Ho Ching should step down from Temasek Holdings
-
Ah.... I think its just wayang only.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Did you see the headlines today? Khaw is trying to "lower" health costs because: "What is the point of having a world class heath system that people cannot afford?"
You have one group MBT and LHL trying their level best to make as much from the people as possible and you have one lonely nice guy trying to lower health costs so as many people can afford it as possible.
The dynasty will not allow him to last long... the people must be willing to kick out the oppressors. -
TS, we are screwed already. You don't have to tell us.
What you are talking about is related to governance issues.
There is nothing anyone can do except pray for a miracle. -
Sooooo....Should Ho Ching step down from Temasek Holdings?
-
he better dun die... stock market will crashOriginally posted by hisoka:let us pray the old man dies soon
chain effects me still not able to comprehend... -
Originally posted by Atobe:
''Are you a comedian genious, or something ?
You have conveniently left out the fact that in the UK, there were 57 Political Parties that participated in the UK Election 2005.''
You also conveniently left out the fact that there's only 3 major political parties that will ever stand the chance of being elected into the government. They are labour, conservative and liberal democrates. These 3 parties will always get the majority of votes in the UK elections. i went to the wikipedia website and i found that the 57 political parties were the parties which had more than 500 votes, you left out those which had less votes than that. (Next time, don't be so careless!!!!) There's actually more than that, probably over a 100 parties that participated in the 2005 UK elections.
Even when there's more than 100 political parties involved, it doesn't make a diference because the majority of the votes will go to the 3 parties.
''Compared to the restrictive Singapore's political environment, the Political Parties in UK enjoy far greater liberties and media accessibilities to reach out to the 27,110,727 participating in the election - from a UK population of 60,209,500.
This 27,110,727 eligible voters form 45 per cent participation of the UK population.''
That's true and that's why you have all sorts of political parties in the elections like Official monster raving loony party, legalize cannabis alliance, rainbow dream ticket, etc. I say, having more than 100 political parties is pretty groovy eh? Just because there's so many political parties, it doesn't mean you want to vote for them, that is how the Brits think, but i don't know about you.
I also found on another website that had the political parties which participated in the 2001 UK elections, there's parties such as (these are some of the ones with more interesting names):
Defend The Welfare State Against Blairism
Fancy Dress Party
New Millenium Bean
Rock& Roll Loony Party
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/e01/parties2001.htm
The majority of Brits have more sense than to vote for all sorts of funny parties just because they exist.
''Is it not a shame that with a population of only 4,500,000 - Singapore only saw a participation from only 1,222,884 actual voters - which is only 27 per cent participation of the population ?
Is it not a bigger embarrassment that even with total control of the broadcast and print media, as well as gerrymeandering with political boundaries, and use of State facilities - the incumbent Ruling Party in Singapore could only manage 35% of the votes; while Labor in UK took 32.3% of the votes in a far more liberal political environment ?''
As mentioned earlier, the UK elections were pretty much dominated by the 3 political parties, so for labour to win with 1/3 of the votes seems fair enough. Don't mean to nit pick, but it's actually 35.3% not 32.3% You don't sound like you know much about british politics, i would sit this one out if i were you. -
Originally posted by saffron60:
[b]Originally posted by Atobe:
''Are you a comedian genious, or something ?
You have conveniently left out the fact that in the UK, there were 57 Political Parties that participated in the UK Election 2005.''
You also conveniently left out the fact that there's only 3 major political parties that will ever stand the chance of being elected into the government. They are labour, conservative and liberal democrates. These 3 parties will always get the majority of votes in the UK elections. i went to the wikipedia website and i found that the 57 political parties were the parties which had more than 500 votes, you left out those which had less votes than that. (Next time, don't be so careless!!!!) There's actually more than that, probably over a 100 parties that participated in the 2005 UK elections.
Even when there's more than 100 political parties involved, it doesn't make a diference because the majority of the votes will go to the 3 parties.
''Compared to the restrictive Singapore's political environment, the Political Parties in UK enjoy far greater liberties and media accessibilities to reach out to the 27,110,727 participating in the election - from a UK population of 60,209,500.
This 27,110,727 eligible voters form 45 per cent participation of the UK population.''
That's true and that's why you have all sorts of political parties in the elections like Official monster raving loony party, legalize cannabis alliance, rainbow dream ticket, etc. I say, having more than 100 political parties is pretty groovy eh? Just because there's so many political parties, it doesn't mean you want to vote for them, that is how the Brits think, but i don't know about you.
I also found on another website that had the political parties which participated in the 2001 UK elections, there's parties such as (these are some of the ones with more interesting names):
Defend The Welfare State Against Blairism
Fancy Dress Party
New Millenium Bean
Rock& Roll Loony Party
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/e01/parties2001.htm
The majority of Brits have more sense than to vote for all sorts of funny parties just because they exist.
''Is it not a shame that with a population of only 4,500,000 - Singapore only saw a participation from only 1,222,884 actual voters - which is only 27 per cent participation of the population ?
Is it not a bigger embarrassment that even with total control of the broadcast and print media, as well as gerrymeandering with political boundaries, and use of State facilities - the incumbent Ruling Party in Singapore could only manage 35% of the votes; while Labor in UK took 32.3% of the votes in a far more liberal political environment ?''
As mentioned earlier, the UK elections were pretty much dominated by the 3 political parties, so for labour to win with 1/3 of the votes seems fair enough. Don't mean to nit pick, but it's actually 35.3% not 32.3% You don't sound like you know much about british politics, i would sit this one out if i were you. [/b]
-
U r right!!!!!Originally posted by Gazelle:What who are you? Computer Hero?
I m a dog 2 type n post here 2 make a living till this w hours orelse my Pig will sack me!!!! -
I agreed with U!!!Originally posted by Gazelle:I think situation in Korea is not that great either. I understand that many fresh grad is finding it very hard to get a job after graduation especially after the hollowing out of many industry to China.
Pls pay me S$10 4 this posting here!!!! -
I m practising this now!!! but earned nothing!!!!!Originally posted by maurizio13:I think maybe they are trying out a new propaganda strategy.
Reverse psychology. -
You must join the PAP organisation first lah, tomorrow go down earlier to register your membership.Originally posted by foomwee88:I m practising this now!!! but earned nothing!!!!!
PAP HQ, Block 57B New Upper Changi Road, #01-1402 Singapore 463057.
Don't forget to wear white shirt and white pants, underwear can be red or black, doesn't matter, they can't see inside. -
Originally posted by saffron60:
I try not to be rude to you, but somehow you seem to be begging for the maximum grand slam that I normally reserve for OM - considering that he is supposed to be one cut above most of us with his self-acclaimed PhD, but display a hopeless cognitive sense of the plights of average Singaporeans.
Originally posted by Atobe:
''Are you a comedian genious, or something ?
You have conveniently left out the fact that in the UK, there were 57 Political Parties that participated in the UK Election 2005.''
You also conveniently left out the fact that there's only 3 major political parties that will ever stand the chance of being elected into the government. They are labour, conservative and liberal democrates. These 3 parties will always get the majority of votes in the UK elections. i went to the wikipedia website and i found that the 57 political parties were the parties which had more than 500 votes, you left out those which had less votes than that. (Next time, don't be so careless!!!!) There's actually more than that, probably over a 100 parties that participated in the 2005 UK elections.
Even when there's more than 100 political parties involved, it doesn't make a diference because the majority of the votes will go to the 3 parties.
What have you to offer but simple stubborn stupidity that borders on the realm of idiocy ?
In another thread, I said that "for a while I thought stupidissmart is dumber than OM, now it seems that you have taken the cake and eat it too" - it seems that you are fulfilling this point to a 'T'.
Even OM had walked away, but you seem to have taken the cudgel on his behalf - it shows how dumb you can be even with numbers, let alone economic theories and concepts.
You are probably the only person to give any whim of a chance to the Liberal Democrats to form the next Government - as seen from their performance over the last twenty years of UK Politics.
Whether it is 2 or 3 UK political parties, was that the crux of the matter, or was it the fact that in the UK Elections - 57 political parties have diluted or spread the numbers of vote, which would otherwise have helped the major parties to a different election outcome ?
Those insignificant parties have drawn away important votes that would have bolstered those 3 major contenders; especially when there are more then two parties contesting in every UK constituencies.
Compared to Singapore, despite having an almost one-to-one party contests - the incumbent Singapore Ruling Party could not outperform the result of the UK Labor Party - even when it had total control of the broadcast and print medias, PLUS the capacity to gerrymeandering with political boundaries to dilute known areas that support the Other Parties..''Compared to the restrictive Singapore's political environment, the Political Parties in UK enjoy far greater liberties and media accessibilities to reach out to the 27,110,727 participating in the election - from a UK population of 60,209,500.
Despite not being able to cope with economic theories and concepts, you seem to be unable to cope with numbers as well.
This 27,110,727 eligible voters form 45 per cent participation of the UK population.''
That's true and that's why you have all sorts of political parties in the elections like Official monster raving loony party, legalize cannabis alliance, rainbow dream ticket, etc. I say, having more than 100 political parties is pretty groovy eh? Just because there's so many political parties, it doesn't mean you want to vote for them, that is how the Brits think, but i don't know about you.
I also found on another website that had the political parties which participated in the 2001 UK elections, there's parties such as (these are some of the ones with more interesting names):
Defend The Welfare State Against Blairism
Fancy Dress Party
New Millenium Bean
Rock& Roll Loony Party
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/e01/parties2001.htm
The majority of Brits have more sense than to vote for all sorts of funny parties just because they exist.
If you had looked at the UK Election Results 2005 - (right to the bottom of the site) - you will probably see the number of votes that the lesser parties have taken away from the 3 major UK political parties. Even when those votes did not even amount to 0.0% of the votes, it numbered from 500 plus to 9000 plus.
The total votes for the 3 front running parties amounted to 24,316,595 out of a total of 27,110,727; and the number of votes that went to those 'funny' parties amounted to 2,794,132.
Now will you reconsider your false statement that "the majority of the Brits have more sense than to vote for all sorts of funny parties just because they exist" ?
Seeing your track record, you are hell bent to salvage your deflated saffron scent that only you can - and want to - appreciate.''Is it not a shame that with a population of only 4,500,000 - Singapore only saw a participation from only 1,222,884 actual voters - which is only 27 per cent participation of the population ?
Not that you are great with numbers, but your expertise at nit picking had actually helped to identify that I had actually quoted the 32.3% from the Conservative Party, and erroneously attribute it to Labor.
Is it not a bigger embarrassment that even with total control of the broadcast and print media, as well as gerrymeandering with political boundaries, and use of State facilities - the incumbent Ruling Party in Singapore could only manage 35% of the votes; while Labor in UK took 32.3% of the votes in a far more liberal political environment ?''
As mentioned earlier, the UK elections were pretty much dominated by the 3 political parties, so for labour to win with 1/3 of the votes seems fair enough. Don't mean to nit pick, but it's actually 35.3% not 32.3% You don't sound like you know much about british politics, i would sit this one out if i were you.
You seem pretty much anxious to score points, but you had better be up to your mark. -
But I dont like $ and hve enough n dont want 2 be called as a Gods!!!Originally posted by maurizio13:You must join the PAP organisation first lah, tomorrow go down earlier to register your membership.
PAP HQ, Block 57B New Upper Changi Road, #01-1402 Singapore 463057.
Don't forget to wear white shirt and white pants, underwear can be red or black, doesn't matter, they can't see inside. -
Hear Hear! Without doing all that we can assume that they would have been kicked out? And why is that? Because they take the people's money as and when they like!Originally posted by Atobe:Compared to Singapore, despite having an almost one-to-one party contests - the incumbent Singapore Ruling Party could not outperform the result of the UK Labor Party - even when it had total control of the broadcast and print medias, PLUS the capacity to gerrymeandering with political boundaries to dilute known areas that support the Other Parties.. -
http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articlehybrid.aspx?storyID=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20070227:MTFH69445_2007-02-27_02-05-28_BKK000245&type=comktNews&rpc=44
-
How about comparing Singapore with Canada? Despite practising 1st-past-the-post, the Canadians still have a minority government in power.
-
Deviation...
the word mushroom always brings up a joke I heard..
How do you grow mushrooms?
Kept in the dark and fed with sh!t...
Not poking fun at anyone... just to lighten the mood... -
ouch....still below the belt.Originally posted by mistyblue:Deviation...
the word mushroom always brings up a joke I heard..
How do you grow mushrooms?
Kept in the dark and fed with sh!t...
Not poking fun at anyone... just to lighten the mood... -
Singaporeans are all mushrooms...Originally posted by weiqimun:ouch....still below the belt. -
Has Ho Ching stepped down already?
No?
I guess not enough crap has hit the fan yet...
Lets wait for more crap to hit the fan..... -
Originally posted by Atobe:
''try not to be rude to you, but somehow you seem to be begging for the maximum grand slam that I normally reserve for OM - considering that he is supposed to be one cut above most of us with his self-acclaimed PhD, but display a hopeless cognitive sense of the plights of average Singaporeans.
What have you to offer but simple stubborn stupidity that borders on the realm of idiocy ?
In another thread, I said that "for a while I thought stupidissmart is dumber than OM, now it seems that you have taken the cake and eat it too" - it seems that you are fulfilling this point to a 'T'.
Even OM had walked away, but you seem to have taken the cudgel on his behalf - it shows how dumb you can be even with numbers, let alone economic theories and concepts.''
STILL WANT TO USE THE SAME OLD DUMB TACTICS WHEREBY YOU PERSONALLY ATTACK PEOPLE EH? OK, I'LL DO THE SAME, EH MORON, JERK, CRETIN, ARROGANT BASTA8D, YOU ARE NOT WORTH MY TIME TO KEEP INSULTING YOU OK? SO I WILL ONLY CUT AND PASTE WHAT I SAID TO YOU IN AN EARLIER THREAD.
only a few people are willing to argue with you because you use bombastic english to try to scare them, with or without facts to back up your claim. People are fed up with the way you respond, and that doesn't mean that you won an argument. It just means that these people realize that there's much more important things in life than to stay here and continue to argue with a arrogant, senseless moron like you.
''You are probably the only person to give any whim of a chance to the Liberal Democrats to form the next Government - as seen from their performance over the last twenty years of UK Politics.
Whether it is 2 or 3 UK political parties, was that the crux of the matter, or was it the fact that in the UK Elections - 57 political parties have diluted or spread the numbers of vote, which would otherwise have helped the major parties to a different election outcome ?''
YOU STUPID SON OF A D8G, FIRST YOU MAKE THE BLOODY FOOL MISTAKE OF MISCALCULATING THE NUMBER OF PARTIES THAT WERE IN THE 2005 ELECTIONS THEN YOU SAY WHAT DOES IT MATTER THAT THERE WERE ONLY 2 OR 3 PARTIES? IT MATTERS, YOU DUMB OLD GOOSE, IT'S BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T BEEN FOLLOWING BRITISH POLITICS THAT'S WHY YOU MAKE DUMB STATEMENTS LIKE THAT. ANYBODY WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT BRITISH POLITICS KNOW ABOUT THE 3 MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES. YOU STUPID SINGAPOREAN BASTA8D, DON'T TALK ABOUT UK WHEN ALL YOU KNOW IS ONLY ABOUT SINGAPORE. WHAT THE F888, WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE 57 PARTIES HAVE SPREAD THE NUMBERS OF VOTES? DID YOU EVEN BOTHER TO SEE THE FIGURES THAT YOU YOURSELF QUOTE FROM THE WIKIPEDIA WEBSITE?
YOU CANNOT SIMPLY ASSUME THAT THE OUTCOME OF ELECTION WOULD BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE FIRSTLY, THE VOTES OF THOSE 100 OVER PARTIES ARE INSIGNIFICANT, SECONDLY, YOU ARE MAKING THE ASSUMPTION THAT PEOPLE WILL VOTE FOR THE 3 MAJOR PARTIES IF THE 100 PARTIES DID NOT INTERVENE, WHICH IS A WRONG ASSUMPTION. UNLESS YOU ARE AN EXPERT ON ALL OF THE 100 OVER PARTIES, THEN YOU CAN TELL WHICH VOTERS FROM WHICH PARTY WOULD VOTE FOR AN ALTERNATIVE PARTY IF THE INSIGNIFICANT PARTY DID NOT INTERVENE. BUT YOU ARE NOT AN EXPERT, SO YOU CAN'T SIMPLY ASSUME.
''Those insignificant parties have drawn away important votes that would have bolstered those 3 major contenders; especially when there are more then two parties contesting in every UK constituencies.''
YOU BLO8DY IDI8T YOU, YOU NEVER EVEN LOOKED AT THE NUMBER OF VOTES THAT THOSE SO CALLED INSIGNIFICANT PARTIES HAVE, ALL 100 OVER OF THEM. YOU SEEM TO BE MAKING IT UP AS YOU GO ALONG. HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT THE INSIGNIFICANT PARTIES DRAW AWAY IMPORTANT VOTES FROM THE 3 MAJOR PARTIES, WHEN OUT OF THOSE 100 OVER PARTIES, MOST HARDLY GET ANY VOTES? GO LOOK AT THE FIGURES AGAIN, YOU MORON.[/b]
[b]''Compared to Singapore, despite having an almost one-to-one party contests - the incumbent Singapore Ruling Party could not outperform the result of the UK Labor Party - even when it had total control of the broadcast and print medias, PLUS the capacity to gerrymeandering with political boundaries to dilute known areas that support the Other Parties.. ''
YOU DON'T ANYTHING ABOUT THE UK LABOUR PARTY, SO JUST SHUT THE F88K UP.
''Despite not being able to cope with economic theories and concepts, you seem to be unable to cope with numbers as well.
If you had looked at the UK Election Results 2005 - (right to the bottom of the site) - you will probably see the number of votes that the lesser parties have taken away from the 3 major UK political parties. Even when those votes did not even amount to 0.0% of the votes, it numbered from 500 plus to 9000 plus.''
YOU MORON, I HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU THAT IT BLOODY DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE ONLY 3 MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES DOMINATE THE ELECTION. JUST BECAUSE THOSE OTHER 100 PARTIES EXIST, DOESN'T MEAN THAT ALL BRITS ARE AWARE THAT THEY EVEN EXIST. SOME OF THE PARTIES ARE REGIONAL AND SOME LOBBYING FOR VERY SPECIFIC CAUSES SUCH AS SENIOR CITIZEN RIGHTS, COMMUNISM, ETC. YOU STILL MADE THE MAJOR ERROR OF NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PARTIES THAT HAD LESS THAN 500 VOTES.
''The total votes for the 3 front running parties amounted to 24,316,595 out of a total of 27,110,727; and the number of votes that went to those 'funny' parties amounted to 2,794,132.
Now will you reconsider your false statement that "the majority of the Brits have more sense than to vote for all sorts of funny parties just because they exist" ?
Seeing your track record, you are hell bent to salvage your deflated saffron scent that only you can - and want to - appreciate.''
WHY THE HELL ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE ABSOLUTE FIGURES, LOOK AT THE PERCENTAGE OF VOTES YOU IDIOT! THE PERCENTAGE TOTAL OF VOTES FOR THOSE INSIGNIFICANT PARTIES IS SO LITTLE. SECONDLY, THERE ARE 3 SCENARIOS WHICH CAN HAPPEN, (THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE SCENARIO WHEREBY THE VOTERS WOULD CHOOSE NOT TO VOTE);
1) THE ONE THAT YOU MENTIONED, THE VOTES COULD GO TO ANY OF THE 3 MAJOR PARTIES
OUTCOME: COULD STILL BE THE SAME OR DIFFERENT, CHANCES THAT IT COULD BE DIFFERENT IS SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THE OTHER 2 SCENARIOS BELOW.
2) THE VOTES COULD GO TO ANY OF THE 3 MAJOR PARTIES AS AS WELL AS ANY OF THE ALTERNATIVE MINOR PARTY AMONG THE MORE THAN 100 OVER MINOR PARTIES.
OUTCOME: THERE'S A BIGGER LIKELIHOOD THAT IT WOULD STILL BE THE SAME
3) THE VOTES COULD GO TO ANY OF THE ALTERNATIVE MINOR PARTY AMONG THE MORE THAN 100 OVER MINOR PARTIES
OUTCOME: THERE'S A BIGGER LIKELIHOOD THAT IT WOULD STILL BE THE SAME
SO WE ARE BACK TO SQUARE ONE AND IT'S STILL A CONTEST BETWEEN THE 3 MAJOR PARTIES, WITH OR WITHOUT THOSE 100 OVER PARTIES. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? IF SAY YOU VOTED FOR CONSERVATIVE AND YOU SAID THAT IF THOSE 100 OVER PARTIES DIDN'T EXIST, THEN YOUR PARTY HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING, THAT IS WRONG. BECAUSE, HOW SURE ARE YOU THAT THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR THOSE 100 OVER PARTIES WILL VOTE FOR CONSERVATIVE ONLY? OR WHETHER THE VOTES WOULD BE SPREAD EVENLY BETWEEN THE 3 MAJOR PARTIES? YOU DON'T KNOW RIGHT? AH...BUT THEN, YOU LIKE TO CLAIM THAT YOU KNOW EVERYTHING, BUT YOU ACTUALLY KNOW NOTHING.
MOST BRITS ARE SMARTER THAN YOU, WAY WAY SMARTER AND SINGAPOREANS TOO, THEY ARE MORE EVOLVED THAN YOU IN TERMS OF THINKING.[/b]
[b]''Not that you are great with numbers, but your expertise at nit picking had actually helped to identify that I had actually quoted the 32.3% from the Conservative Party, and erroneously attribute it to Labor.
You seem pretty much anxious to score points, but you had better be up to your mark.''
IT'S BECAUSE MORON, YOU ARE CARELESS AND STUPID, THAT'S WHY YOU MAKE DUMB MISTAKES LIKE THAT. -
I can see this thread has degraded to frantic attacks...not to mention the level of English used... -
ATOBE DESERVES IT, THIS IS WHAT HE GETS FOR INSULTING PEOPLE TOO MUCHOriginally posted by ShutterBug:I can see this thread has degraded to frantic attacks...not to mention the level of English used... -
Originally posted by saffron60:
I don't knw.. I haven't been following this thread much or at all... but I find Atobe's writings rather insightful and I admire his/her choice of words. I think it's his/her depth of knowledge that irks those who couldn't quite match up...
[b]ATOBE DESERVES IT, THIS IS WHAT HE GETS FOR INSULTING PEOPLE TOO MUCH[/b]
I certainly cannot match up..hehehehe... -
Originally posted by saffron60:
You sound like a wolf, don't you know?
[b]ATOBE DESERVES IT, THIS IS WHAT HE GETS FOR INSULTING PEOPLE TOO MUCH[/b]
Stop howling. My eardrums are gonna burst anytime. -
Originally posted by saffron60:
On the contrary, I don't see him attacking you, he substantiated his argument with explanations.
[b]ATOBE DESERVES IT, THIS IS WHAT HE GETS FOR INSULTING PEOPLE TOO MUCH[/b]
When he explains issues to you, which you do not agree with, but have no appropriate responses. Do you consider that an insult? If it is, I think it's only an insult to your intellectual abilities and your ego.