|
|
#376
09-02-2014, 03:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Say “NO” To Singapore Transport Fare Increase
Quote:
15 years of meetings yielded nothing. One PAP Minister handover to another PAP Minister and collect his pay.The haze continues every year.People continue to suffer. As the most expensive and highest paid Prime Minister, Environment Minister and Foreign Minister in the world, Singaporeans would have expected better preventive actions rather than reactive actions from LHL, VB and Shamugam. If PAP expects to be paid higher than world superpower countries ministers & officials then Singaporean Government better perform more than a world superpower country. Execute economic sanctions on Indonesia & Malaysia for the haze issue. Arm twist UN to ratified it. PAP Grassroots like to armtwist Singaporeans all the time, now PAP should armtwist Indonesia and Malaysia or else why keep claiming world superpower status and salaries ?? When nothing happens, PAP can make out of the world boasts of their abilities to claim credit and increase their payscale by few hundred %. When cannot solve issues, blame Singaporeans, blame other countries, blame the world. It has happen too often. The usual excuse to stop criticisms of incompetency by asking for solutions. Even if Sporeans know the the solution, why should Sporeans provide solution when Sporeans have no role, no authority, no position and not paid. Like LKY said, welcome to the real world. If PAP wants to control everything via GLCs, Temasek Holdings, GIC, Civil Service, PA Grassroots, Media, SPH, CCC, RC, CCMC, CDC, CDAC, Mendaki, SINDA, STOMP etc, then PAP need to be blame for everything as well. ========================== MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew called for a sense of proportion yesterday, pointing out that the annual wage bill for ministers and all office holders is $46 million - or just 0.022 per cent of Singapore's total economic output. It was an ' absurdity', he said, for Singaporeans to quarrel over whether ministers collectively should be paid $10 million or $20 million more, when an economy worth $210 billion was at stake 'The cure to all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government,' he said in his first comments on impending salary increases for ministers and top civil servants. 'You get that alternative and you'll never put Singapore together again.' Singaporeans' asset values would also disappear, he warned, adding that 'your apartment will be worth a fraction of what it is, your jobs will be in peril, your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people's countries'. He said the present system of benchmarking ministers' pay to top private sector salaries was 'completely above board' and allowed the Government to recruit 'some of the very best' to lead the country When it was put to him that people hoped for leaders who were willing to make sacrifices and who were not there for the money, he replied that these were 'admirable sentiments'. But he added that 'we live in the real world'. His bottom line: if the Government could not pay competitive salaries, Singapore would not be able to compete and 'we're not going to live well'. =============================== ‘Reasonable pay will help to maintain a bit of dignity’ Member of Parliament Lim Wee Kiak of the Nee Soon group representation constituency (GRC) defended ministerial salaries by saying a reasonable payout helped maintain "dignity" for politicians. He was quickly slammed by netizens, many of whom pointed out in various posts on the Web that "dignity" should not be justified by salary alone. The multi-million dollar pay of ministers was a hot-button issue in Singapore's recent General Election, which saw the ruling People's Action Party win 81 out of 87 seats but at a significantly lower share of the total votes. Following the results, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced the formation of a committee to review the "basis and level of political salaries". Any pay changes would take effect from 21 May this year. "If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communication and Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discuss policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars because they need not listen to the minister's ideas and proposals. Hence, a reasonable payout will help to maintain a bit of dignity," Dr Lim told LianHe ZaoBao in Chinese. In reaction, Francis Oen postedon Facebook: "Hi Wee Kiat.. Suggest you clarify your statement. Does it mean that only $ talks?! ... And if someone earns less, does it mean he cannot have dignity?" Winnie Lim tweeted: "So according to Dr Lim Wee Kiak's theory, our ministers will ignore Obama because he earns less than all of them." On his Facebook page, Dr Lim said that his quote was taken out of context. "Minister's pay issue is a sensitive one. There must be a balance. After all, capable individuals who are willing to come forward to serve should not so because of pay and perks," he replied to a user's question about his quote. He added, "On the other hand, they do have families and dependents and need to consider for retirement, etc." ============================= One-Third Revenue from GST Increase goes to Minister Pay Increment How well is well-paid? By Tan Hui Leng and Jasmie Yen, TODAY | Posted: 10 April 2007 1028 They expressed support for the need to pay top dollar for top talent in the public sector. But Members of Parliament (MPs) who took part in yesterday's parliamentary debate on the pay hike also spoke passionately about what many Singaporeans believe to be the heart of the issue: The benchmarking formula used to determine ministerial pay. Ang Mo Kio MP Inderjit Singh noted that Singaporeans could not expect their leaders to serve based on altruism alone. "Are we willing to leave the future of the country to chance, that we will get good people who will give up their competence without caring about their salary?" he asked. Some MPs, however, saw problems in benchmarking ministers' pay to the private sector, pointing out to disparities in the risks taken by company chief executives and ministers and top civil servants. Marine Parade MP Lim Biow Chuan said: "I struggle to understand what a top Admin Officer aged 32 at grade SR9 has to worry about that will justify him receiving $363,000 a year … From many people's perspectives, they take no personal risk and are at best, paid employees." Opposition MPs Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir) and Hougang's Low Thia Khiang took issue with the fact that Singapore's ministers are paid more than their counterparts in developed countries. MPs like Bishan-Toa Payoh's Mrs Josephine Teo, however, pointed out that ministers in other countries may make more money after their term in office ends, such as through public speaking. Some MPs voiced concerns about the timing of announcing the pay revisions, especially with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) due to rise to 7 per cent in July. Mr Singh said: "How do we answer the man-in-the-street when we're told that about one-quarter to one-third of the expected revenue increase this year from the GST is going to be for the proposed ministerial and civil service salary increases, about $240 million, I was told?" Mr Low also referred to the recent debate on increasing the amounts for public assistance. "It's also ironic that we are consuming taxpayers' money and … discussing how much more of a fraction of a million to pay civil servants and ministers while we haggle over additional tens of dollars to hand out to our needy and disadvantaged citizens," he said. Some MPs who supported the pay hike also suggested that the salary benchmarking could be finetuned, such as pegging ministers' salaries to more realistic markers such as top men in private equity firms and top companies based on market capitalisation. ================================================== === The Minister is saying staying vigiliant can drive away Haze or prevent Haze from coming. Credibility is not the identity of person who makes statements but whether the content of the statement makes sense or not.In this case, the Minister is not credible. Whatever issues, constraints and limitations WP face at Town Council, Parliament and Grassroots, NSP will face the same when NSP win seats. NSP should not laugh at WP now. WP has no executive power to do anything else but observe and then issue statements and wait for Parliament to covene rather than jumping to conclusions without proper information. Singaporeans need to know their politics before criticising WP. PAP is THE GOVERNMENT of entire Singapore including WP areas. Plus PAP government holding all stock of N95 Masks and distributing bit by bit. The other political parties with no seats can do anything and say anything it wants but has no responsibility of 2 SMCs and a GRC to take care of. 
|
|
#377
09-02-2014, 03:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Say “NO” To Singapore Transport Fare Increase
Quote:
PAP's Internet Offensive http://singaporealternatives.blogspo...offensive.html Saturday February 3, 1:09 PM S'pore's PAP rebuts online critics anonymously--daily SINGAPORE, Feb 3 (Reuters) - Members of Singapore's long-ruling People's Action Party (PAP) are posting anonymous messages in Internet forums and blogs to rebut online criticism of the party, a leading daily reported on Saturday. The postings were an initiative driven by two sub-committees under the PAP's "new media" committee chaired by Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen, the pro-government Straits Times said, citing unnamed sources. A government spokeswoman contacted on Saturday declined to comment. The two sub-committees, made up of politicians and some technology-savvy party activists, were formed after the May 2006 general election, the Straits Times said. The PAP's share of the vote slid to 66.6 percent last year, from 75.3 percent at the previous election in 2001. The panels had been set up to express the PAP's views online where there were few pro-establishment voices, the newspaper said, quoting a member of parliament who heads one sub-committee. "The identity is not important. It is the message that is important," Baey Yam Keng was quoted as saying. The Straits Times quoted Baey as saying that the messages were only effective if they were not "too obvious" lest they resemble "propaganda". A PAP activist involved in posting the anonymous messages was quoted as saying that he tracked popular blogs and forums to "see if there is anything we can clarify" on controversial issues such as the impending hike in the goods and services tax. The PAP, which has ruled Singapore since independence in 1965, has been criticised by human rights groups such as Amnesty International in the past for its curbs on freedom of expression. Party leaders say tight regulation of public debate and the media in the city-state is necessary to maintain law and order. The above Reuters article is derived from Straits Time article below: Feb 3, 2007 PAP moves to counter criticism of party, Govt in cyberspace By Li Xueying THE People's Action Party (PAP) is mounting a quiet counter-insurgency against its online critics. It has members going into Internet forums and blogs to rebut anti-establishment views and putting up postings anonymously. Sources told The Straits Times the initiative is driven by two sub-committees of the PAP's 'new media' committee chaired by Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen. One sub-committee, co-headed by Minister of State (Education) Lui Tuck Yew and Hong Kah GRC MP Zaqy Mohamad, strategises the campaign. The other is led by Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Baey Yam Keng and Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Josephine Teo. Called the 'new media capabilities group', it executes the strategies. Both were set up after last year's General Election. Aside from politicians, some 20 IT-savvy party activists are also involved. When contacted, Mr Baey declined to give details of the group's activities, but he outlined the broad principles of the initiative. It was necessary for the PAP to have a voice in cyberspace as there were few in the online community who were pro-establishment, he said. As such, the committees aim to 'observe how new media is developing and see how we can use the new media as part of the overall media landscape', he added. 'How do we facilitate views that are pro-party and propagate them through the Internet?' The approach reflects comments by Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui at the PAP's party conference in December. He called on younger activists to put up views 'to moderate the vitriol and balance the skewed comments' on the Internet. But this can only work if activists are not 'too obvious' about it, Mr Baey said yesterday. Otherwise it comes across as 'propaganda'. 'The identity is not important. It is the message that is important,' he added. One activist who is involved said that when posting comments on online forums and the feedback boxes of blogs, he does not identify himself as a PAP member. He tracks popular blogs and forums to 'see if there is anything we can clarify' on hot-button topics such as the impending hike in the Goods and Services Tax. But he added: 'We don't rebut everything. Sometimes, what is said is fair enough, and we send the feedback on to the committee.' This latest initiative comes on top of a blog site with posts by 12 MPs born after Singapore's Independence in 1965. It recognises that more younger Singaporeans are relying on the new media as a main source of information. An Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) study conducted last year found that younger and better-educated Singaporeans relied on information from the Internet when shaping their voting choices at the last GE. Among the opposition parties, members and supporters of the Workers' Party, in particular, post regularly on forums online. But IPS senior research fellow Tan Tarn How wonders about the effectiveness of the PAP's campaign. He said Internet users who post on forums such as Sammyboy tend not to be interested in 'intellectual debate' and so will not be persuaded by PAP activists anyway. As for more serious-minded bloggers, he said the views that the activists may put out are already available in the mainstream media. [email protected] You may want to read Mr. Wang Says So and Xeno Boy articles on this topic. There is also a good analysis on why PAP "leaks" the "secret" operations here. I share similar sentiments with Mr. Wang on this particular report. I am very surprised that the ST article was allowed to published. First of all, to reveal such "secret strategy" is disastrous to PAP's internet image! Hey, c'mon, as the largest and powerful ruling party that has dominated Singapore's political scene, its members do not dare to identify themselves as PAP members when communicating with other Singaporeans on the internet platform? Are they ashame or too afraid to be identified with PAP or what? But on second thought, I think PAP has found out that their "secret covert operations" may be too slow and ineffective in covering the whole internet sphere, thus, to "leak" this information in a hopeful bid to create fear in bloggers and internet writers. Personally, I am proud of my past association with WP even when it was just a political party on the development path. What are the PAP members afraid of by openly declaring their association with PAP? What's the matter with them? Aren't they proud of their own party which has contributed much to Singapore's progress for the last 5 decades? As all of you could observe from the many "anonymous" comments recorded here on my blog for the past few months, one would now really put serious doubts on whether they are really "PAP's internet fighters"!  How many of these comments come from them, I really wonder!I have hoped that one day, this PAP's secret internet offensive will be revealed to the public and thus, insisted to keep the comment column open to anonymous posters. Interesting enough, after I declare my intention of capturing all those possible agents' vicious attacks on me so that the whole world will know about it, there is a dramatic decrease in such anonymous comments! If you read those comments in my blog, you will know why PAP wanted their internet fighters to stay anonymous. Many of the remarks are even defamatory in nature! As a matter of fact, I have long suspected that PAP has started to carry out its "internet management" plan as far back as July 2006 when I had a meeting with a few WP members and associates. The successful application of internet by WP back in GE 2006 as well as the active engagement of WP members 2 years prior to GE 2006 has made PAP rethink about the possible impact of the new media. Prior to GE 2006, PAP has taken the view that the new media, internet, will have little impact on the political front even though that it has been dominated by anti-PAP sentiments for a almost a decade. But apparently GE 2006 has changed their mind. The sudden increase of aggressive comments posted on my blog as well as forums right after GE 2006 is an interesting indicator of how PAP's internet fighters work. They may be very clumsy but they may be effective in a sense that I might have possibly become one of their trophy! Well, life still goes on in the internet sphere with or without PAP internet fighters. But I guess now most people will be more skeptical when they see "Pro-PAP" or "Anti-Opposition" postings on the net... the question will always be on our mind "Hey, is this from the PAP internet fighters?" Goh Meng Seng Last edited by kuasimi; 13-02-2014 at 01:13 AM.
|
|
#378
10-02-2014, 12:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Say “NO” To Singapore Transport Fare Increase
Quote:
|
|
#379
11-02-2014, 02:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Say “NO” To Singapore Transport Fare Increase
http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%...-399935/3.html
S'pore the real winner in Punggol East by-election By Han Fook Kwang The Sunday Times Tuesday, Feb 05, 2013 The Punggol East by-election result was a vote for a smooth and stable transition towards greater multi- party democracy in Singapore. There, I've said it, and the sky didn't fall on me. But seriously, while quite a great deal has been said about what the result means for the various political parties, not enough is being said about what it means for the country. So let me count the reasons it was good for Singapore. First, for those who believe that it is inevitable that politics here will become more competitive and pluralistic, the hope must be that the journey will be a smooth one. This is new territory for the country and there is no guarantee that it will not be difficult, even unstable and disruptive. Political battles can turn ugly, the wrong people may be elected, and confidence in the country's future seriously damaged. The early signs though have been encouraging. This by-election was conducted in as civilised a manner as could be expected in any democracy and the campaigns by the various parties were devoid of the nastiness that often happens elsewhere and sometimes here as well. Score one for a civil transition. Second, for those who worry that the political contests will become too divisive for the country's good, Punggol East should provide some comfort. The victorious Workers' Party (WP) has shown from both its performance the last two years following the 2011 General Election and this by-election that it isn't a party out to upend the status quo. In fact, the criticism from some quarters is that it has been too nice to the People's Action Party (PAP), with critics lambasting it for not being assertive enough during parliamentary debates, and some even characterising it as PAP-lite. And what did its secretary-general Low Thia Khiang say the day after its stunning victory? He cautioned against reading too much into the large swing against the ruling party, adding that his party wasn't ready to form the next government. "I think we have a competent Government... we need to allow time for the Government to work and I hope, eventually, the policies will take effect on the ground, people's lives will be improved and we have a better Singapore." Gracious words indeed, though there have been many interpretations of why he made those comments. But they didn't sound like the words of someone who wanted to rub salt into the PAP's wounds. Of course, Mr Low is a wily politician, and it may be the case that he believes taking this moderate position will yield greater political capital for the party come the next election. But taking his remarks at face value, his position augurs well for the future if indeed the WP becomes the other party in an eventual two-party system. In a small city-state like Singapore with no great variations across the country, the two main contending parties vying for the votes of the middle ground are unlikely to differ very much in policies and approach unless they have very different views about what will appeal to voters. There is hence greater likelihood for the positions of the PAP and the WP to converge rather than diverge wildly on the major issues. Score two then for a non-divisive transition? One caveat though - these are early days yet in the WP's ascendancy and while it may seem gracious in victory now, there's no telling how it will change as the political competition intensifies and its numbers grow. It may yet become a different party in due course. Also, at some point in this transition, the WP must offer itself as an alternative government with a complete set of policies to rival the PAP's. It cannot keep saying it's not ready. Then we might see its true colours. Third, the hiding that the Reform Party and the Singapore Democratic Alliance received from voters, managing less than 2 per cent of the votes between them, shows how mature and discerning the electorate is. They did not waste their votes on these two because they could tell that neither the parties nor their candidates were worthy and up to the competition. This is one of the best signs for Singapore's transition towards a more pluralistic democracy. A sophisticated and demanding electorate lessens the risk of it being taken in by smooth-talking politicians with empty promises and who can lead the country to ruin. There are too many examples elsewhere of this happening to gullible voters for Singaporeans to be smug that it will not happen here. Punggol East residents showed how seriously they took their votes. Score three for a maturing electorate which will help ensure a successful transition. Fourth, a large part of how this transition will turn out depends on how the PAP responds to the setbacks it suffers. Punggol East was another wake-up call for the ruling party that it needs to make significant changes to hold the political ground against a rising tide of opposition support. It said it would after GE 2011, but the changes may not have been far-reaching enough. To be fair, this won't be easy for the PAP, not when it has been in power for 50 years and developed the instincts and habits that go with being so dominant for so long. To expect it to change quickly and to produce the accompanying results is unrealistic. I was glad, therefore, to hear Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong say on Monday that one major area the party needs to relook is the type of candidates it fields for elections. This is a critical area of change for the PAP, more important I believe than any change to policy. Get the right people in its leadership and the right policies will follow. If Punggol East results in the PAP undertaking a fundamental rethink of the people it inducts, both to serve as MPs and in the Cabinet, it would be a positive development for Singapore.
|
|
#380
12-02-2014, 12:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Say “NO” To Singapore Transport Fare Increase
Quote:
To curry_mutu_man if you want to post, I suggest you get yourself educated with facts; it is exactly people like yourself who declare that they are all for the party (or government for that matter) and yet post this kind of damaging rubbish. Anyone with some common sense can see that although you openly declared your support, you are doing the exact opposite; you generate more hatred and disgruntle. I speak for myself as a Singaporean only, so I do not use the term 'we Singaporean' because nobody tell me I can represent him.
|
|
#381
12-02-2014, 02:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Say “NO” To Singapore Transport Fare Increase
Actually, if u all really read curry's posts, he is actually posting against the govt. Its the way he posts that make it seem like he's pro MIW but if u read it properly, u will see its true meaning. He is actually suaning MIW
__________________
The Choices We Make, Dictate The Life We Lead!!! The 4 Golden Rules in life: 1) 不要欺骗自己 2) 不要出卖自己 3) 不要背叛自己 4) 不要对不起自己 是你的，就是你的。 不是你的，不要抢！ 人之所以快乐，不是因为得到的多、而是因为计较的少 Officially Retired From The Nite Scene
|
|
#382
12-02-2014, 05:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: HOW THE PAP'S INCOMPETENCE IN HOUSING IS SCREWING OUR LIVES
http://therealsingapore.com/content/...wing-our-lives
Post date: 12 Feb 2014 - 5:03pm As the PAP starts with their propaganda campaign on how they care for their citizens, I have decided to write a series on how their policies have screwed our lives. My first piece will be on a hot-button issue: housing. The current situation? The issue is one which has divided our nation. Those who have yet to get their own homes find the costs too high and are very unhappy at the government: 9 in 15 youths nowadays are worried that they are unable to afford their own homes and cars. At the other end, those who have seen their property values rise are unhappy about the cooling measures. While there have been measures to curb property speculation, these measures have resulted in hot money flowing into commercial properties instead, causing business costs to rise which the end-consumer pays for in the form of inflation. In other words, the PAP’s incompetence has affected ALL our lives. How did it come about? By letting too many foreigners and building not enough units to house these foreigners, the end results is a disaster which results in a housing market with bubble-like prices. In 2008, the PAP government let in 145,000 foreigners while building only 3050 units of HDB flats. This phenomenon has been continued for 5 years, resulting in housing prices doubling. Assuming that 4 foreigners need a unit of housing (whether they come in as a family or rent a room), we are looking at a shortfall of more than 30,000 units. The corresponding result is a 10-12% increase in the resale index not including Cash-over-valuations. Who is affected? Those who are adversely affected are primarily young couples. As they are unable to ballot for a BTO, they are then forced to get a resale flat at grossly inflated prices. This causes 2 negative effects: first, their cash flows are reduced from high mortgage installments. Worse, they could face negative equity should they sell within the medium-term (for example, buying in 2011 and selling in 2016). In addition, as the rich are more likely to have one property as investment, they benefit from capital appreciation leading in a wealth divide. Why the PAP’s remedy is not working? KBW once said that he would ideally like the price of a new HDB flat to be pegged to 4 years’ salary of an average person. As he later mentioned, this was faced with resistance with people from the ground who are afraid of these changes. As a result, the government has decided to increase subsidies instead to make houses less expensive. This poses 2 problems: Firstly, where does the money come from and can it last indefinitely? Secondly, as these grants are means-tested, how about those who cannot otherwise afford BTOs but are unable to quality for grants? Better alternatives by other parties? The honourable Chiam See Tong once asked about this in parliament, only to be replied that this should not be a cause for concern because there are surplus stocks. The SDP has also proposed that HDB flats be sold at a fixed price in a dual-property system for the poor (where a 4-room flat costs $160,000) that can only be sold back to the HDB. This model is superior and remains true to what HDB is supposed to be: public housing. Concluding remarks? This is but one of the areas in which the PAP has failed us. To make matters worse, they have continued to be excessively arrogant and stubborn to change. As Singapore moves progressively towards being a democracy, we should vote more and more opposition in to the point where a coalition government would allow greater debate for more sustainable ideas for the betterment of Singapore. Joseph Kheng-Liang Tan
__________________
The Choices We Make, Dictate The Life We Lead!!! The 4 Golden Rules in life: 1) 不要欺骗自己 2) 不要出卖自己 3) 不要背叛自己 4) 不要对不起自己 是你的，就是你的。 不是你的，不要抢！ 人之所以快乐，不是因为得到的多、而是因为计较的少 Officially Retired From The Nite Scene
|
|
#383
12-02-2014, 07:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Say “NO” To Singapore Transport Fare Increase
http://theindependent.sg/how-wp-frustrates-pap/
http://forums.$$$$$$$$$$$$.com.sg/ea...p-4574273.html How WP frustrates PAP By Augustine Low The Workers’ Party has been frustrating the PAP by doing what it does best – staying moderate and restrained, and avoiding confrontation and tit-for-tat. Since GE 2011, PAP Ministers and MPs have taken turns to take pot shots at the WP. When the WP stays silent on issues, it is accused of opting out or sitting on the fence. When it makes a stand on something, it is criticised for pandering to the public, claiming credit and trying to score points. The WP strategy appears to be this: You can snipe and snap all you want, we choose to respond only when we want to, we have no intention to engage in bickering and tit-for-tat. The PAP has adopted an offensive strategy in a bid to draw the WP out of its comfort zone. Most recently, the likes of Hri Kumar, Indranee Rajah and Josephine Teo have chastised and castigated the party for either staying silent or speaking up. But to the frustration of the PAP, the WP refuses to be baited to respond in kind. The WP prefers to stick to its strategy of doing its work on the ground, connecting with residents one-on-one and attending to day-to-day problems. The WP’s current strategy has its roots from key lessons learnt. Low Thia Khiang is a wily politician who observed first-hand how the JB Jeyaretnam style of politics cost him dearly. JBJ was a fearless warrior and a raging bull who attacked relentlessly, but he was felled by libel suits, bankruptcy charges and credibility issues. For all his brave efforts, JBJ failed to put together a cohesive force to challenge the might of the PAP. Low learnt that patience and moderation would prolong longetivity in politics. He chose to concentrate on constituency politics and play an understated role in Parliament. For him, fireworks only provide short-lived euphoria. Finger pointing and strong words of condemnation are seldom necessary. For the WP, the priority is hard work on the ground. Once the WP has a stranglehold of a constituency, it is very difficult to dislodge it. This solid ground-up work was the key to it spreading its wings from Hougang to Aljunied GRC and Punggol East. Another lesson learnt was from the AIM sage which became protracted and took up too much of the WP’s time and resources. For such disputes, the full weight of the PAP – and its government agencies – will be marshalled to discredit the WP, and distract it from constituency politics. And unlike the PAP, the WP does not have a wealth of resources and manpower at its disposal and will find itself on the losing end if it were to enter into long drawn bickering. While the WP has frustrated the PAP with its restraint and reticence, it has also ironically frustrated some of its own supporters and pro-opposition forces for the very same reasons. Expectations rose exponentially when it captured a GRC in 2011. Some supporters want a WP that is more combative, ready to pounce on missteps, and vigorously take the government to task for shortcomings. But the anticipated fireworks have not materialised. There is some dismay that the WP has not bared its fangs enough, and not been a bigger and louder voice for people’s angst and dissatisfaction. Whether this has consequences for the WP remains to be seen. But the WP must be doing something right when it keeps frustratrating the PAP. It is adept at keeping its cards close to its chest and might yet spring another major surprise or two – like it did when it fielded its formidable A-team in Aljunied GRC in 2011. For the WP, it’s all about less talk and more action. Last edited by kuasimi; 13-02-2014 at 01:16 AM.
|
|
#384
13-02-2014, 12:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Say “NO” To Singapore Transport Fare Increase
Re: HOW THE PAP'S INCOMPETENCE IN HOUSING IS SCREWING OUR LIVES//
I'd just like to add in my 0.02c worth. The high costs of housing is not only a result of the limited flats built. The govt has also been very smart to time their release of land for housing projects. When times are bad, i.e. during a recession, the govt will cite bad demand and not release land for housing development. However, during good times, when the economy is booming, state lands are released via open tender where the highest bidder will win. With property booming, those developers will aggressively participate in these tenders. Tenders are won at record bids times and again. No doubt the govt's coffer will get fuller, but it is US that will end up suffering as developers will factor in the price they bid, throw in the building costs etc and sell their units to us at a profit. We will have to end up slogging for 20-30 yrs to pay off the huge housing loans! In the end, who benefited from the boom? The govt and the developers! And who end up suffering?? WE! I seriously do not understand how the govt operates. They seems to be a profit driven enterprise rather than a govt that should look after the welfare of the people. They tend to forget that no matter good or bad time, we will need a roof over our heads. Couples still want to get married and start their own family and own a house. It is especially during the time of MBT that the whole Singapore housing mkt got messed up. However, he has now graciously stepped down and is enjoying his retirement with the huge retirement nest egg made up of his years of FAT salary and pension. While we, have to suffer from the mess he has created. DUH!! 
|
|
#385
13-02-2014, 12:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Say “NO” To Singapore Transport Fare Increase
http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/20...ion-each-year/
Half billion taxpayer dollars go to People’s Association each year
|
|
#386
13-02-2014, 01:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Say “NO” To Singapore Transport Fare Increase
A LONG, LONG LIST OF MISTAKES BY LHL AND THE PAP
http://forums.$$$$$$$$$$$$.com.sg/ea...p-4572702.html http://www.therealsingapore.com/cont...es-lhl-and-pap A vote for the PAP is a vote for mediocrity and regression for Singapore. Why? Because PAP is headed by LHL who is incompetent and biased who only surrounds himself with yes-men who salute his bullshit. Singapore is getting worse based on his dismal track record shown below. 1) low productivity of Singapore economy 2) low birth rate 3) stagnant wages 4) sharp rise in the costs of living, housing, education, healthcare and transport 5) (3) and (4) resulted in lower standard of living for Singaporeans 6) PAP initially kept secret its pro-alien policies because it knew it was screwing Singaporeans 7) foreigners taking jobs away from Singaporeans 8) foreigners taking places in local school that could have gone to Singaporeans 9) DPM TCH said in Parliament it is not in PAP’s best interest to give more information to Singaporeans on foreigners in Singapore 10) shortage of public buses and trains 11) failed privatisation of public transport requiring billions in bailout 12) shortage of hospital beds, nursing homes, doctors 13) frequent 50-year “ponding” 14) HDB selling over-priced HDB flats (prices doubled over the last 5 years) 15) CPF accounts depleted after paying for HDB flat 16) PAP does not wanted to tell Singaporeans the actual cost of building HDB flats 17) AIM scandal proved PAP corruption 18) MBT threw insults in Parliament instead of answering questions on the AIM Scandal 19) using MND to cover-up PAP corruption 20) Lim “Zorro” Swee Say said “we (PAP) are deaf to all criticism” 21) bungled “investigation” (read as cover-up) of death of Shane Todd 22) delayed “investigation” (read as cover-up) of death of Dinesh Raman for two years for political reasons 23) Election Dept lost ballot boxes 24) failed private of power companies resulting in higher electricity bills 25) Singapore spying on other countries for US 26) poor air quality as per WHO Air Quality Guidelines 27) manipulated PSI readings to show better air quality 28) 70% of Government scholars break their bond wasting taxpayers’ money 29) created property bubble 30) foreigners taking places in local schools that could have gone to Singaporeans 31) MOE gives $210m tuition grants to FT students a year 32) Government spent $400m to invite FT students to study in Singapore 33) rampant corruption in the Civil Service – SCDF, MFA, NCB, MDA, NParks 34) frequent breakdowns of MRT 35) public bus drivers went on strike 36) PAP out of touch with reality (Nasi Padang: $2.50 and Bandung: $0.50) 37) public transport makes tens of millions each year, have frequent breakdowns and get $2b bailout from Government yet fares are raised 38) local student fined $400 for using unmarked power outlet in MRT station but racist Anton Casey given second chance 39) PAP “uninvites” Dr Tan Cheng Bok for CNY party at Istana but invites Pinoys Jiang Haiwei
|
|
#388
13-02-2014, 06:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Say “NO” To Singapore Transport Fare Increase
Quote:
Maybe I am the dumber one cause I still respect those who directly criticise such as Bro kuasimi. I mean it is ok to criticise because not everything PAP do or done is right, even though I voted for them during the last GE, I also do not agree with everything they did. Actually to think about it, if I was staying in Tampines then, probably I would not voted for them, since I don't think much of a certain Mah
|
|
#389
14-02-2014, 02:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Say “NO” To Singapore Transport Fare Increase
even simple peasant pleasure like watching soccer also taken away with exorbitant price .
luckiky manage to buy this device through hwz recommendation : http://zoeblogshop.wordpress.com/201...1000-over-vod/ was watching the Liverpool vs Fulham match yesterday on it and it works great. ask stinktel , stuck hub go Jia sai
|
|
#390
14-02-2014, 12:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Say “NO” To Singapore Transport Fare Increase
Quote:
|
| Advert Space Available |
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
