23 Jan, 01:51PM in sunny Singapore!

PM Lee: The greatest danger for Singapore Yahoo! Newsroom –

Subscribe to PM Lee: The greatest danger for Singapore Yahoo! Newsroom – 69 posts

Please Login or Signup to reply.
  • winsomeea's Avatar
    2,318 posts since Sep '11
    • PM Lee: The greatest danger for Singapore 

       http://sg.news.yahoo.com/pm-lee--the-greatest-danger-for-singapore.html

      Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned on Friday that Singapore cannot afford to “slow down” in its pursuit of economic growth.

      Speaking at Economic Society of Singapore's annual dinner, he said that would be the greatest danger for Singapore.

      “If we are content to just be above average in the league of cities, we will fail. That is the greatest danger if we tell ourselves to slow down, enjoy life today and not worry about tomorrow,” he said.

      Instead PM Lee said that now more than ever, in the face of growing competition and the lessons from the US and Europe, Singapore could not afford to be less competitive.

      "Being near the front also means we must have a successful, growing economy. There is no other way we can achieve this. We cannot do it by spending what we have inherited from the older generation. We certainly cannot do it by pumping oil or gas from the ground," he said.

      "We can only do it if our economy is prospering and creating wealth that we can invest in our city and our people, to make life better for all of us," he added.

      [For full transcript of PM Lee's speech, go here http://sg.news.yahoo.com/pm-lee--the-greatest-danger-for-singapore.html 

      He painted a grim picture of a Singapore with slow growth -- new investments will be fewer, good jobs will be scarcer and unemployment will be higher. 

      Singapore would also face a brain drain when enterprising and talented Singaporeans were lured away by more lucrative opportunities and incomes in more competitive cities. In such a scenario, the low-income workers will be hardest hit, he said. 

      SPEND ON PUBLIC WELFARE?

      During his speech, PM Lee however acknowledged growing murmurs that Singapore’s economic success meant she could afford to focus on looking after the less well-off and spend more on public welfare.
       
      "I respect these views. I agree fully that material goals are not everything in life. But we are not going for growth at all costs, nor have we done so... We must always maintain the balance between economic and non-economic objectives, and ensure that the fruits of growth are invested for social purposes which benefit the wider population," he said.
       
      PM Lee also added that it is crucial that growth continues to benefit all in the next twenty years, especially when there is worldwide income inequality coupled with Singapore’s ageing population. 
       
      Responding to critics who say not enough is done for the underprivileged, PM Lee said "the reality is that we do much more than we acknowledged or get credit for."
       
      "We have equipped people with the skills and ability to do well for themselves... Over a lifetime, a low-income household will receive more than S$500,000 from the government," he said. 
       
      "In fact, households in the lowest income quintile (20 per cent) have on average more than S$200,000 of equity in their HDB flat! This is the direct result of government policy and government grants. It is unmatched by any other country," he added.

      'SCANDINAVIAN MODEL WON'T WORK'

      PM Lee also said emulating countries with similar population sizes and pro-welfare policies such as Norway or Denmark would not work. 

      "We face a fundamental choice as a society -- do we want low taxes and targeted welfare benefits; or high taxes on all and comprehensive welfare? Singapore has chosen the first; the Scandinavians the second," he said.

      Explaining that such countries are rich in natural resources, have relatively homogeneous societies and are situated in a peaceful and affluent continent that serves as their hinterland, PM Lee said these countries are willing to pay high taxes in exchange for high social protections for all. 

      While Singapore's personal income tax rate for the very wealthy stands at 20 per cent, those in similar tax brackets in Scandinavia pay anywhere from 40 to 57 per cent, according to data from the Ministry of Finance and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 

      "I do not believe that Singaporeans would be willing to pay the taxes that Scandinavians pay, or that our economy could be competitive at such heavy tax rates," said PM Lee. 
       
      For Singapore to rank among the top cities in 20 years' time and achieve social objectives, PM Lee also stressed that political support for the government was key.
       
      "Only when citizens accept the political system as legitimate, and economic order as fair, will they give the government of the support and the mandate to run Singapore in their best interests. And only with this mandate can the government do the best for Singapore and all of us," he said.

       

      Edited by winsomeea 09 Jun `12, 6:01PM
    • icon_lol.gif

    • It is dangerous for Singapore to have Lee Hsien Loong as Prime Minister.

      cannot afford to “slow down” in its pursuit of economic growth.

      Of course la, slow down means his highest paid salary in the world will  be affected.

      They taking turns to talk about the european style of taking care of welfare , now this pok's turn to yuck.    Of course it is not agreeable, if they adopt the scandinivian style they will not benefit much from the system.    Any thing that does not serve the best and fullest of their selfish motives and desires are no good for Sinkaporeans.   Damn la pok Ah Loong~!  icon_mrgreen.gif

      Edited by winsomeea 09 Jun `12, 3:03PM
  • laurence82's Avatar
    125,327 posts since Nov '03
    • Originally posted by winsomeea:

      It is dangerous for Singapore to have Lee Hsien Loong as Prime Minister.

      ditto

       

  • lce's Avatar
    2,464 posts since Jun '11
  • winsomeea's Avatar
    2,318 posts since Sep '11
    • Originally posted by lce:

      wat he wan?

      King of Casinos? then wat next?

       

      Rumour has it that the third casino is coming.    Wait and see !

      Money is never enough for pok Loong.

  • Hitman Chief (Oak)'s Avatar
    14 posts since Jun '12
    • i think if they had like steak houses in casinos thats like $15 per plate...think casino has a more healthy meaning...now it serves $300 goldfish and $100 french fries story.

       

       

      i have lots of beef here!!!!!next door in fact..but dunno how to transport them..........

      Edited by Hitman Chief (Oak) 09 Jun `12, 4:03PM
  • βέτά's Avatar
    2,497 posts since Jan '10
    •  

      The greatest danger is them losing power. icon_lol.gif

       

      Once you tasted power, you crave for it. icon_lol.gif

       

       

  • Hitman Chief (Oak)'s Avatar
    14 posts since Jun '12
    • Originally posted by βέτά:

       

      The greatest danger is them losing power. icon_lol.gif

       

      Once you tasted power, you crave for it. icon_lol.gif

       

       


      beta......get back to your dining table...no one touch the grapes on your dining table...

  • dragg's Avatar
    49,241 posts since Mar '05
    • nothing wrong with trying to keep ahead and being economically competitive.

      but after so many decades singaporeans still cant retire comfortably? thats the problem!!!

  • Dalforce 1941's Avatar
    2,185 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by winsomeea:

      "We face a fundamental choice as a society -- do we want low taxes and targeted welfare benefits; or high taxes on all and comprehensive welfare? Singapore has chosen the first; the Scandinavians the second," he said.

      What about progressive taxation?

       

      The way some people talk, you’d think that a flat tax system—in which everyone pays at the same rate regardless of income—would make citizens feel better than more progressive taxation, where wealthier people are taxed at higher rates. Indeed, the U.S. has been diminishing progressivity of its tax structure for decades.

      But a new study comparing 54 nations found that flattening the tax risks flattening social wellbeing as well. “The more progressive the tax policy is, the happier the citizens are,” says University of Virginia psychologist Shigehiro Oishi, summarizing the findings, which will be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. Oishi conducted the study with Ulrich Schimmack of the University of Toronto at Mississauga and Ed Diener, also at University of Illinois and the Gallup Organization.

      The researchers analyzed the relationship between tax progressivity and personal well-being in 54 nations surveyed by the Gallup Organization in 2007—a total of 59,634 respondents. Well-being was expressed in people’s assessments of their overall life quality, from “worst” to “best possible life,” on a scale of 1 to 10; and in whether they enjoyed positive daily experiences (such as smiling, being treated with respect, and eating good food) or suffered negative ones, including sadness, worry, and shame. Finally, the analysis looked at the participants’ satisfaction with their nation’s public goods, from schools to clean air.

      The degree of progressivity was measured by the difference between the highest and lowest tax rates, corrected for such confounding factors as family size, social security taxes paid, and tax benefits received by individuals.

      The results: On average, residents of the nations with the most progressive taxation evaluated their own lives as closer to “the best possible.” They also reported having more satisfying experiences and fewer discomfiting ones than respondents living in nations with less progressive taxes. That happiness, Oishi says, was “explained by a greater degree of satisfaction with the public goods, such as housing, education, and public transportation.”

      Higher government spending per se did not yield greater happiness, in spite of the well-being that was associated with satisfaction with state-funded services. In fact, there was a slight negative correlation between government spending and average happiness.

      “That data is kind of weird,” Oishi says. He guesses that the misalignment might indicate national differences in the efficiency with which those services are delivered or in people’s relative ability to access them. For example, the U.S. spends more on education and health care than other developed countries, “but its international standing in those areas is not so great.” Such puzzling findings may be illuminated in further research.

      The study, like others Oishi has done looking at connections between economics and personal life, has important social implications. “If the goal of societies is to make citizens happy, tax policy matters,” he says. “Certain policies, like tax progressivity, seem to be more conducive to the happiness of the people.

      http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/a-more-progressive-tax-system-makes-people-happier.html

      Edited by Dalforce 1941 09 Jun `12, 5:23PM
  • winsomeea's Avatar
    2,318 posts since Sep '11
    • Originally posted by dragg:

      nothing wrong with trying to keep ahead and being economically competitive.

      but after so many decades singaporeans still cant retire comfortably? thats the problem!!!

      Yeah, perfectly nothing wrong to keep ahead and being economically competitive, sad to say their focus is to satisfy and meet their selfish agenda, people are secondary.  People are only good if they can use people for profit making.     

      Damn the evil greedy blooody Papigs regime!   Will continue to vote them out.

      Each time I discourage the foreigners to become citizens I feel a sense of satisfaction.   hahahah!  Don't wanna them to end up like Singaporeans.    icon_mrgreen.gif

    • Originally posted by Dalforce 1941:

      What about progressive taxation?

       

      The way some people talk, you’d think that a flat tax system—in which everyone pays at the same rate regardless of income—would make citizens feel better than more progressive taxation, where wealthier people are taxed at higher rates. Indeed, the U.S. has been diminishing progressivity of its tax structure for decades.

      But a new study comparing 54 nations found that flattening the tax risks flattening social wellbeing as well. “The more progressive the tax policy is, the happier the citizens are,” says University of Virginia psychologist Shigehiro Oishi, summarizing the findings, which will be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. Oishi conducted the study with Ulrich Schimmack of the University of Toronto at Mississauga and Ed Diener, also at University of Illinois and the Gallup Organization.

      The researchers analyzed the relationship between tax progressivity and personal well-being in 54 nations surveyed by the Gallup Organization in 2007—a total of 59,634 respondents. Well-being was expressed in people’s assessments of their overall life quality, from “worst” to “best possible life,” on a scale of 1 to 10; and in whether they enjoyed positive daily experiences (such as smiling, being treated with respect, and eating good food) or suffered negative ones, including sadness, worry, and shame. Finally, the analysis looked at the participants’ satisfaction with their nation’s public goods, from schools to clean air.

      The degree of progressivity was measured by the difference between the highest and lowest tax rates, corrected for such confounding factors as family size, social security taxes paid, and tax benefits received by individuals.

      The results: On average, residents of the nations with the most progressive taxation evaluated their own lives as closer to “the best possible.” They also reported having more satisfying experiences and fewer discomfiting ones than respondents living in nations with less progressive taxes. That happiness, Oishi says, was “explained by a greater degree of satisfaction with the public goods, such as housing, education, and public transportation.”

      Higher government spending per se did not yield greater happiness, in spite of the well-being that was associated with satisfaction with state-funded services. In fact, there was a slight negative correlation between government spending and average happiness.

      “That data is kind of weird,” Oishi says. He guesses that the misalignment might indicate national differences in the efficiency with which those services are delivered or in people’s relative ability to access them. For example, the U.S. spends more on education and health care than other developed countries, “but its international standing in those areas is not so great.” Such puzzling findings may be illuminated in further research.

      The study, like others Oishi has done looking at connections between economics and personal life, has important social implications. “If the goal of societies is to make citizens happy, tax policy matters,” he says. “Certain policies, like tax progressivity, seem to be more conducive to the happiness of the people.

      http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/a-more-progressive-tax-system-makes-people-happier.html

      Actually, I care not the damn about this bloody selfish spoilt brat who has no heart for the people in Singapore.    I always bear in mind that this bloody spoilt brat useless bum is in politics for its own selfish motive and interests.  Whatever it is doing it always tries its best to get the best out of it for itself, people are not the reason.

  • Poolman's Avatar
    39,696 posts since Oct '03
    • so PM Lee , more influx of foreigners ?

      PM Lee , why dun you see from another perspective that locals can do a equally good job ?

      Without giving it a shot , u'll never know PM Lee .

      You have been relying on foreigners for the GDP for the last 10 years and now this is what u anticipate for the next ten years ?

      Then you shouldn't be relying on foreigners , we Singaporeans can do the job .

      Of course u paid peanuts , u'll get monkeys PM Lee .

      It's the quality of our Singaporean's Integrity that will be the vital force that push us up .

      This quality can never be found from a foreigner .

       

      Edited by Poolman 10 Jun `12, 3:36AM
  • lce's Avatar
    2,464 posts since Jun '11
  • Poolman's Avatar
    39,696 posts since Oct '03
    • If the local PM cannot get the Singapore job done , let us find someone from UK , perhaps for half the price , we perhaps they can be a better PM who can deliver .

      At least someone that are not paid millions and come out with equal amount of excuses .

       

    • If our PM thought that Singaporeans cannot get the Top job done , then what makes him think Singapore politicians to get a better pay check than Barrack Obama ?

  • winsomeea's Avatar
    2,318 posts since Sep '11
    • Originally posted by Poolman:

      If the local PM cannot get the Singapore job done , let us find someone from UK , perhaps for half the price , we perhaps they can be a better PM who can deliver .

      At least someone that are not paid millions and come out with equal amount of excuses .

       

      This present one cannot make it, it is in to serve own agenda.    It has no ministerial , PM or President calibre.   All it is interested is dollars and cents.  Citizens are seconday.  With such attitude, incapability, lack of commitment to make life better for citizens and intelligence, it is not worth the money we are paying it.

      Get Bill Clinton, I am sure he will not ask for the same salary as Ah Loong.

      To date, Loong is the most thick skin PM we ever have.    

  • Hitman Chief (Oak)'s Avatar
    14 posts since Jun '12
    • Originally posted by Poolman:

      so PM Lee , more influx of foreigners ?

      PM Lee , why dun you see from another prospective that locals can do a equally good job ?

      Without giving it a shot , u'll never know PM Lee .

      You have been relying on foreigners for the GDP for the last 10 years and now this is what u anticipate for the next ten years ?

      Then you shouldn't be relying on foreigners , we Singaporeans can do the job .

      Of course u paid peanuts , u'll get monkeys PM Lee .

      It's the quality of our Singaporean's Integrity that will be the vital force that push us up .

      This quality can never be found from a foreigner .

       

      think pm lee is already like senile before his age.u think....this dude never once used to think deep from day he went to school.for all u know he might have failed evry year since primary school.

       

      think if u get arnold shwrzeneggar to be your pm is probably same as getting LHL.maybe better because arnold knows the value of $$$$$$$ unlike some overpaid spoilt rich ministers son who laughs while others suffer.

      Edited by Hitman Chief (Oak) 09 Jun `12, 5:50PM
  • winsomeea's Avatar
    2,318 posts since Sep '11
    • Originally posted by Poolman:

      If our PM thought that Singaporeans cannot get the Top job done , then what makes him think Singapore politicians to get a better pay check than Barrack Obama ?

      Not forgeting that Obama is not only taking care of US but the whole world (in a way) and is not paid the same salary as the Ah Loong.  That is one of the reasons why I say Loong is the most thick skin PM we ever have basing on how incapable and no calibre it is to pay itself the highest pay in the world.

      He is a laughing stock.

    • Originally posted by Hitman Chief (Oak):

      think pm lee is already like senile before his age.u think....this dude never once used to think deep from day he went to school.for all u know he might have failed evry year since primary school.

      Spoilt brat.   It is spoilt, arrogant, hopeless , selfish, self centred, insensitive, incapable, sissy.

      its job as a PM and MP very easy one la.  During election campaign, just shed tears, cry cry then those sickaporeans from AMK GRC will fall for it and go ahead to vote it.    There after the vicious cycle continues.

      To break away from the vicious cycle, Papigs must be totally voted out.

  • Hitman Chief (Oak)'s Avatar
    14 posts since Jun '12
    • Originally posted by winsomeea:

      Spoilt brat.   It is spoilt, arrogant, hopeless , selfish, self centred, insensitive, incapable, sissy.

      its job as a PM and MP very easy one la.  During election campaign, just shed tears, cry cry then those sickaporeans from AMK GRC will fall for it and go ahead to vote it.    There after the vicious cycle continues.

      To break away from the vicious cycle, Papigs must be totally voted out.


      i dont think voting them out is easy.according to predictions....that will never happen till year 2030 or more.u wanna wait that long?

       

      politicians cry all the time...thjats their job.actors really!so dun get like involved in their sad story when u know u can solve it instantly or a month or so.

      yes they are selfish ,hopeless etc etc.....most sporeans are like that...in fact all.

  • winsomeea's Avatar
    2,318 posts since Sep '11
    • Originally posted by Hitman Chief (Oak):


      i dont think voting them out is easy.according to predictions....that will never happen till year 2030 or more.u wanna wait that long?

       

      politicians cry all the time...thjats their job.actors really!so dun get like involved in their sad story when u know u can solve it instantly or a month or so.

      yes they are selfish ,hopeless etc etc.....most sporeans are like that...in fact all.

      You are offending everyone including me when you made this statement "yes they are selfish ,hopeless etc etc.....most sporeans are like that...in fact all."

  • Hitman Chief (Oak)'s Avatar
    14 posts since Jun '12
    • Originally posted by winsomeea:

      You are offending everyone including me when you made this statement "yes they are selfish ,hopeless etc etc.....most sporeans are like that...in fact all."


      i iffended no one!its the engineering reality of it looking at it objectively!drastic change is the only option...there is no other.and yes....we need millions of people who are not selfish and not hopeless!

       

      Edited by Hitman Chief (Oak) 10 Jun `12, 4:35AM
  • winsomeea's Avatar
    2,318 posts since Sep '11
    • Originally posted by Hitman Chief (Oak):


      i iffended no one!its the engineering reality of it looking at it objectively!civil war is the only option...there is no other.and yes....we need millions of people who are not selfish and not hopeless!

       

      You still don't get it, haiz!    tui niu dan qing!   Sigh!   jiang bu tong!

Please Login or Signup to reply.