World Bank concerned about SG's bio-medical sector spinoffs.
-
alright i'm no moderator but you guys should all take a step back and stop with the personal attacks.
On another note, it's not "the" government. Unless you arent Singaporean it's our government no matter what. In times like these, i feel on a personal basis we should support them. Since they decided to go ahead with the biomed then we support the biomed.
What i would prefer to find is a constructive discussion to be placed here is to be like e.g okay the government should look into -this- of -that- kind of biomed research...rather than turn it all off completely. If there's a suggestion of "removing" the sector...how many jobs will be affected? We must realise that even if there's only 1 singaporean that benefit from this biomed we should not just take it away now..especially i'm sure there's more than 1 singaporean who benefits.(but this is just me)
I do not know much about the above topic but hey, i look forward to hearing opinions related to the topic.
Facts and figures can be changed (yeah, just because gov's looks too good and external's looks too bad and you hate the gov means the bad results are really facts.) -
It is fine to be a gentleman in a debate but when one side is simply refusing to give any evidence to support his view and refuses to accord the other side any respect, the gloves are off. As it is, OM has successfully pissed off many by not addressing points raised by others and instead go on and attack the person's credibility. You could even smell LKY's style in his style of debate, recalling that time where he called some Opposition bugger "sneaky" with a look that looks like "I will crush this idiot like an insect he is". All published in the papers too.Originally posted by CM06:alright i'm no moderator but you guys should all take a step back and stop with the personal attacks.
On another note, it's not "the" government. Unless you arent Singaporean it's our government no matter what. In times like these, i feel on a personal basis we should support them. Since they decided to go ahead with the biomed then we support the biomed.
What i would prefer to find is a constructive discussion to be placed here is to be like e.g okay the government should look into -this- of -that- kind of biomed research...rather than turn it all off completely. If there's a suggestion of "removing" the sector...how many jobs will be affected? We must realise that even if there's only 1 singaporean that benefit from this biomed we should not just take it away now..especially i'm sure there's more than 1 singaporean who benefits.(but this is just me)
I do not know much about the above topic but hey, i look forward to hearing opinions related to the topic.
Facts and figures can be changed (yeah, just because gov's looks too good and external's looks too bad and you hate the gov means the bad results are really facts.) -
I will put down my objections and irritations simply:
Fact 1: The Govt trumpets the biotech industry as a great booming industry.
Reality: Really, it is simply another attempt to start up a whole new manufacturing sub-sector after the debacle involving electronics industry. Simply put: Same o' strategy in wine bottles. Reality is that manufacturing has its limits and the higher the ladder we go, the less people gets employed and eventually the factories will move elsewhere as costs go high. Long run? Same o' problem, AGAIN.
Fact 2: The Govt regards biotech research will produce gains in the future.
Reality: The Govt's approach to research is incredibly bureacratic and has successfully driven off some of our best talents years ago. The Govt never accorded enough funding into the Sciences for decades since they felt it won't generate monetary returns. Since there was no interest, our brightest felt they had better opportunities else where and left. No big surprise that even today, A*Star scholars still break bonds for the same reason. Even then, the Govt allocated funds to engineering and applied research, which of course yielded nothing if anything. Now the Govt comes around and plows tonnes of cash into Biotech ONLY in hopes to catch up. Yet, the culture of research isn't here and the Govt imposes a requirement on profs and researchers to produce a finite amount of papers in a year. It has long been known that the quality of our research is quite pathetic since most of these papers are quite worthless. Seems the Govt doesn't know that some research takes a while to bear fruit and producing a paper about some uncompleted project is a waste of time. But hey, NUS/NTU have been doing this for a long time.
Fostering a research environment requires a wide range of sciences and they must be flourishing. Only where there is a wide range of sciences will there be interdisciplinary research and then allow people to share ideas. There was one Physics Nobel laureate if I recall made a dramatic switch to biophysics. You won't get that in Singapore at this rate. Forget about Nobels too. The environment is stifling and too pressurizing. Fudging of results will occur as a result and then you get lousy papers which are not well cited. -
many here make jokes or have not done proper home works for SG factory
contributions.
Out of S$19.86 b collected by IRAS,$7.3 b came from manufacturing.
While electronoics accounts for 29% GDP in manufacturing sector,Biomedical
accounts for 25%,almost strated from zero few years back!!--APPENDIX 2,INLAND REVENUE AUTHORITY OF SINGAPOREÂ’S COLLECTION BY TAX TYPE.
--http://www.iras.gov.sg/ESVPortal/other_info/about_iras/annual+report+2005.asp
2.The defense spending come from factories tax collections!! -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
many here make jokes or have not done proper home works for SG factory
contributions.
[b]Out of S$19.86 b collected by IRAS,$7.3 b came from manufacturing.
While electronoics accounts for 29% GDP in manufacturing sector,Biomedical
accounts for 25%,almost strated from zero few years back!!--APPENDIX 2,INLAND REVENUE AUTHORITY OF SINGAPOREÂ’S COLLECTION BY TAX TYPE.
--http://www.iras.gov.sg/ESVPortal/other_info/about_iras/annual+report+2005.asp
2.The defense spending come from factories tax collections!![/b]
You know, high GDP <> jobs for everyone you know. As it is, the no. of people employed is getting fewer. I hope you know what is "structural unemployment". It is one thing to brandish statistics around, it is another to understand what lies behind them. -
You started a thread with a report from the World Bank, no analysis, no comments, assuming what the World Bank said is right. It is pretty clear there should be a debate, isn't it? or are you expecting everybody to just support you by agreeing with what the WB said? this is a speakers corners why should any airtime and consequential online presence be given just to re present a report from the WB?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Why bother engaging someone who only supports his own stand and refuses to engage in inclusive debate.
Anyway, why even bother to engage those who want to be pro-PAP for the sake of shining the party gloss? Why give them the airtime and consequential online presence that "debating" them takes?
Ignore their threads if they persist and deny them a online presence/credibility unless they are willing to engage in serious, veritable discussions.
then we have Lionnoisy and oxford mushroom giving info from government, and on the other sides we have Fingolfin_Noldor and Atobe giving detailed disputes point by point. Despite the pro government and anti government overtone, readers are learning something.
Then you have Deportivo posting simple statement "You are one sucker for the statistics fabricated by our government" and maurizio13 's "loinnoisy is not a sucker for statistics fabricated by the government, loinnoisy is the government."
isn't it clear who are engaging in debates and who are just passing remarks to please the anti PAP sentiment around here?
Serious, veritable discussion is not a presentation of one sided anti pap or anti government opinions. We heard much from the debate between Philip Yeo, one of the government, and Dr Lee Wei Ling, LKY's daughter. Let's hear what others have to say, from both sides. -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
numbers, numbers, numbers. really a PAP elite.
many here make jokes or have not done proper home works for SG factory
contributions.
[b]Out of S$19.86 b collected by IRAS,$7.3 b came from manufacturing.
While electronoics accounts for 29% GDP in manufacturing sector,Biomedical
accounts for 25%,almost strated from zero few years back!!--APPENDIX 2,INLAND REVENUE AUTHORITY OF SINGAPOREÂ’S COLLECTION BY TAX TYPE.
--http://www.iras.gov.sg/ESVPortal/other_info/about_iras/annual+report+2005.asp
2.The defense spending come from factories tax collections!![/b] -
Haha, you should know that most of the time, I merely post an article and let everyone figure out for themselves.Originally posted by sgdiehard:You started a thread with a report from the World Bank, no analysis, no comments, assuming what the World Bank said is right. It is pretty clear there should be a debate, isn't it? or are you expecting everybody to just support you by agreeing with what the WB said? this is a speakers corners why should any airtime and consequential online presence be given just to re present a report from the WB?
then we have Lionnoisy and oxford mushroom giving info from government, and on the other sides we have Fingolfin_Noldor and Atobe giving detailed disputes point by point. Despite the pro government and anti government overtone, readers are learning something.
Then you have Deportivo posting simple statement "You are one sucker for the statistics fabricated by our government" and maurizio13 's "loinnoisy is not a sucker for statistics fabricated by the government, loinnoisy is the government."
isn't it clear who are engaging in debates and who are just passing remarks to please the anti PAP sentiment around here?
Serious, veritable discussion is not a presentation of one sided anti pap or anti government opinions. We heard much from the debate between Philip Yeo, one of the government, and Dr Lee Wei Ling, LKY's daughter. Let's hear what others have to say, from both sides.
When I wrote that above paragraph, I was referring to the whole Speakers' Corner phenomenon of having certain individuals who refuse to take into account the views of others and constantly going back to his/her own views instead of debating all the views that come in; not focusing on whether this World Bank article is true or not in my eyes or in anyone elses. -
The profit of Glaxo is 20% more than the S$30 Billion EXPENSE of the Singapore Government - as you have already printed - yet Glaxo CEO's remuneration is only FOUR TIME more than Singapore's PM.Originally posted by lionnoisy:replt to Atobe post 11.02.2007
Summary remuneration report for the year to 31 December 2004
Annual remuneration
in
....,total annual remuneration 2004
Dr JP Garnier,(US)$4,570,000
Dr T Yamada,US$2,303,000
Mr J Coombe,£1,237,000
Good things never come cheap!!Treat PM like the CEO lah,...
You pay cheap like Aussie,just a mess.Look at the military
spendings.If i am Aussie,i will vomite bloods......
2.No risks,no gains.So do u want SG do R& D or not?
Why are we paying our PM and his Ministers so much when they can spend S$30 BILLION, while Glaxo's PROFIT is 20% more than Singapore's expenditure ?
Are the Singapore Ministers capable to perform the work of those Researches in Glaxo, and accomplish the same Profit Result of Glaxo ?
How did you come to your brilliant conclusion as to which part of the tax collections are spent on which Ministry - as if the Finance Ministry will assign all collections from factories to be spent on Defence only ?Originally posted by lionnoisy:many here make jokes or have not done proper home works for SG factory
contributions.
Out of S$19.86 b collected by IRAS,$7.3 b came from manufacturing.
While electronoics accounts for 29% GDP in manufacturing sector,Biomedical
accounts for 25%,almost strated from zero few years back!!--APPENDIX 2,INLAND REVENUE AUTHORITY OF SINGAPOREÂ’S COLLECTION BY TAX TYPE.
--http://www.iras.gov.sg/ESVPortal/other_info/about_iras/annual+report+2005.asp
2.The defense spending come from factories tax collections!!
The 2006 Report on Finance prepared by the Statistics Department of Singapore had produced the following numbers:
From Page 5 of 12 of the PDF Report:
Income Tax - Total Collected $10,218,000,000 (2004) and $12,655,000,000 (2005).
From this total, it clarified that Corporate & Personal Income Tax had amounted to $10,099,600,000 (2004) and $11,208,900,000 (2005) : while the balance were from Contributions by Statutory Boards at $118,500,000 (2004) and $1,446,100,000 (2005).
Goods and Services Tax collected formed the next biggest component at $3,297,400,000 (2004) and $3,814,900,000 (2005).
Fees & Charges collections amounted to $3,509,000,000 (2004) and $2,567,100,000 (2005).
Other taxes were collected from Asset Taxes, Motor Vehicles Taxes, Customs & Excise Duties, Betting Taxes, Stamp Duties, and Miscellaneous Receipts - all of which combined with Income Taxes and GST will bring a Total Tax Revenue to $22,698,700,000 (2004) and $25,201,000,000 (2005)
On Page 11 of 12 in this referenced PDF report, the following information can be seen:
Total Individual Taxpayers in 2004 had numbered 714,843 and with an Assessable Income that totaled $53,330,000.
On Page 12 of 12, the following was reported on the Tax paid by Companies in 2004 was:
Total number of Companies 27,545, and with an Assessable Income of $33,177,000.
Did you say that Defense spending came from tax collections from factories only ?