What I hate about the current Singapore

[3Boys]

winchester:

3Boys:

[quote=\"Funz\"]I think I am very easily contented. I do not see how Singapore is so unbearable even with all it's bad points. And I also do not see how any other country can offer me a life that have all the pluses and no minuses. Must be really blind. But a happy blind.

I guess we must have popped the blue pill instead of the red pill

lol that show so long time ago, i forgot which is red and blue pill liao![/quote]Blue is peaceful oblivion, Red is ugly reality......

Sometimes I feel like I am living on a different planet from some other Singaporeans, so divergent are our expectations.

[Lilac66]

Even though I have my grouses on tuition (not that it affects me too much)on the other thread, I still love Singapore. My hubby when away on business trips, always tells me how envious others are of our Sg ,with our capable, though not perfect (but who is?) and efficient governing leaders.

Feel a great sense of pride when I hear this.

[kiddo]

3Boys:

verykiasu2010:

Mao Tse Dong said : \"Everyone must eat some bitterness\"

True true, but I still wouldn't eat a fellow Singaporean.....

You hear of bitter \"Mao San Wang\"....

probably taste better than Bitter Sing Ga Por Rean...what fruit is this.... :?

I would presume many Kiasuparent member has no problem staying put in SG....
......even with the Gah'ment , scandal , breakdown, tuition
BTO, FT, curry smell, loud mouth in MRT etc etc , dog name tag.....
you not alone.....

isnt it part of Life little \"char zhue\".....little nuances.....
:hugs: :snuggles: :hi5:

[limlim]

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.

I highlighted for you. one is before privatization, one after.

[limlim]

3Boys:

limlim:

[quote=\"3Boys\"]
Four letter word for you.....P I G S.

You know what they are.....

Social policy and high subsidies, anyone?

No I don't.

Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain

And no, I'm not talking about football.[/quote]I am not familiar with these countries..

whatever it is, I don't agree with welfare state.

Nationalized operator can be self-sufficient too. I guess POSB can run on it's own revenue w/o much funding from Govt? before it was privatized.

I guess PUB don't need a lot of subsidy to run too..?

[3Boys]

limlim:

3Boys:

Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain

And no, I'm not talking about football.

I am not familiar with these countries..

Then please educate yourself on what's going on around the world. Singapore does not exist in a vacuum. There are many things we can learn from others, including policies that work and those that don't. You may think SMRT is hopeless, but what's your benchmark? You can't look at an issue in isolation.

[3Boys]

limlim:

3Boys:

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.

I highlighted for you. one is before privatization, one after.

One isolated example, a newer driverless train system versus one without. That constitutes the sum of the evidence?

Show me that publicly operated train systems consistently outperform private ones, across the world, then yes, maybe you have a case. Otherwise, you are just parroting the g'ment bashers.

[Flowermonaster]

I don’t hate Singapore, its my home always, good or bad. It’s where I belong no matter how good other countries or places seem to be. I might envy my friend’s who migrates to other countries but deep in my heart I know Singapore is where I really want to be. I guess I am not the adventurous type, to be able to uproot myself & migrate like others do nor any desire to do so.


Yes the standard of living is higher but it’s the same for the rest of the world. The weather is getting hotter but it’s not the fault of Singapore. Stress level is high but most of the time it’s our own doing. We are expecting more from the country, government, the society, the people & ourselves too. May be we should step back & look at ourselves first. The moon will always be brighter at the other side if we keep on finding fault with our country. Our forefathers don’t find fault, they just work on the solution. Life still needs to goes on even we complain so we should complain less & work towards resolving our own unhappiness to become a happy person. Don’t expect the government to make us happy it will never work no matter who is the ruling party. Just my humble opinion.

[verykiasu2010]

limlim:

Nationalized operator can be self-sufficient too. I guess POSB can run on it's own revenue w/o much funding from Govt? before it was privatized.

I guess PUB don't need a lot of subsidy to run too..?

if POSB wasn't funded by government much, then by who ?

[corneyAmber]

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!

No worries 3Boys.
W2G pretty much sums up my thoughts about this query on the 1.1B spent, which is why I say I am not cheering nor this is what I want.

Like you, I have no problem in the 1.1B spent but perhaps the accompanying conditions from the govt from the gifting of buses and maintenance can be clearly tabled to allay any unnecessary speculations on benefitting the shareholders. I believe when they proposed a budget of 1.1B, there would be detail plans rolling up to this so it would not be difficult to table that. I see WP doing their job to question on our behalf, but perhaps I would have preferred if it has come from a member from PAP, which I strongly believe could have happened too.