WP Manifesto Online
-
with our reserves being comparable to almost any nation in the world, i really do find it hard to justify why some of the taxes cannot be forgo despite being on of the smallest country in the world.
-
So you mean we need more funds, we just go to dig funds out from the reserves?Originally posted by giggs011:with our reserves being comparable to almost any nation in the world, i really do find it hard to justify why some of the taxes cannot be forgo despite being on of the smallest country in the world. -
ahem....the Suzhou investment saga??? how come so quiet????Originally posted by sbst275:So you mean we need more funds, we just go to dig funds out from the reserves?
-
Actually ar, foreign investment I dun wanna say... It's embrassing enough over the GIC Korean investment incidentOriginally posted by duotiga83:ahem....the Suzhou investment saga??? how come so quiet????
But whatever it is, we as citizens shouldn't have the minset of digging the reserves when we need the money. -
but all involves $$$ right? If the current $$$ you cant settle, why mention reserves in the 1st place?Originally posted by sbst275:Actually ar, foreign investment I dun wanna say... It's embrassing enough over the GIC Korean investment incident
But whatever it is, we as citizens shouldn't have the minset of digging the reserves when we need the money. -
im not saying digging the reserves...Originally posted by sbst275:Actually ar, foreign investment I dun wanna say... It's embrassing enough over the GIC Korean investment incident
But whatever it is, we as citizens shouldn't have the minset of digging the reserves when we need the money.
when have i mentioned abt digging the reserves
the idea is...do we need such an amt of reserves in the 1st place...
its like you are keeping 1 million in yr bank while yr children are eating biscuits struggling everyday. -
Hmm.. Your're rightOriginally posted by duotiga83:but all involves $$$ right? If the current $$$ you cant settle, why mention reserves in the 1st place? -
The other question is
Do singapore really has such an amount of reserve in the first place?? -
Fine enough, there really needs a cap...Originally posted by giggs011:im not saying digging the reserves...
when have i mentioned abt digging the reserves
the idea is...do we need such an amt of reserves in the 1st place...
its like you are keeping 1 million in yr bank while yr children are eating biscuits struggling everyday. -
in layman term, they "gamble" our $$$$ to foreign investment and [CAPPED] CPF.......what can you say????Originally posted by sbst275:Hmm.. Your're right -
I'd rather it be the extras to be in everyone's CPFOriginally posted by duotiga83:in layman term, they "gamble" our $$$$ to foreign investment and [CAPPED] CPF.......what can you say???? -
its the same as everyday we are being told that CPF money is for our old age and if we draw it now we would have problems when we grow oldOriginally posted by sbst275:Actually ar, foreign investment I dun wanna say... It's embrassing enough over the GIC Korean investment incident
But whatever it is, we as citizens shouldn't have the minset of digging the reserves when we need the money.
BUT if i cant even sustain myself now, owning debts everywhere...starving everyday u tell me to thk when i grow old??
doesnt this sounds stupid?
past > present > future
things always follow this logic
no present no future...dont tell my abt my future when im already having trouble making ends meet in the present.
and if i cant make it meet...there is already no future for me -
the thing is that we cant even take out OUR reserve *ahem* CPF $$$$ till the age of 65 with what($850,000 min?) since when our old population have that kind of $$$$Originally posted by sbst275:I'd rather it be the extras to be in everyone's CPF -
i thk u want to put $85,000Originally posted by duotiga83:the thing is that we cant even take out OUR reserve *ahem* CPF $$$$ till the age of 65 with what($850,000 min?) since when our old population have that kind of $$$$
but sorry it has already been raised to $120,000
as for having that amt of money...
i would say NO CHANCE when yr 1st world government sells you a tiny flat for $200,000 to $400,000 which most pple spends their entire working life financing it. -
my mom is 60 and is already kpkb to me already......Originally posted by giggs011:i thk u want to put $85,000
but sorry it has already been raised to $120,000
as for having that amt of money...
i would say NO CHANCE when yr 1st world government sells you a tiny flat for $200,000 to $400,000 which most pple spends their entire working life financing it. -
seriously now here in SINGAPORE...unless you are RICH.....else you will be STRUGGLING every year with the RISING cos of lIVING....
-
Your views are neither right nor wrong. But I disagree with most of themOriginally posted by sbst275:WP's manifesto
Again, my views, it may be right or wrong
Government & civil liberties
1. The Office of Elected President should be abolished and the Presidency should be reverted to its former ceremonial position.
A president shouldn't be elected by parliment
2. Parliamentary elections should be organized by an independent election commission, not by the Prime Minister's Office.
I do agree on this over this point
3. Group Representation Constituencies should be abolished.
Why? If everything goes back to fully SMC, then for this case, chinese canidate should be capped at 63 out of 84 seats if based on the quota to ensure minority are represented
4. Internal Security Act should be abolished.
Abolish it? Then how are terror suspects going to be treated?
5. Peaceful demonstrations should be allowed.
Any peaceful demostration can turn into a violent one
Re 5, the solution is simple. Let the police do crowd control and help prevent trouble makers from stuirring up trouble. The presence of cops will help make it easier to collect evidence or witness testimony when trouble does crop up. And make arrests when it turns violent.
4. The terror suspects should be treated in accordance with the principles of the Rule of Law: That is, at least, he should be assumed innocent until proven otherwise, and he should not be detained indefinitely w/o charges being brought against him. Imagine being locked up and not being told why you have been locked up. The potential for abuse here is also enormous since there is so much secrecy here. You could disappear and no one would know why.
3. I do not agree. If no minotiry candidate can gather enough support on his own, why should be be in parliament? Minority representation can be secured in other ways. Eg set up a Racial Equality Commission or somesort to influence and help steer govt policy.
1. Actually, I dun see why we even need a president. At least, I dun see why we need a president who performs the same fuction as the one we have now. Abolish the office, or give the president concrete powers. And make the elections of the president 'whiter than white'. -
AND that flat depreciates in value as its lease runs out. No retirement dreams for them then! Sell up and get a 'place in the sun'? Dream on.Originally posted by giggs011:i thk u want to put $85,000
but sorry it has already been raised to $120,000
as for having that amt of money...
i would say NO CHANCE when yr 1st world government sells you a tiny flat for $200,000 to $400,000 which most pple spends their entire working life financing it. -
That's why it needs a change, aft 55 you can withdraw them.. As for the amt, I believe both citizens and govt have a part to contributeOriginally posted by duotiga83:the thing is that we cant even take out OUR reserve *ahem* CPF $$$$ till the age of 65 with what($850,000 min?) since when our old population have that kind of $$$$ -
Originally posted by lwflee:
How much can you control when the situation becomes out of hand? The police have to send in reinforcement and by the time more manpower come, many properties may have been damaged
Your views are neither right nor wrong. But I disagree with most of them
Re 5, the solution is simple. Let the police do crowd control and help prevent trouble makers from stuirring up trouble. The presence of cops will help make it easier to collect evidence or witness testimony when trouble does crop up. And make arrests when it turns violent.
4. The terror [b]suspects should be treated in accordance with the principles of the Rule of Law: That is, at least, he should be assumed innocent until proven otherwise, and he should not be detained indefinitely w/o charges being brought against him. Imagine being locked up and not being told why you have been locked up. The potential for abuse here is also enormous since there is so much secrecy here. You could disappear and no one would know why.
3. I do not agree. If no minotiry candidate can gather enough support on his own, why should be be in parliament? Minority representation can be secured in other ways. Eg set up a Racial Equality Commission or somesort to influence and help steer govt policy.
1. Actually, I dun see why we even need a president. At least, I dun see why we need a president who performs the same fuction as the one we have now. Abolish the office, or give the president concrete powers. And make the elections of the president 'whiter than white'.
[/b]
I believe the West also have such laws similar to the ISA to deal with terror suspects, it's only how you 'package' it
Why should he or she be in parliment? It's a dangerous thinking, maybe 1 day, really there's no miniority canidate, they might find the chinese dominating the politics. Set up a commission? They are not law making bodies, so what can they do?
As for a president, they really do need power -
Originally posted by lwflee:
I beg to differ for point 5. How much can the police do when they are up against a rowdy crowd? Making arrests when it starts to turn violent, how do we define violent?
Your views are neither right nor wrong. But I disagree with most of them
Re 5, the solution is simple. Let the police do crowd control and help prevent trouble makers from stuirring up trouble. The presence of cops will help make it easier to collect evidence or witness testimony when trouble does crop up. And make arrests when it turns violent.
4. The terror [b]suspects should be treated in accordance with the principles of the Rule of Law: That is, at least, he should be assumed innocent until proven otherwise, and he should not be detained indefinitely w/o charges being brought against him. Imagine being locked up and not being told why you have been locked up. The potential for abuse here is also enormous since there is so much secrecy here. You could disappear and no one would know why.
3. I do not agree. If no minotiry candidate can gather enough support on his own, why should be be in parliament? Minority representation can be secured in other ways. Eg set up a Racial Equality Commission or somesort to influence and help steer govt policy.
1. Actually, I dun see why we even need a president. At least, I dun see why we need a president who performs the same fuction as the one we have now. Abolish the office, or give the president concrete powers. And make the elections of the president 'whiter than white'.
[/b]
Besides, making arrests will only have 2 possibilities:
1) The people will be scared so they disperse on their own. That would be good. It prevents further casualties.
2) The people will become angry and the peaceful demostration will turn violent. It will be hard to control from then on. -
If you have doubt about our Singapore Reserves, read the following :Originally posted by Cindyfeh:The other question is
Do singapore really has such an amount of reserve in the first place??
If you care to look into the paper prepared by a Dr Tan Khee Giap, Head of ASEAN Economies Monitoring Unit, Nanyang Business School, NTU, Adjunct Senior Fellow, Institute of Policy Studies, Singapore - the Singapore Annual Budget Surplus was as follows:
1997 +S$5.25 Billion (8.5% GDP Growth over past year)
1998 +S$0.93 Billion (-0.1% )
1999 +S$4.88 Billion (6.9% )
2000 +S$3.98 Billion (10.3% )
2001 - S$2.70 Billion (-2%)
2002 - S$0.09 Billion (2.2%)
2003 - S$1.80 Billion (1.1%)
2004 - S$1.35 Billion (5%)
2005 ? S$0.00 Billion (5% ? )
Considering that 2004 was a bad year for Singapore, according to a report from Bloomberg, Temasek Holdings had a sterling year :Oct. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Temasek Holdings Pte earned S$7.4 billion ($4.4 billion) in the last fiscal year, the Singapore state-owned investment company said, revealing details of its financial performance for the first time in its 30-year history.
Can you believe that in a bad year when the Singapore Economy had suffered a budget deficity of -S$1.35 Billion, Temasek Holding had reported a sterling year performance of S$7.4 Billion ?
Temasek, headed by Ho Ching, the wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, had S$90 billion of assets as of March 31, it said in its first public annual report. It had a total return of 46 percent in the year to March 31, 2004, compared with a Singapore dollar return of 59 percent for the Morgan Stanley Capital International Asia-Pacific Index, according to Bloomberg data.
Is it any wonder that during these supposed critically bad years, the Singapore Reserves continue to grow - Yr on Yr - according to the "available data taken from the Singapore Authorites and the IMF" -
Gross official reserves:
2001 US$75.8 Billion
2002 US$82.3 Billion
2003 US$96.3 Billion
2004 US$112.8 Billion
2005 ??? . Note the values are in US Dollars
Will we ever know whether the above figures include the surplus from the performance of GIC and Temasek Holdings ?
Will ever know what is the true picture of the Singapore Reserves and the profitability or loss status in the way our Singapore Reserves is being managed ? -
That's why you have policemen there to provide a presence, maintain control and take preventive action! If need be, the riot police should be out B4 problems really spark off. In any case, the fact of the matter is, the vast majority of protests remain peaceful. Police presence will further lower the chanvce of violence. Remember, how many political rallies have there been? Were there wanton violence invovled? No.Originally posted by sbst275:How much can you control when the situation becomes out of hand? The police have to send in reinforcement and by the time more manpower come, many properties may have been damaged
I believe the West also have such laws similar to the ISA to deal with terror suspects, it's only how you 'package' it
Why should he or she be in parliment? It's a dangerous thinking, maybe 1 day, really there's no miniority canidate, they might find the chinese dominating the politics. Set up a commission? They are not law making bodies, so what can they do?
As for a president, they really do need power
I dun really care if the west have those powers. If they do, I disagree with them. The problem is that they are not learning the lessons of their past. Take the UK. Northern Ireland should have taught them that detaining a person w/o trial is open to abuse and serves to ferment violence. Luckily, they have the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights to stop them when they decided to take things too far.
Why is it 'dangerous'? The best man should be in parliament. I want the best man or woman to represent me. I do not want someone who is there only because of the colour of his/her skin. I do not believe in discrimination, with one exception. Discrimination on grounds of ability is a MUST. Else, we are on the path to mediocrity and our future can only be bleak. Now, maybe we could have a 2nd chamber, akin to the UK's House of Lords. This chamber could consist of such people as supreme court judges, captains of industry and representatives from the various religions and minority groups. Of couse, because this chamber is not elected, they should not have a power of veto. But they should, at least, be able to delay legislation. -
You are right in a sense. What I was trying to say is that arrests can be made if something goes wrong. That is, that those who break the law can be charged with the relevent offences. I did not mean that arrests should only be made when it starts to turn violent.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:I beg to differ for point 5. How much can the police do when they are up against a rowdy crowd? Making arrests when it starts to turn violent, how do we define violent?
Besides, making arrests will only have 2 possibilities:
1) The people will be scared so they disperse on their own. That would be good. It prevents further casualties.
2) The people will become angry and the peaceful demostration will turn violent. It will be hard to control from then on.
Whether or not arrests should be made will be up to the commanders on the ground. -
Ups!
