there is the likelihood that many others don't. And they won't feel the obligation to \"preserve\" anything.

:sad:

[3Boys]

ksi:

3Boys, firstly, I am not cheering at this at all and this is not what I want. Secondly, I don't quite get your point.

1. Are you saying that WP alone can have so much influence in the recent decisions made by the govt as a team by making such populist statement? :? (The above statement was made by Hougang MP)

or:

2. Do you mean PAP, the larger party in the government team should not fall into such popular vote tactics by putting in the 1.1B into the transportation for improvement to please the people? :?

Hi ksi,
apologies first off, although I included your quotes, it was not directed at you, just speaking in general.

Do I think the WP, despite its miniscule presence in parliament, can wield so much influence? Hell, yes! Its all about leverage. The take a leftist position, and the PAP need to react, to avoid losing even more votes. The scary thing is that the WP only seem interested in catering to their own constituency (as in supporters) and not assuaging the concerns of others who may feel that they are a little too far left. Anyhow, this is not the place for a prolonged political discourse.

I have no issue with the $1.1B spent. Having won their round with the government on pushing greater spending on transport, WP now proceeds to extract their pound of flesh \"Transport operators cannot profit from it, their shareholders should not be smiling, no cross subsidy please.\"

Really Mr Png?? Now you are starting to p*** me off. The g'ment should just give 50 shares of SMRT to every household in Singapore and just quash this nonsense once and for all.

LTA can do more obviously, the service standards bar can probably be set higher, but anti-corporate speak.......c'mon!

[3Boys]

limlim:

3Boys:

[quote=\"limlim\"]
hmm let's look at what are some of the non-populist policies..

Ah.... privatized the profits, nationalize the cost..

Four letter word for you.....P I G S.

You know what they are.....

Social policy and high subsidies, anyone?

No I don't.
[/quote]Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain

And no, I'm not talking about football.

[3Boys]

tuition_czar:

Responsibility is overrated; just look at the way things are being managed by the government-the blame for hot potato issues being balled around around Tachi-style . Do not forget while you love this country, there is the likelihood that many others don't. And they won't feel the obligation to \"preserve\" anything.

Of course, and its too bad. Its a free country, if they feel they can do better elsewhere, then certainly its their prerogative to leave.

Hot potato issues? I think we've had it good for too long, we've become a navel-gazing society. A little bit of adversity and we go yelling to mama. Try 50% youth unemployment in Spain.

[Way2GO]

3Boys:

3Boys:

Four letter word for you.....P I G S.

You know what they are.....

Social policy and high subsidies, anyone?

Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain

And no, I'm not talking about football.

There one more 'I' who joins d ranks - Ireland.
PIGSI
In SG, it stands for
Govt Invest in Infrastructure Promptly, Stupid!

ps Stupid is neither aimed at anyone nor use in an offensive manner in dis context.

[Way2GO]

3Boys:

but I call your attention to this;

8. We must send a message to these operators that it will not be business as usual after the gifting of the 550 additional buses that comes complete with drivers and full maintenance. Because at the end of the day, the commuters should be the one smiling and not their shareholders.

Populist statement, aimed at voters, hailed by many on TOC.

In other words, stick it to the PTOs and the shareholders.

If this is what we want, this is what we will get.

Maybe you are cheering, but I feel a cold chill down my spine.

I certainly fail to see para 8 as a populist statement pandering to win votes.
I read d whole speech as PEH asking for accountability n transparency.

D bus companies r public listed companies. Temasek Holdings is a major stakeholder in these GLCs?
Shd taxpayers money be used for capital investment n operating costs in public listed companies?
Why not float shares in open market to fund d purchases of new buses?

Then FM Tharman tabled a bill n it was passed in Parliament without much debate in Aug 2008 to abolish Estate Duty with IMMEDIATE effect.
Unbeknownst to d public at dat time, d late KGC had just suffered two strokes in May n June of dat year.
How I wish there were more MPs to inquire about d exquisite timing of d removal of Estate Duty with IMMEDIATE effect when d bill was tabled.
We need to hv d transparency n accountability to citizens for a better SG.
Not business as usual, which can only bode well for SG. :rahrah:

[3Boys]

limlim:

Look at SMRT, trains frequently breakdown, but they are are looking at rental biz..?

You look at NS line performance for the first decade of operation, and the circle line breakdown within ONE week of operation.. same company, different management.

Now, infrastructure funded by govt and taxpayer BUT profits are privatized. How can this be good? Please explain.

I'd like to know which benchmark you use in terms of service standards. If there is convincing data that public transport systems consistently outperform privatised ones worldwide, then ok, you win.

SMRT is a listed company, if you believe that they are making obscene amounts of money and distributing it to their shareholders, it'll only cost you a couple of thousand of S$ to partake in the gravy train.

The problem is that you are looking at things in isolation without reference points. SMRT has never had a fatal accident whilst the German ICE has had a few, does it mean SMRT is better than German ICE? You've got to do an apples to apples comparison. Who's to say a public system can outperform SMRT?

[Way2GO]

3Boys:

tuition_czar:

Perhaps when the chips are finally all down and everyone starts eating one another, you might change your mind Singapore is a fantastic place to be in.

And when might that be? If we love the place, then we have a responsibility to not eat each other.

It’s already happening if u look closely. Big fish eats small fishes, subtly.
To keep d peace, Big fish feeds small fishes scraps to keep them fr starving n keep them off d streets by putting them in small fish tanks.
Eyes r kept on d small fishes. Any outstanding small fish is co-opted to join d group of Big Fish.
If willing, d small fish becomes one of them, soon forgets he was once fr d multitude of small fishes feeding off algae to keep d tanks clean n pristine n plants flourishing for outside observers to exclaim, “wow! wat a nice environment to live in!”.
A small fish who joins d Big Fish is not going to speak out against itself. Smart move.