What is wrong (or not wrong!) with the PAP nowadays?

[kwcllf]

3Boys:

Nebbermind:

In some countries, there are social benefit beyond working years, free education even in uni. Etc the benefits just different


To me, it's money held by the govt on behalf of you.

And who pays for that?

There is always a flip side to every system. By looking at the EU and many of the welfare states, and the grave economic problems they are facing now, we have to be careful we do not go the same path.

[JannettLee]

3Boys:

JannettLee:

[quote=\"3Boys\"]
In my view, quite a bit of legacy issues and quite a bit of it the old man's fault.

His son is suffering for it now, so payback I guess.

But quite a lot of what people are unhappy about have roots in the distant past, won't you agree?

But I disagree with the current policies so it is not true that it is legacy issues la..

You agree with those policies to milk money to generate incomes for gov? :yikes:

Of course generate income lah! Would you rather we be Greece??

As an individual, how much income tax did you pay this year? Now compare to other equivalent countries in the world. Hint, Singapore has the 3rd lowest income tax rate amongst developed countries, behind Hong Kong and Ireland.

Now look at GST. Amongst developed countries, how are the sales tax levels like? HK does not have, it is the exception.

After you've looked at those figures, then you tell me if garment is milking its people.

Tharman said in a speech some time back, nearly half of garment operating budget comes from investment income. That is a truly staggering figure, an incredible feat of fiscal prudence and foresight and discipline.

Any credit given?[/quote]First, they implemented those policies to generate incomes for gov and no surprise that half of garment operating budget comes from investment income! You called this foresight! I can have a better foresight then. :oops:

Their investment is better make money then! If not, they will have more scrutinies (e.g. their favorite slogan is honest mistake) from people. I really wish them to recognize that they are government (policy maker) not businessman.

You should compare those old policies when generating incomes is not their purposes to these policies to help generating incomes.

[3Boys]

Mdm Koh:

None of that matters if Singaporeans do not feel that our lives have improved.

Further, may I add that the strong reserves and investment income makes a HUGE difference to the daily lives of Singaporeans, so it MATTERS.

It matters because if the g'ment needs to issue bonds to finance programmes, they don't have to pay ruinous rates (i.e. Greece, Italy, Spain). It matters because it allows MAS to keep our $ strong and further dampen inflation. And it matters because if we do not have this investment income, we have to raise taxes to pay the bills.

If you don't think it matters, then give the $700bn away, and see if things are not instantly worse off for Singaporeans.

[3Boys]

JannettLee:

3Boys:

[quote=\"JannettLee\"]

But I disagree with the current policies so it is not true that it is legacy issues la..

You agree with those policies to milk money to generate incomes for gov? :yikes:

Of course generate income lah! Would you rather we be Greece??

As an individual, how much income tax did you pay this year? Now compare to other equivalent countries in the world. Hint, Singapore has the 3rd lowest income tax rate amongst developed countries, behind Hong Kong and Ireland.

Now look at GST. Amongst developed countries, how are the sales tax levels like? HK does not have, it is the exception.

After you've looked at those figures, then you tell me if garment is milking its people.

Tharman said in a speech some time back, nearly half of garment operating budget comes from investment income. That is a truly staggering figure, an incredible feat of fiscal prudence and foresight and discipline.

Any credit given?

First, they implemented those policies to generate incomes for gov and no surprise that half of garment operating budget comes from investment income! You called this foresight! I can have a better foresight then. :oops:

Their investment is better make money then! If not, they will have more scrutinies (e.g. their favorite slogan is honest mistake) from people. I really wish them to recognize that they are government (policy maker) not businessman.

You should compare those old policies when generating incomes is not their purposes to these policies to help generating incomes.[/quote]Ok, you be our finance minister, I vote for you.

I personally would feel very shy about claiming to be able to outperform people like Richard Hu and Tharman, but you on the other hand, are obviously of superior ability.

By the way, these are long standing policies stretching decades back to Hon Sui Sen, Goh Keng Swee and the like. Temasek Holdings was incorporated in 1974! GIC was incorporated in 1981!

So if you don't like TH or GIC, you can take it up with the old guard.

[janet88]

In order not to lose more seats or just win marginally in future GE, it’s time to show more concern to what is happening on ground level. Continue enjoying the good life is not going to help.

[3Boys]

Where are you pirate, you light the fire and then siam :siam: ....? :mad: :mad:

[pirate]

JannettLee:

First, they implemented those policies to generate incomes for gov and no surprise that half of garment operating budget comes from investment income! You called this foresight! I can have a better foresight then. :oops:


Their investment is better make money then! If not, they will have more scrutinies (e.g. their favorite slogan is honest mistake) from people. I really wish them to recognize that they are government (policy maker) not businessman.

You should compare those old policies when generating incomes is not their purposes to these policies to help generating incomes.

Actually, I see no issue with generating income per se. Government revenue must come from somewhere. Money doesn't just grow on trees.

As I have said elsewhere, I see nothing wrong with public transport operators making a profit, the said profit then being channelled back to the government coffers via dividends through Temasek. That, by itself is not a problem. What's wrong with generating revenue from people who can afford it? And to tack on the xenophobic elements, surely there is nothing wrong with making a profit from the foreigners who are in Singapore? Do we want the govt to subsidize their public transport, utilities, mobile phones, hawker food, cars etc? Does it not make more sense to give assistance only to those who need it such as the lower income groups?

While I am not in favour of penny pinching scroogism, I am not in favour of the other extreme either.

[pirate]

Since we are on what's wrong with the PAP nowadays, I shall add one more.


I think the PAP is trying too hard to pander to those who make the most noise, instead of focusing on the basics.

Thus, instead of focusing on 3-5 room BTOs in new estates, they came up with ECs and DBSS. They went down the road of providing 'Lexus at Toyota prices'. Surely it is not the government's responsibility to provide voters with Lexus at Toyota prices? And if you ask me, I think the HDB underpriced the new fangled BTO flats in places like Tanjong Pagar and Alexandra. The whole thing has become a :censored: lottery.

Then, they had to keep bus fares low to placate commuters, many of whom can jolly well afford higher bus fares. The result is the operators have to suppress the pay of bus drivers. Let bus/mrt fares go up. Then give transport vouchers to those household whose income is less than $x per household member and who do not own a car.

Just some examples. Flame on! :evil:

[MR06]

As far as education is concerned, I see meritocracy practised by the book and wonder were these policies dished out by the elites, the scholars?


For P1 Registration system, surely not everyone would be happy with it whichever way it be formulated. However the endless debates on alumnus priority speak volumes. The no bars admission of PRs in earlier phases from P1 to P2A to the detriment of P2B and P2C locals should also be questioned.

The introduction of GEP is controversial and it is even more controversial when it is offered to foreigners as well. I wonder how many foreigners are in GEP funded with taxpayers money. Is there a need to groom foreigners giving them the best education since young to compete with the locals?

I would rather see international scholars getting scholarship from companies and other organization to fund their stay here. I believe the country and students may somehow benefit from hosting these scholars. Had the recruitment aspect gone awry that it seems to go abegging, putting them on a high pedestal so much so some of them take our kindness for granted and turned into ingrates? Seems life as a Singapore scholar is indeed Godsend. http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/scholarships/life/

[Mdm Koh]

3Boys:

Mdm Koh:

[quote=\"3Boys\"]

Of course generate income lah! Would you rather we be Greece??

As an individual, how much income tax did you pay this year? Now compare to other equivalent countries in the world. Hint, Singapore has the 3rd lowest income tax rate amongst developed countries, behind Hong Kong and Ireland.

Now look at GST. Amongst developed countries, how are the sales tax levels like? HK does not have, it is the exception.

After you've looked at those figures, then you tell me if garment is milking its people.

Tharman said in a speech some time back, nearly half of garment operating budget comes from investment income. That is a truly staggering figure, an incredible feat of fiscal prudence and foresight and discipline.

Any credit given?

None of that matters if Singaporeans do not feel that our lives have improved. Our tax rates are lower than that of other developed countries, but so are our wages. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that comparing only tax rates doesn't provide the full picture. Perhaps you could share with us if our purchasing power is comparable to that of the citizens in other developed countries. And I don't mean the purchasing power of the top 10% of high earners, but the purchasing power of the middle class and lower-income group.

I am kinda tired of doing research on behalf of nay-sayers.

If someone can tell me how PPP is a superior measure of well-being, then I be convinced to use that stat, because by that measure, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan are ahead of New Zealand, Sweden and Switzerland.

So are the citizens of Iran, Pakistan and Turkey better off than those of New Zealand, Sweden and Switzerland, because the PPP says so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29[/quote]I asked you because you sound like an economics expert! :rahrah:

Hmm... not saying that PPP is a \"superior measure of well-being\", but just saying that low tax rates and high GDP, which the government has often cited as evidence of its superb policies, are similarly inadequate gauges of well-being among the citizens.

Thanks for bringing up the point about the PPP of people in Iran, Pakistan and Turkey. I guess you agree, too, that a single wonderful statistic doesn't mean that the people of the country are not suffering.