Help for needy is long term, not polls ploy: PM
-
Measures are not sudden development but ongoing and meant to lift everybody up
By Lynn Lee
Jan 23, 2006
The Straits Times
WHETHER or not elections are coming, needy Singaporeans will get help as part of the Government's philosophy of progressing together as 'one people, one nation, one family', Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said yesterday.
Responding to speculation that the series of goodies promised recently meant that polls were around the corner, Mr Lee said with a smile, 'Maybe, maybe not.'
Mr Lee then hinted at more good news to come: 'If we can in this year's Budget, we will try our best to do more for Singaporeans to make them feel that the sacrifices they made in 2001 when the economy was bad will be rewarded. This is what we should do.'
But he stressed that the People's Action Party government has always looked beyond short-term electoral goals.
He placed the recent string of plum announcements in this wider context: as part of an ongoing effort to build a Singapore that is 'strong, prosperous and happy, for many years to come'.
Aptly enough, the Prime Minister, who is an MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC, made these points at an event to give hongbao to needy residents in his Teck Ghee ward.
Speaking in Mandarin and English, he also emphasised that his Government's initiatives were not a sudden development.
'Over the last three or four years - and particularly in 2004 when I became PM - we've been working at doing a lot of things, quietly, in order to help Singapore continue to grow and also to address the problems we have as we grow,' he said.
On its agenda: Helping older and low-wage workers, improving the lives of disabled people, looking into better health care and housing schemes, and better recognition for national servicemen, among other things.
Panels have been formed to brainstorm ideas, he said, citing the ministerial committee on low wage workers as one example.
The committee's suggestions, announced on Jan 12, include a one-off bonus for workers aged 40 and above and earning $1,200 or less a month, higher childcare subsidies, and new training grants.
Later this week, another ministerial panel is expected to outline proposals to help older workers stay in the workforce for longer.
The Government is now looking to see if it has a budget surplus, and how best to distribute it to the people, he let on.
He reiterated the Government's approach: 'Not just to give everybody a hongbao, but to achieve our total objective, to make sure that those who need encouragement get more encouragement, those who need more help get more help, those who have made important contributions, that their contributions are recognised.'
Mr Lee pointed out that extending such help was possible because the economy had got back on its feet over the past two years. While that was partly due to Asia's rise, it was also because Singapore had 'done the right things'.
'We've fought to make Singapore better, to upgrade ourselves and to adapt to this new environment,' he said.
Later, Mr Lee handed out $80 cash gifts to 168 needy residents, who also received food hampers.
Dressed in a red checked shirt and in a cheerful mood, he spent about half an hour visiting each table, as elderly folk tucked into fried beehoon and red bean soup, before mingling with residents and stallholders at a wet market and hawker centre.
One such elderly resident, Mr Siaw Chin Lam, brought him back to the topic of elections, noting that press reports had suggested a March date. To this, the PM quipped that he too had received the same information - also from the newspapers. -
Of course.
-
The best help for the needy in the long run is for them to lift up themselves to gainful employment. One way is to upgrade. The govt cannot be expected to always redistribute wealth by taxing the rich and pay for the poor. That is not a long term solution.
-
Originally posted by Salman:
'BIG TALK' but 'small in content'
The best help for the needy in the long run is for them to lift up themselves to gainful employment. One way is to upgrade. The govt cannot be expected to always redistribute wealth by taxing the rich and pay for the poor. That is not a long term solution.
'One way is to upgrade' - some fancy term with this word 'UPGRADE' ?
What is the program to assist those who need to 'UPGRADE' ?
The fact that there are needy persons is due largely to the dislocation of workers from their jobs due to added competition.
Competition between Singaporean Companies against Government Linked Companies, and against Foreign Companies in the Global Market place - has resulted in this dislocation of the Singaporean workers.
There is a multitude of supposedly Help Programs to assist the Singaporean Companies but all tied to fancy bureaucratic red tapes that demand costly restructuring of ongoing businesses to become more transparent - meaning exposing to additional tax.
Workers have been dislocated due to competition from FOREIGNERS, who are let in freely even when there is a Singaporean with the relevant skills for the same post - but there is NO LAW TO PROTECT the Singaporean, where even in the First World economies, laws are in place to protect the jobs intended for its Citizens (Australia, France, Germany, Japan, UK, and USA).
The Hotel and Food & Beverage Industries have seen a large influx of foreigners - (mostly Caucasians) - filling up the posts at the same salary scale paid to Singaporeans.
Did anyone ask for the Government to tax the Rich and redistribute wealth ?
This has always been the favorite parrot like 'justifiable response' to any call for government to help the needy.
Unfortunately, financial help from the Government has always been meagre and publicized out of proportion for its own political image.
The recent S$1 billion assistance - if its distribution ever reach the account of the intended Singaporeans - will be diluted, and become insignificant in any amount that can SUSTAIN the Singaporean needy over a sufficient period to help those needy in overcoming their circumstances.
The key word is a SUSTAINING PROGRAM that will see the NEXT GENERATION -of those in the lower strata of Singapore Society - get out of the vicious cycle of poverty.
This problem has been with us for the last FORTY YEARS since independence, and the present Government a.k.a the Ruling Party has been interested more in its FINANCIAL GAINS and BOTTOM LINES of all its adventures overseas - operating more like a MNC than a Government Administration working for the BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
There are many training programs available, are you a Singaporean?
'One way is to upgrade' - some fancy term with this word 'UPGRADE' ?
What is the program to assist those who are need to 'UPGRADE' ?
And what is your suggestion to help the needy in the long run? Have them suckered on welfare?
You mean govt need to subsidise businesses?
The fact that there are needy persons is due largely to the dislocation of workers from their jobs due to added competition - and without Government assistance in terms of legislation and programs, companies are forced to downsize or go bust.
How to do that? pls explain.
The inclusion of GLCs actually create job sin Singapore and not teh other way around. Had there been no GLCs, the economy would have beeen weaker and more people would be employed.
Competition between Singaporean Companies against Government Linked Companies, and against Foreign Companies in the Global Market place - has resulted in this dislocation of the Singaporean workers..
You mean you want tax payers money to subsidise businesses w/o accountability? What rubbish are you talking about?
There is a multitude of supposedly help programs to assist the Singaporean Companies but all tied to fancy bureaucratic red tapes that demand costly restructuring of ongoing businesses to become more transparent - meaning exposing to additional tax.
Again you are wrong. Had there not been competition, even more jobs would have been lost and our people would have been less competitive.
Workers have been dislocated due to competition from FOREIGNERS, who are let in freely even when there is a Singaporean with the relevant skills for the same post - but there is NO LAW TO PROTECT the Singaporean, where even in the First World economies, laws are in place to protect the jobs intended for its Citizens (Australia, France, Germany, Japan, UK, and USA).
And why not if they can do a good job? Don't you want better service? Don't you want our people to grow w more competition?
The Hotel and Food & Beverage Industries have seen a large influx of foreigners - (mostly Caucasians) - filling up the posts at the same salary scale paid to Singaporeans.
So where will the money come from? The poor?
Did anyone ask for the Government to tax the Rich and redistribute wealth ?
I don't think help was meagre by any measure. How much is enough for you?
This has always been the 'justifiable response' to any call for government to help the needy - but financial help from the Government has been meagre and publicized out of proportion for the same of political image.
Why is that so, pls explain your claim.
The recent S$1 billion assistance - if its distribution ever reach the account of the intended Singaporeans - will be diluted, and become insignificant in any amount that can SUSTAIN the Singaporean over a sufficient period to help those needy in overcoming their circumstances..
Then welfare is not the answer. Upgrading and behavior change is.
The key word is a SUSTAINING PROGRAM that will see the NEXT GENERATION -of those in the lower strata of Singapore Society - get out of the vicious cycle of poverty.
Good focus, on the bottom line. We sure don't want to subsisdise money losing enterprises.
This problem has been with us for the last FORTY YEARS since independence, and the present Government a.k.a the Ruling Party has been interested more in its FINANCIAL GAINS and BOTTOM LINES of all its adventures overseas - operating more like a MNC than a Government Administration working for the [b]BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE. -
as usual, all parties please give sources to support ur arguement
-
i agree with raty.
these whiners love to shoot vague rthetoric and keep repeating them as if its real. -
i mean tat u also provide sources or info for ur arguementOriginally posted by Salman:i agree with raty.
these whiners love to shoot vague rthetoric and keep repeating them as if its real. -
unless he can provide specific examples to his charge, how can i counter them with specifics?
-
if u dun provide reliable sources, how do u expect ppl to believe u? so from ur statement above, u mean u r bullsh!ting all the time?Originally posted by Salman:unless he can provide specific examples to his charge, how can i counter them with specifics? -
where are the specifics from him?
-
Surprise, surprise - you can write BUT still with more 'no brainers, one-liners'
Originally posted by Salman:
There are many training programs available, are you a Singaporean?
Original post by Atobe:
'One way is to upgrade' - some fancy term with this word 'UPGRADE' ?
What is the program to assist those who are need to 'UPGRADE' ?
And what is your suggestion to help the needy in the long run? Have them suckered on welfare?
Yes there are many training programs available - where are they ?
To start with - how about an Endowment Fund to supplement shortfalls in the family income so that the minimum Singaporean standard of a roof and utilities are paid for, and if need be minimum standard of health care and diet is ensured.
This will provide a foundation for the young in the needy family having a minimum SINGAPORE Standard of Living to be educated in an environment that encourages learning and NOT IN MISERY.:
You mean govt need to subsidise businesses?
Original Post by Atobe
The fact that there are needy persons is due largely to the dislocation of workers from their jobs due to added competition - and without Government assistance in terms of legislation and programs, companies are forced to downsize or go bust.
How to do that? pls explain.
The Government is already providing subsidies to businesses - only the larger ones are benefitting directly, while the SME's will have to seek out the programs and ensure that they qualify for the programs.
If you can read, it was mentioned that there are NO LEGISLATIONS or PROGRAMS to help businesses to face UNFAIR COMPETITIONS - and NOT SUBSIDIES.
:
The inclusion of GLCs actually create job sin Singapore and not teh other way around. Had there been no GLCs, the economy would have beeen weaker and more people would be employed.
Original Post by Atobe
Competition between Singaporean Companies against Government Linked Companies, and against Foreign Companies in the Global Market place - has resulted in this dislocation of the Singaporean workers..
The GLCs have also removed a substantial number of jobs that were created by smaller enterprises, family own businesses, and a second tier of support industries and businesses that existed and helped Singapore to grow into a World Centre of Enterprise and Businesses BEFORE the GLC even existed.
It is due to the existence of GLCs that we have the Government lamenting today for the LACK of Entrepreneurship, Enterprise, and Adventure.:
You mean you want tax payers money to subsidise businesses w/o accountability? What rubbish are you talking about?
Original Post by Atobe
There is a multitude of supposedly help programs to assist the Singaporean Companies but all tied to fancy bureaucratic red tapes that demand costly restructuring of ongoing businesses to become more transparent - meaning exposing to additional tax.
Before you get into your knee jerked position - which I pity your tiring effort - it will be better for you to relax and let your grey matter work - without you trying to run around in circles
Accountability can take many forms and depends very much on the intended purpose.
Again, why are you quick to shoot that my proposed PROGRAMS refer to DIRECT SUBSIDIES ?
Stretch your tertiary educated economics trained mind a little more and you can appreciate some of the programs that can be designed to help businesses in the drive towards export.
Do I need to go into the full length of programs that can be conjured up
:
Again you are wrong. Had there not been competition, even more jobs would have been lost and our people would have been less competitive.
Original Post by Atobe
Workers have been dislocated due to competition from FOREIGNERS, who are let in freely even when there is a Singaporean with the relevant skills for the same post - but there is NO LAW TO PROTECT the Singaporean, where even in the First World economies, laws are in place to protect the jobs intended for its Citizens (Australia, France, Germany, Japan, UK, and USA).
What kind of foolish argument have your given that :
"Had there not been competition, even more jobs would have been lost and our people would have been less competitive " 
The local SME's have faced tremendoous competition from GLCs, are the small and medium enterprises more competitive, or have they been wiped out ?
Our people has been made to be less competitive due to the pipe dream of the Ruling Political Party of achieving a SWISS STANDARD OF LIVING by artificially forcing an increase IN WAGES over a period of ten years during the GCT term in office.
Having made our highly paid workers no longer competitive, they also opened the doors to foreigners to compete with jobs that local talents are qualified for, while the same jobs in the foreign countries are protected for their own citizens.
Has the Government made us LESS COMPETITIVE on both counts of High Wages and non-legislation ?:
And why not if they can do a good job? Don't you want better service? Don't you want our people to grow w more competition?
Original Post by Atobe
The Hotel and Food & Beverage Industries have seen a large influx of foreigners - (mostly Caucasians) - filling up the posts at the same salary scale paid to Singaporeans.
Are you implying that Singaporeans cannot do as well despite being educated, trained, and having years of experience on the job ?
Service at what price ? Another pipe dream coming from a SWISS STANDARD with the accompanying SWISS COST ?
Is it any wonder that your arguments cannot grow beyond the 'no brainer, one-liner' when faced with so much competition from forum contributors who exercise their brains and contribute with substance 
You see, competition can limit one's growth as proven in your situation
-
continuation:
:
So where will the money come from? The poor?
Original Post by Atobe
Did anyone ask for the Government to tax the Rich and redistribute wealth ?
Besides being 'no brainer' with your 'one liners' - you are also blind, perhaps
Don't you see the amount of flush money collected from the POOR SINGAPOREANS, and which the Government is bringing overseas, enriching the foreigners - who sell their stocks to the GLCs
All that is needed is A SMALL PERCENTAGE of that FLUSH MONEY collected from Singaporeans to be returned to some ENDOWMENT FUND that can benefit the needy Singaporeans over the long term.
If you become less ANXIOUS to prove your 'no brainer, one-liner' position, perhaps you will become less inclined to run around in circles.:
I don't think help was meagre by any measure. How much is enough for you?
Original Post by Atobe
This has always been the 'justifiable response' to any call for government to help the needy - but financial help from the Government has been meagre and publicized out of proportion for the same of political image.
We NEED NOT ask for very much.
How about an annual contribution of ONE PERCENT from the combined audited earnings of GIC and Temasek Holdings - to be contributed into an ENDOWFUND for Singaporeans ? :
Why is that so, pls explain your claim.
Original Post by Atobe
The recent S$1 billion assistance - if its distribution ever reach the account of the intended Singaporeans - will be diluted, and become insignificant in any amount that can SUSTAIN the Singaporean over a sufficient period to help those needy in overcoming their circumstances..
It looks like you did not read my posting in the two threads and should go back to the threads if it interest you :
" Call for $1billion package to help low wage workers "
TooFree (12 January 2006)
" The road to welfarism is a slippery one - sounds familiar "
robertteh (14 January 2006):
Then welfare is not the answer. Upgrading and behavior change is.
Original Post by Atobe
The key word is a SUSTAINING PROGRAM that will see the NEXT GENERATION -of those in the lower strata of Singapore Society - get out of the vicious cycle of poverty.
We tried to change your behaviour in your favored 'no brainer, one-liners' but sadly to no avail.
Do you think it is easy to to change behaviour ?
What do you think the simple word 'UPGRADING' will mean, and how will the cost be covered ?:
Good focus, on the bottom line. We sure don't want to subsisdise money losing enterprises.
Original Post by Atobe
This problem has been with us for the last FORTY YEARS since independence, and the present Government a.k.a the Ruling Party has been interested more in its FINANCIAL GAINS and BOTTOM LINES of all its adventures overseas - operating more like a MNC than a Government Administration working for the BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE.
Did I miss a heartbeat or did your heart stop beating with your 'no brainer, one-liner'
It is unhealthy for your own image by contradicting your own position of talking about 'UPGRADING and BEHAVIOR changes' on one side, and talking about not 'subsidising money on a LOSING ENTERPRISE' .
Subsidising any effort to upgrade the lower strata is no guarantee that it will NOT become a losing enterprise; and neither will any attempt at behavior change be any more successful.
So why bother to be hypocritical and talk so majestically about 'UPGRADING' and 'BEHAVIOUR CHANGE' to get the needy to stand on their own
At the end of this extended effort of yours, your 'no brainer, one-liners' are just 'BIG TALK' and small in content'. -
I noticed that Salman has a strong opinion on certain topics (which is good) and yet does not really find out more about it (which is bad).
He is more interested in winning arguments for the sake of winning. This is accomplished by his quick fire one-liners and constant questioning. This might be perceived as a "no-brainer" kind of response but its not so much the lack of thought in his replies but rather the control he gains when he makes his opponent scramble for substantiations, sources and elaborations. And he follows up these substantiations, sources and elaborations by attacking these explanations causing them to look for even more explanations...
Result? He comes out as "level headed" for pointing out all the flaws and his opponents will come out looking like idiots trying to prove themselves...
I am impressed with the research done by Atobe and with Salman's quick logic (however misconscrewed).
Just my 2 peanuts worth. -
Where is your proof to such a claim? Pls substantiate it w evidence.
Don't you see the amount of flush money collected from the POOR SINGAPOREANS, and which the Government is bringing overseas, enriching the foreigners - who sell their stocks to the GLCs Question Exclamation Exclamation
All that is needed is A SMALL PERCENTAGE of that FLUSH MONEY collected from Singaporeans to be returned to some ENDOWMENT FUND that can benefit the needy Singaporeans over the long term.
Why would the govt want to do such a thing? What is the logic? Kindly explain your charges.
You stupid fella! I'm not mr.Green. I think you are so paranoid of this mr.green you are beginning to see him in every forum you visit.
If you become less ANXIOUS to prove your 'no brainer, one-liner' position, perhaps you will become less inclined to run around in circles. Mr. Green
So how much is much and why?
We NEED NOT ask for very much.
Isn't the govt giving out more than that to the poor already?
How about an annual contribution of ONE PERCENT from the combined audited earnings of GIC and Temasek Holdings - to be contributed into an ENDOWFUND for Singaporeans ? Mr. Green Mr. Green
Those did not answer me question. You go back and read your own posts again please.
" Call for $1billion package to help low wage workers "
TooFree (12 January 2006)
" The road to welfarism is a slippery one - sounds familiar "
robertteh (14 January 2006)
Those one liners make you think and confront your no brainers. They are full of wisdom and will do you a lot of good.
We tried to change your behaviour in your favored 'no brainer, one-liners' but sadly to no avail.
so wats the alternative? Welfare forever? What is the solution that you bring to the argument? How do you really think yu can hlp the poor?
Do you think it is easy to to change behaviour ? Mr. Green
They govt already provides assistance in training, out of the national coffers.
What do you think the simple word 'UPGRADING' will mean, and how will the cost be covered ? Rolling Eyes
So what is your alternative again? Welfare?
Me one liner floored you didn't I? You see how easy it is to dispel your charges?
Did I miss a heartbeat or did your heart stop beating with your 'no brainer, one-liner' Question Cool
Does upgrading mean subsidising losing enterprise? Where? Who said that? You mr.Atobe?
It is unhealthy for your own image by contradicting your own position of talking about 'UPGRADING and BEHAVIOR changes' on one side, and talking about not 'subsidising money on a LOSING ENTERPRISE' . Rolling Eyes
So wat is your alternative again? Welfare again? What?
Subsidising any effort to upgrade the lower strata is no guarantee that it will NOT become a losing enterprise; and neither will any attempt at behavior change be any more successful. -
I noticed that firstly Salman assumes that other forumers want welfare from the govt (even though no one said so) and went on to attack this "welfarism" with righteous indignation.
Perhaps Salman can show us figures substatiating how the poor in sg have benefitted from the packages that the govt gives us? Instead of replying with another question (ie show me how the poor in sg did NOT benefit) or assuming that the rest of the forumers want welfare. -
BTW, mr green is an icon, not a degradatory term.
-
While I agree with you on upgrading, the courses are not cheap. You expect the retrenched to use more than half their savings to upgrade themselves? Look at the trend now. Most of the retrenched are 40 years old and above. Even if they passed the course with flying colours, employers will find reasons not to hire them, like saying they are too old. With more than half their savings gone, how do expect them to survive?Originally posted by Salman:The best help for the needy in the long run is for them to lift up themselves to gainful employment. One way is to upgrade. The govt cannot be expected to always redistribute wealth by taxing the rich and pay for the poor. That is not a long term solution.
Don't tell me got subsidies. They only provide subsidies if you are working with a company that supports the program. Otherwise, nothing. -
40 and above employees need to be less choosy. They may indeed have to settle for job sthat are less pay and glamorous.
The govt can train them but if the private sector do not employ them all, there is little that the govt can do more.
Personally, I have had problems with older workers. Some are not willing to learn and some have attitude problems. Its not that I didn't tried hiring them.
Perhaps the longer term change needed is for older workers to be more adaptable and professional. I'm sure that if they are willing, there is a market for their skills. -
You can be so pathetic "smoked" - is it any wonder that you have to run around in circles around anyone who is willing to tolerate your childish anticsOriginally posted by Salman:
Where is your proof to such a claim? Pls substantiate it w evidence.
Posted by Atobe
Don't you see the amount of flush money collected from the POOR SINGAPOREANS, and which the Government is bringing overseas, enriching the foreigners - who sell their stocks to the GLCs
All that is needed is A SMALL PERCENTAGE of that FLUSH MONEY collected from Singaporeans to be returned to some ENDOWMENT FUND that can benefit the needy Singaporeans over the long term.
Why would the govt want to do such a thing? What is the logic? Kindly explain your charges.
With a distorted mind that seems to be totally "smoked" - are you capable of understanding any simple reasoning - let alone your false bravado in asking for my logic ?
Where do you think all the SURPLUS comes from annually just from the collection of the Goods & Services Tax collected by the Singapore Government ?
Who do you think is paying for all the ridiculously high COE that is fixxed by the LTA, and which is transferred to the Ministry of Finance - whose surplus goes into GIC and Temasek Holding ?
Where do you think NTUC Income, Fairprice, Comfort, Health, Fairwell is getting their profits from - to build their spanking NTUC Building that benefits only the Union Leadership but not the Workers ?
Are you capable to be honest in squaring the above questions ?
You stupid fella! I'm not mr.Green. I think you are so paranoid of this mr.green you are beginning to see him in every forum you visit.
If you become less ANXIOUS to prove your 'no brainer, one-liner' position, perhaps you will become less inclined to run around in circles. Mr. Green
If you are dim witted, can we expect you to see the light 
Can we blame you for being so, if you keep running around in circles that lead no where and only confuse your mind that cause you to make "no brainer, one-liners" ?
So how much is much and why?
We NEED NOT ask for very much.
More "no brainer, one-liners"
Was this not already answered in the other thread - or do you ask merely for the fun of asking, without any interest in reading at all
You seem to have a masochistic penchant for being minced - or are you simply plain dumb to keep coming back for more
Isn't the govt giving out more than that to the poor already?
How about an annual contribution of ONE PERCENT from the combined audited earnings of GIC and Temasek Holdings - to be contributed into an ENDOWFUND for Singaporeans ? Mr. Green Mr. Green
Do you believe so
Substantiate it - as you have so often asked - if you believe that the Singapore Government is giving out more than the ONE PERCENT that is stated.
Those did not answer me question. You go back and read your own posts again please.
" Call for $1billion package to help low wage workers "
TooFree (12 January 2006)
" The road to welfarism is a slippery one - sounds familiar "
robertteh (14 January 2006)
In your pathetic state of mind, do you even know what you have asked, let alone knowing what the answers have been printed in those two threads
Those one liners make you think and confront your no brainers. They are full of wisdom and will do you a lot of good.
We tried to change your behaviour in your favored 'no brainer, one-liners' but sadly to no avail.
Only those who are conceited and desparate will believe in themselves enough to take themselves seriously.
The older I grow the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom.
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
so wats the alternative? Welfare forever? What is the solution that you bring to the argument? How do you really think yu can hlp the poor?
Do you think it is easy to to change behaviour ? Mr. Green
Keep running around the bottom of my pants, and you may find some answers that I have posted and which you refused to see. -
continuation:
They govt already provides assistance in training, out of the national coffers.
What do you think the simple word 'UPGRADING' will mean, and how will the cost be covered ? Rolling Eyes
So what is your alternative again? Welfare?
Is "welfare" your favorite penchant to stick onto others, so that you can run circles around others
Be a good and well behaved puppy, and we may just satisfy you with some of our welfarism.
Since all the hoopla during its launch is now long gone, how many jobless and those who are needy have benefitted from this Training Program ?
"National coffers" - you seem to refer to this as if it does not belong to Singaporeans, and that it is generosity on the part of the Government to extend such help to Singaporeans
Me one liner floored you didn't I? You see how easy it is to dispel your charges?
Did I miss a heartbeat or did your heart stop beating with your 'no brainer, one-liner' Question Cool
Me floored when it is your heartbeat that I missed ?
You are truly desparate in trying to climb out of the hole that you have dug for yourself - with the brainless position that you have taken
Does upgrading mean subsidising losing enterprise? Where? Who said that? You mr.Atobe?
It is unhealthy for your own image by contradicting your own position of talking about 'UPGRADING and BEHAVIOR changes' on one side, and talking about not 'subsidising money on a LOSING ENTERPRISE' . Rolling Eyes
Acting like a virgin after getting scorched 
Not too clever an approach, unless you enjoyed the last one so much that you are looking for more
So wat is your alternative again? Welfare again? What?
Subsidising any effort to upgrade the lower strata is no guarantee that it will NOT become a losing enterprise; and neither will any attempt at behavior change be any more successful.
"Welfare again ? " - it never escape your limited vocabulary - does it ?
Read my post, and if your tertiary education cannot help you to understand, God forbid, why am I indulging with your stupendous intelligence -
Originally posted by Salman:
Is that fulfilling one's responsibility ?
40 and above employees need to be less choosy. They may indeed have to settle for job sthat are less pay and glamorous.
The govt can train them but if the private sector do not employ them all, there is little that the govt can do more.
Personally, I have had problems with older workers. Some are not willing to learn and some have attitude problems. Its not that I didn't tried hiring them.
Perhaps the longer term change needed is for older workers to be more adaptable and professional. I'm sure that if they are willing, there is a market for their skills.
Are you also implying that after all the University Graduates have been trained at our University, and if the Graduates cannot find employment that is not the Government's problem ?
At the peak of the recession, older workers have been willing to work in alternative jobs, with retraining given - but some of those jobs have been occupied by FOREIGNERS.
A finance manager after having been retrenched, decides to take on a new career path in the hotel industry - looking after the conditions of the guest rooms. Surely his years of experience as a senior manager will at least allow him to occupy any vacant seat in the Hotel Management that looks after the Guest Rooms.
In our current tight labor market, where workers exceed available jobs, those jobs in the hotels are occupied by foreigners.
Similar jobs that a local can perform better with local knowledge are taken from Singaporeans.
More often then not, the older workers have been very professional in their positive attitude and have been flexible with the demands imposed on them.
It is those who are comfortably employed, and are smug in their attitudes about employing the older workers with their bias and prejudiced views that are less then professional in handling the job application from these older workers.
How often have we heard smug comments that the older workers "are not willing to learn and some have attitude problems" ?
Those who can speak so unprofessionally in this manner - about older workers - have actually revealed a high degree of insecurity on the part of the speaker.
Is it any wonder that with a smoked Salmanic brain like yours that keep you perpetually running in circles, you can only adopt the bias and prejudiced attitude towards older workers
Every DOG has its day - you will also be in the same shoes that walk the same aged path. -
Thats just my experience with older workers. Lots of attitude problems. I blame the govt for spoiling them. Nothing unprofessional on my part.
I prefer locals anytime. Never hired foreigners before. -
All this arguing is pointless.
Just let time prove the point.
When you younger generation grow old, you'll see just how is it like being an older worker in Singapore.
Lets see you walk thy talks. -
obviously you are someone educated and rich. cant expect you to understand.Originally posted by Salman:The best help for the needy in the long run is for them to lift up themselves to gainful employment. One way is to upgrade. The govt cannot be expected to always redistribute wealth by taxing the rich and pay for the poor. That is not a long term solution.