Punggol East By-Election coming ? MP steps down

[3Boys]

Irrelevant:

3Boys:

Heck, I voted opposition last time.

Me too. Just like kamon, when I think about the lack of checks and balances and the potential abuses of power, the logical conclusion is to have more opposition in the parliament.

3Boys:

What's in the WP manifesto?

2), 2), 2).......mostly.

My sentiments exactly! Not just WP, any other party is guilty of the same. Unfortunately, the impact of having more opposition appears to be a race to the bottom, i.e. the opposition and ruling party will out-compete each other to \"buy\" more votes.

Do I vote for higher taxes and more largesse?

We are already in a death spiral to the bottom.

I am pessimistic about Singapore, sadly.

[pirate]

Show me how you will spend it properly to assist those in need and I will support higher taxes - the burden of which will, incidentally, fall more on the likes of me.


Somebody mentioned populism. Yes, that’s the problem I see with the current PAP since GE2011. This is what I meant by firefighting. Where is the vision? Where is the leadership?

I did not suggest BTO priority for families with children way back in 1998. I take 3Boys’ word that it was floated way back in 1998. In that case, somebody really deserves a tight slap because it took them 15 years. Hellooo?! How many 15 years do we have? Our kids are practically grown up in 15 years. What has that got to do with spending more money?

7m population by 20xx? I have no problem with that. I have every confidence that Singapore can comfortably hold 7m people. But not if we cram all the financial and commercial sectors into Raffles Place/Shenton Way/Marina! And certainly not if we refuse to build infrastructure ahead of demand.

The WP currently has a vision for Singapore. The vision is a PAP run government with checks and balances against its excesses and inadequacies. Is it a great vision? Is it ideal? No. But it is still better than the alternative vision of a PAP run government without any checks and balances. Certainly not when they have like about 3 or 4 good cabinet ministers, and the rest are just ‘D/E borderline pass’.

[3Boys]

Way2GO:

3Boys:

Is CPF money involved? I should hope so! Why would I want to miss out?

d CPF was never meant to be gambled in high-risk investments, only safe government bonds n other low-risk instruments!
When did d diversification to high-risk instruments occur?
d gahmen has never publicly admitted to using CPF funds for these investments.

Please refer to my edited text in this paragraph .

How much return are you getting on government bonds? Got keep up with inflation or not ar?

[pirate]

3Boys:

W2G, I have covered at great length on this in the other thread. I don't get the sense that WP think this is a big deal at all.

You misread the ground. And you misread the WP strategy.

[Way2GO]

3Boys:

W2G, I have covered at great length on this in the other thread. I don't get the sense that WP think this is a big deal at all.

I missed it. Cld u please point me to dat thread. Danke.

MIWs hv been quite economical with d facts so far - coming in drips n drabs.
WP may hv some of d facts, but not all. Its too close to polling day to challenge an issue of dis nature without ample details nor sufficient time to counter PAP's response before Saturday's voting.
It will be close bwt PAP n WP, n neither can afford a misstep at dis point.
But d issue will resurface later if not in dis BE.

[pirate]

Irrelevant:

sinoboy:

Don't shoot me down just like that lah. Since you seem to know the difference, do you think our CPF money is involved or not huh?

If you are keen to understand, pray tell us why you think CPF money is somehow involved?

There is no CPF money. It is just one big IOU from the Government of Singapore.

[3Boys]

pirate:

Show me how you will spend it properly to assist those in need and I will support higher taxes - the burden of which will, incidentally, fall more on the like of me'.

Indeed, I fully agree. I too will shoulder a disproportionate share. I have been saying for years we need to raise taxes to fund programs, I welcome it despite personal impact.

BUT, it has to be with a view to good targeted programs. Not wasteful subsidies for public transport which fritters away public funds for a majority who can afford to help a small minority who cannot. GIVE money to those folk to help with daily activities, much much more effective.

[3Boys]

pirate:

3Boys:

W2G, I have covered at great length on this in the other thread. I don't get the sense that WP think this is a big deal at all.

You misread the ground. And you misread the WP strategy.

We shall see.

[pirate]

3Boys:

BUT, it has to be with a view to good targeted programs. Not wasteful subsidies for public transport which fritters away public funds for a majority who can afford to help a small minority who cannot. GIVE money to those folk to help with daily activities, much much more effective.

Agreed. Assistance should be given directly to those who truly cannot pay, not those who kpkb over a 10c increase in fares and then promptly go and buy the latest IPhone and a Starbucks coffee to boot. Unfortunately, there are a lot of those people around. I feel that the PAP is misreading the ground if they think that pandering to those people will get them better electoral results.

[raysusan]

damn why this thread go on so fast and fury?

really having a hard time catching up :stupid:

especially 3boys posts.....dictionary by my side! :frustrated: