Making one of e most entrepreneurial race unentrepreneurial
-
the government always encourage entrprenuers..
to use them as guinea pigs. if their idea works, the government will open similar companies of that industry, or acquire the successful enterprise or think of ideas to make life difficult for that enterprise?
making life difficult: the owner of ducktours nearly loss a lot of $$ when his "ducks" came to singapore, but was met with "stunts". luckily, in the end, the ducks didnt became lame.
other examples? look at "Sembcorp" comapanies. plastic, paper, recycling etc etc.. all successful then they faster go acquire -
What do you think is the reason for more people getting dissatisfied with the ruling party - despite the fact that "the people have been given 'goodies' over the years and these 'goodies' are the pacifiers ?Originally posted by saffron60:nope, it isn't, it's just based on my observations, because earlier i was talking to another forumer about the comparisons between the chinese singaporean and the chinese minority in other countries. Being a majority in singapore, the people have been given 'goodies' over the years and these 'goodies' are the pacifiers, designed to keep the people content and quiet. But as you can see, more and more people are getting dissatisfied with the ruling party.
Are you looking after the interest of the Ruling Party by your blaming Singaporean Chinese for accepting the pacifiers and still not satisfied with what has been given ?
Did you ever consider the reasons for making Singaporeans - whether Chinese or any other races - dependent and permanently addicted to the pacifiers ?
Yes, you are right with your statement that - "In UK, where the gov had privatised some of their train lines, it turned out to be a disaster and the gov had to buy back these lines".
as one forumer mentioned earlier, singapore's domestic economy is small and that's one of the reasons why sing gov can have their hands in so many areas of the economy. I'm not surprised that the sing gov took over the private transport companies, after all, it is a public service and the gov aimed to make it uniformed, efficient and accessible to people from all walks of life.
In countries like UK, where the gov had privatised some of their train lines, it turned out to be a disaster and the gov had to buy back these lines, and in the process, lost huge amounts of money. The public transport system is not a very good example of the gov getting their 'greedy' hands on the local economy, i don't think. Another forumer mentioned about AMK NTUC hypermarket, i think that's a better example. There are some areas in economy where i think that the gov should allow the local businesses to thrive.
However, was the cause due to the inaptitude of private enterprise, or was it due to the mismanagement of the dismemberment of the UK National Railways, and the poor reorganising and restructuring of the entire rail structure ?
Was private enterprise to be blamed for this failure, or was it due to the UK Government mishandling of the breakup of the National Rail System ?
Your opening statement belittle the tremendous contribution from the pioneers of Singapore, who have made Singapore the Pearl of the Orient, and the lighthouse of Southeast Asia - with the contribution coming largely from the majority Chinese business acumen and labor.
Even before LKY was born - even before he assumed political power - those pioneers made Singapore the most efficient and bustling place for trade to thrive.
The ten bus companies had provided efficient public service since the Colonial Days - why did LKY and his Government decide that these bus companies to be inefficient when they took control of the seat of political power ?
Was it not a fact that the ten bus companies became inefficient only due to the Government refusal to allow bus fares to increase, so as to allow these companies to cover costs to improve their services ?
Is this not a familiar tune that is so easily acceded to - when the same is asked by the present bus companies owned by Government Agencies and managed by Government appointees ?
Was it not a fact that when LKY first entered politics, he was not well accepted by the Chinese community - especially the local Chinese business and clan associations ?
The reason was that LKY was an English educated Chinese, graduating from Cambridge, and could not read nor write a word of Chinese, besides not being able to speak any Chinese dialect.
During the early development of local politics of the 1950s, those Chinese businessmen, associations and clans had given their support to the various political parties - and in order to penetrate the majority Chinese community, LKY had to join forces with the Chinese educated - (those whom he later branded as Communists).
In Malaysia, the hypermarkets are located in major concentrations of population, serving the market on a regional basis.
Ya, i agree with this, as mentioned earlier. Just diverting a little, if we compare what's happening the retail sector in msia, you will find that it is not that different from what's happening in sing. According to a well known market research company, the current trend is that more consumers are going to large retail outlets, e.g. hypermarkets, departmental stores and less people are going to the small grocery shops. In msia, these hypermarkets and departmental stores are not GLCs. I think the sing gov should allow local businesses to thrive in the large retail outlet sector. With that in mind, getting into the large retail outlet business is a very expensive affair and small time businessmen cannot afford to get into it. The realities of the markets in both msia, sing and other 7asian countries is that consumers are moving towards the large retail outlets, so small time businesses are slowly being squeezed out (when i say small time businesses, i mean grocery stores and the like).
However, the Malaysian land mass prevent the hypermarkets from extinguishing the usefulness of the neighborhood stores - those small grocery shops in the housing estates of Malaysia.
The Malaysian market is different from Singapore - as they are two distinct physical characteristics, and the impact of the hypermarkets onto the neighborhood stores will be different in Malaysia and Singapore.
Whichever the market place - whether in Malaysia or Singapore - have these hypermarkets ever passed off their savings to the consumers, or have they incurred higher costs in their massive operations ?
In view of the small land area in Singapore, the close proximity of small neighborhood stores will provide competition to the nearest Hypermarts, making it necessary for the small neighborhood stores to be snuffed out. -
ah... the truth hurts. LKY control over politics would not be complete if he was not able to dominate or eliminate businessman who oppose him. Everywhere else in the world the business and politics are so closely related because of the businesses are able to fund and influence the political parties.
-
Yeah Singaporeans are definitely changing..... we are moving out..Originally posted by saffron60:So back the original question, should people just sit and wait till gov change their ways or should people do something on their own first while waiting for the gov to change (that is if they ever change)?
To wait for the gov to change? hahahahahha.. -
To atobe
What do you think is the reason for more people getting dissatisfied with the ruling party - despite the fact that "the people have been given 'goodies' over the years and these 'goodies' are the pacifiers ?
i think you reading too much into what i wrote, there's no political motivation on my part. i'm not defending or blaming anybody, i'm just pointing that both the gov and the people have their role to play. It's very difficult to carry out an objective conversation with you if you keep accusing people of 'taking sides'.
Are you looking after the interest of the Ruling Party by your blaming Singaporean Chinese for accepting the pacifiers and still not satisfied with what has been given ?
Did you ever consider the reasons for making Singaporeans - whether Chinese or any other races - dependent and permanently addicted to the pacifiers ?
I already acknowledged in my earlier post (on the education bit) on the reasons why singaporeans are still addicted to the pacifiers, whereby the gov is partially responsible. But what about singaporeans themselves? Don't we have some personal responsibility as well? What would we do to ease our situation when the ruling party is still power?Your opening statement belittle the tremendous contribution from the pioneers of Singapore, who have made Singapore the Pearl of the Orient, and the lighthouse of Southeast Asia - with the contribution coming largely from the majority Chinese business acumen and labor.
So you are saying that singapore would have been better off if it wasn't for LKY? I can't comment on that because history has already been written and singapore is the way it is today largely because of LKY. I'm not a historian, economist, or a political science expert, so it wouldn't be fair for me to comment. In my opening statement, i don't know how you can say that i belittle the pioneers; I was referring to LKY's time and the present, not before that.
Even before LKY was born - even before he assumed political power - those pioneers made Singapore the most efficient and bustling place for trade to thriveThe ten bus companies had provided efficient public service since the Colonial Days - why did LKY and his Government decide that these bus companies to be inefficient when they took control of the seat of political power ?
Those days, LKY had his 'grand' plans for the future, so taking over the public transport system is not a surprise. Whether any other leader would have done the same thing, one can only guess, maybe they wouldn't have done it as drastically as how LKY did. But change is inevitable, it was bound to happen sooner or later because singapore is a small domestic economy and for the gov to take over the public transport system, is not a very difficult thing to do.
Was it not a fact that the ten bus companies became inefficient only due to the Government refusal to allow bus fares to increase, so as to allow these companies to cover costs to improve their services ?
Is this not a familiar tune that is so easily acceded to - when the same is asked by the present bus companies owned by Government Agencies and managed by Government appointees ?Was it not a fact that when LKY first entered politics, he was not well accepted by the Chinese community - especially the local Chinese business and clan associations ?
Yup, politics is a dirty game, it was then and it still is now, rather obvious, don't you think?
The reason was that LKY was an English educated Chinese, graduating from Cambridge, and could not read nor write a word of Chinese, besides not being able to speak any Chinese dialect.
During the early development of local politics of the 1950s, those Chinese businessmen, associations and clans had given their support to the various political parties - and in order to penetrate the majority Chinese community, LKY had to join forces with the Chinese educated - (those whom he later branded as Communists).
-
To atobe
Yes, you are right with your statement that - "In UK, where the gov had privatised some of their train lines, it turned out to be a disaster and the gov had to buy back these lines".
It was during Thatcher's time when the train lines was privatised, many people believed that it was because she wanted to get rid of the 'problem', because before this, the train lines were really starved for investment. It was a mistake to begin with, yes, the gov shouldn't have privatised the train lines and the private companies which took over wasn't capable of running the lines. So at the end of the day, it was the public who suffered; my point is that certain things such as the public transport system should be handled by the gov.
However, was the cause due to the inaptitude of private enterprise, or was it due to the mismanagement of the dismemberment of the UK National Railways, and the poor reorganising and restructuring of the entire rail structure ?
Was private enterprise to be blamed for this failure, or was it due to the UK Government mishandling of the breakup of the National Rail System ? -
To atobe
In Malaysia, the hypermarkets are located in major concentrations of population, serving the market on a regional basis.
My point earlier was that the current trend is that more consumers are frequenting large retail outlets, actually what i meant was the large format stores in the modern trade. Please refer to the Ac nielsen report.
However, the Malaysian land mass prevent the hypermarkets from extinguishing the usefulness of the neighborhood stores - those small grocery shops in the housing estates of Malaysia.
The Malaysian market is different from Singapore - as they are two distinct physical characteristics, and the impact of the hypermarkets onto the neighborhood stores will be different in Malaysia and Singapore.
Whichever the market place - whether in Malaysia or Singapore - have these hypermarkets ever passed off their savings to the consumers, or have they incurred higher costs in their massive operations ?
In view of the small land area in Singapore, the close proximity of small neighborhood stores will provide competition to the nearest Hypermarts, making it necessary for the small neighborhood stores to be snuffed out.
''Competition for the grocery dollar continues in Asia Pacific with hypermarkets and convenience stores mushrooming'' - 5 October 2006, Ac Nielsen
http://my.acnielsen.com/site/20061005.shtml
According to the AC nielsen report, the growth of the share of the modern trade also includes small format stores such as modern convenience stores and personal care stores and/or pharmacies. The results are based on FMCG categories tracked by AC nielsen.
Here are the definitions:
Modern trade channels: Large format and small format stores
Large format stores: Hypermarkets, supermarkets (chain as well as independent)
small format stores: convenience stores, personal care stores and/or pharmacies
Extracts from the report:
''Concentrated supermarket-dominant markets
In Hong Kong, Singapore and the Pacific, the modern grocery trade accounts for more than 90 percent of packaged grocery sales and the markets are dominated by a limited number of chains. Supermarkets are the most frequently used channel by the vast majority of shoppers, typically visited twice a week or more.
Meanwhile convenience stores are well established in these markets, where 50 to 60 percent of shoppers use them regularly on average, once a week, and less frequently than the use of Supermarkets. In Hong Kong however, with the much higher frequency of shopping, over eight in 10 shoppers are using convenience stores, on average, three times a week.
Hypermarkets are either non-existent in these markets or very limited. In Singapore, where there are now nine Hypermarkets used by a quarter of shoppers, only four percent use them as their main grocery store.
Hypermarket-dominant markets
Among the three markets in the hypermarket-dominant category, Taiwan is significantly more developed than both Malaysia and Thailand, with 90 percent of grocery sales going through the modern trade nationally compared to less than 50 percent in the other two countries. Hypermarkets are the main store format for more than 50 percent of shoppers in Taiwan, Malaysia and Thailand, and the majority of households use them on a regular basis, typically two to three times a month.''
If you read the report thoroughly, you will find that singapore is along side countries like HK and Taiwan in terms of share of the modern trade, which accounts for more than 80% and is still growing. In singapore, supermarkets are the most frequented and hypermarkets the least. Whereas in msia, hypermarkets are the most frequented among the modern trade channels. All the asian countries in the report have experienced growth in the share of the modern trade except for Philippines.
Your theory about ''the Malaysian land mass prevent the hypermarkets from extinguishing the usefulness of the neighborhood stores - those small grocery shops in the housing estates of Malaysia.'' is not exactly true when you look at the results from the report. There are many factors as to why msian consumers choose to frequent hypermarkets instead of the traditional stores, and land mass may not be a very good reason. We have to look at consumer behaviour studies in order to understand the current trends in msia, singapore and other countries as well; the above report only shows the trend but it doesn't explain the reasons for it.
Your theory about ''the close proximity of small neighborhood stores in singapore will provide competition to the nearest Hypermarts, making it necessary for the small neighborhood stores to be snuffed out.'', again it is not really true because according to the report, only 4% of consumers use hypermarkets as their main grocery store (although 25% of consumers use hypermarkets). However, it doesn't mean, that the small neighbourhood stores are not being snuffed out; the share of traditional stores are decreasing and one of the reasons could be because of competition with supermarkets. This is my analysis following the results from the report.
Your question on ''Whichever the market place - whether in Malaysia or Singapore - have these hypermarkets ever passed off their savings to the consumers, or have they incurred higher costs in their massive operations ?''
I will answer that if i can find another report whereby i can use the results to give a proper explanation. i will leave it for now. -
Originally posted by saffron60:
Should I be surprise that you tone down your remarks with each post you make in this thread ?
i think you reading too much into what i wrote, there's no political motivation on my part. i'm not defending or blaming anybody, i'm just pointing that both the gov and the people have their role to play. It's very difficult to carry out an objective conversation with you if you keep accusing people of 'taking sides'.
I already acknowledged in my earlier post (on the education bit) on the reasons why singaporeans are still addicted to the pacifiers, whereby the gov is partially responsible. But what about singaporeans themselves? Don't we have some personal responsibility as well? What would we do to ease our situation when the ruling party is still power?
You did start off in your post on with the following remarks :-5 March 2007 10.04PM
Did I read too much into your statements, when you have cleverly inserted some snide remarks at the ability of Singaporean CHINESE ?
"i agree with you that the chinese in singapore are a different breed. When you look at the chinese minority in other countries, even those in developed countries like Canada, UK, US, Australia, either seem to do well in business or at the very least, make ends meet, call it survival instinct. If these Chinese can survive in other countries as a minority, what more about those chinese in singapore, who make up more than 70% of the population.
Do we have a chicken and egg situation here? Is it the gov that kill off chinese entrepreneurship in singapore or is it the chinese singaporean who can't stop sucking the gov pacifier after all these years? Who is to blame? Gov point finger at people, people point finger at gov...neverending story, but this is the story of singaporean chinese. Maybe we should ask this question to the immigrant chinese singaporean who is doing well in a developed country."
6 March 2007 1.46AM
"Ah...but the chinese in other countries as a minority don't have a pacifier and worse still, don't even have 'parents' to look after them, yet they can still make it. I'm not saying that they are 'better' than the singaporean chinese, but ultimately they are survivalists. Has singaporean chinese forgotten their survival instincts? If it is an inborn thing, surely the chinese singaporean will still find a way out of their current dilema and help themselves instead of hoping and wishing...."
You did ask "Who is to blame ?" but continue without making any thoughts except to blame Singaporean CHINESE - even as you accuse the Government pointing at the PEOPLE, and the PEOPLE pointing at the Government.
Who are the PEOPLE you have accused of pointing fingers ?
Did you not end your derogatory statement saying - "this is the story of the singaporean chinese" ?
Even as early as 1819, Singapore's location was identified to be strategic by Stamford Raffles, with the Chinese migrants moving in to form the largest group of residents in Singapore during Colonial Rule.
So you are saying that singapore would have been better off if it wasn't for LKY? I can't comment on that because history has already been written and singapore is the way it is today largely because of LKY. I'm not a historian, economist, or a political science expert, so it wouldn't be fair for me to comment. In my opening statement, i don't know how you can say that i belittle the pioneers; I was referring to LKY's time and the present, not before that.
It was the Chinese population operating in an open economy encouraged and managed "lightly" by the Colonial Government that gave Singapore the advantage to be what it is today.
LKY's contribution came much later in the history of Singapore but with his strong hand of governance, did he not killed private capital and private enterprise ?
It is already recognised that the Government has taken too much wealth from the Citizens through the many revenue generating structures and systems, leaving many Singaporeans to be too poor to look after themselves - whether now or during their old age.
The line of discussion is to prove to you that Singaporean Chinese has the initiative and the drive to succeed without the Government pacifiers.
Those days, LKY had his 'grand' plans for the future, so taking over the public transport system is not a surprise. Whether any other leader would have done the same thing, one can only guess, maybe they wouldn't have done it as drastically as how LKY did. But change is inevitable, it was bound to happen sooner or later because singapore is a small domestic economy and for the gov to take over the public transport system, is not a very difficult thing to do.
The fact that LKY's government decide to make Singapore dependent on the Government Pacifier is a sinister master plan, to ensure that every single Singaporean will live in an HDB flat that they will pay for with their CPF savings, at a price that will contra the loan the Government take from CPF but leaving the Government with a profit; AND with the ultimate caveat that the HDB flat will be leased only for 99 years and with ZERO value at the end of the lease period.
The ultimate slap of owning an HDB flat is that it is subject to being confiscated if any illegal activities is conducted in the flat.
Should we not skeptically view the ultimate objective of making Singaporeans - Chinese or not - dependent on the Government Pacifier is to allow the Government a leverage of control over Singaporeans ?
Is it not a fact that the entrepreneurial spirit has been blocked by the LKY Government so as to achieve his own plans of getting more Singaporeans to be involved in his industrializing of Singapore's economy ?Yup, politics is a dirty game, it was then and it still is now, rather obvious, don't you think?
You miss the point with your reply.
LKY was not supported by the Chinese business community during the early days of his involvement in politics, and his early realisation that wealth in private hands need to be controlled to prevent support going to the other political parties.
Dirty or not, it remains a fact that LKY had systematically dismantled private wealth, which ultimately killed private capital and private enterprise - the theme of this thread. -
Originally posted by saffron60:
How did you come to this amazing conclusion about the private companies wasn't capable of running the lines" ?
It was during Thatcher's time when the train lines was privatised, many people believed that it was because she wanted to get rid of the 'problem', because before this, the train lines were really starved for investment. It was a mistake to begin with, yes, the gov shouldn't have privatised the train lines and the private companies which took over wasn't capable of running the lines. So at the end of the day, it was the public who suffered; my point is that certain things such as the public transport system should be handled by the gov.
The chequered history of the British Railway System is well documented, and you would have benefitted if you had done some research before making some conclusions to the situation that are still proving to be fluid at the moment.Britain on Slow Track
If the history of railways in the 19th century is a record of the triumphant achievements of private capital and entrepreneurial ingenuity, the 20th century is a story of decline and increasing government interference. The full account of the disastrous effects of the two World Wars on British society has yet to be told, but of one thing I am clear; they gave a tremendous boost to statist trends in the UK. In 1914 de facto nationalisation of the railways was enacted for the duration of the war with direct government control not ended until 1921. In the meantime, indirect control was ensured by a Ministry of Transport, created for the first time in 1919. In 1939 the beginning of World War Two saw the railways taken over once more by the government, and this time there was to be no reprieve. On the 1st January 1948, the railways were nationalised. For almost 50 years there followed a steady decline. British Rail become a byword for inefficiency with the British Rail sandwich a national joke. And there was the clear and ever present danger which attends any state monopoly. A national strike would at any moment bring the whole network grinding to a halt.
In 1994 the wheel turned full circle and the rail system was returned to private ownership by the then Conservative government. This was both bad and good news. The bad was that the government chose an unusual and complex method of organising the railways. The system was fragmented into 25 train operators and a single monopoly track provider. Most railways around the world have the trains and track owned by the same company, and indeed this was the system in the UK prior to nationalisation. Amongst other problems, the present set-up has meant that the railways seem to have more regulators and politicians meddling than in any other UK privatised industry.
The good news is that the new train operators have introduced a 1,000 extra services per day compared with the last year before privatisation. Last year, passenger numbers were up by 30 per cent and freight movement by 33 per cent. Railtrack is under pressure from train operators to improve repairs and speed up train schedules, but here the structure imposed by privatisation is a hindrance. Railtrack feels that it has not felt the full benefit of the increase in passengers and freight and consequently has not acted with the required alacrity.
The Hatfield accident and aftermath must be seen against the backdrop of a heavily regulated privatised industry gingerly finding its feet. Broken rails are relatively common and there are evidently two of them somewhere in the country each week. But they have only caused 6 fatalities in the last 30 years (including Hatfield). The speed restrictions were a massive overkill, the reaction of an industry under political pressure. It seems clear that if the rail network had been returned to the position it had prior to nationalisation, there would not have been the divorce between track and train operators and economic incentives would have made the national rail go-slow less likely. -
Originally posted by saffron60:
From your A.C. Nielsen report - did you miss out this important statement in the report ?
My point earlier was that the current trend is that more consumers are frequenting large retail outlets, actually what i meant was the large format stores in the modern trade. Please refer to the Ac nielsen report.
''Competition for the grocery dollar continues in Asia Pacific with hypermarkets and convenience stores mushrooming'' - 5 October 2006, Ac Nielsen
http://my.acnielsen.com/site/20061005.shtml
According to the AC nielsen report, the growth of the share of the modern trade also includes small format stores such as modern convenience stores and personal care stores and/or pharmacies. The results are based on FMCG categories tracked by AC nielsen.
Here are the definitions:
Modern trade channels: Large format and small format stores
Large format stores: Hypermarkets, supermarkets (chain as well as independent)
small format stores: convenience stores, personal care stores and/or pharmacies
Extracts from the report:
''Concentrated supermarket-dominant markets
In Hong Kong, Singapore and the Pacific, the modern grocery trade accounts for more than 90 percent of packaged grocery sales and the markets are dominated by a limited number of chains. Supermarkets are the most frequently used channel by the vast majority of shoppers, typically visited twice a week or more.
Meanwhile convenience stores are well established in these markets, where 50 to 60 percent of shoppers use them regularly on average, once a week, and less frequently than the use of Supermarkets. In Hong Kong however, with the much higher frequency of shopping, over eight in 10 shoppers are using convenience stores, on average, three times a week.
Hypermarkets are either non-existent in these markets or very limited. In Singapore, where there are now nine Hypermarkets used by a quarter of shoppers, only four percent use them as their main grocery store.
Hypermarket-dominant markets
Among the three markets in the hypermarket-dominant category, Taiwan is significantly more developed than both Malaysia and Thailand, with 90 percent of grocery sales going through the modern trade nationally compared to less than 50 percent in the other two countries. Hypermarkets are the main store format for more than 50 percent of shoppers in Taiwan, Malaysia and Thailand, and the majority of households use them on a regular basis, typically two to three times a month.''
If you read the report thoroughly, you will find that singapore is along side countries like HK and Taiwan in terms of share of the modern trade, which accounts for more than 80% and is still growing. In singapore, supermarkets are the most frequented and hypermarkets the least. Whereas in msia, hypermarkets are the most frequented among the modern trade channels. All the asian countries in the report have experienced growth in the share of the modern trade except for Philippines.
Your theory about ''the Malaysian land mass prevent the hypermarkets from extinguishing the usefulness of the neighborhood stores - those small grocery shops in the housing estates of Malaysia.'' is not exactly true when you look at the results from the report. There are many factors as to why msian consumers choose to frequent hypermarkets instead of the traditional stores, and land mass may not be a very good reason. We have to look at consumer behaviour studies in order to understand the current trends in msia, singapore and other countries as well; the above report only shows the trend but it doesn't explain the reasons for it.
Your theory about ''the close proximity of small neighborhood stores in singapore will provide competition to the nearest Hypermarts, making it necessary for the small neighborhood stores to be snuffed out.'', again it is not really true because according to the report, only 4% of consumers use hypermarkets as their main grocery store (although 25% of consumers use hypermarkets). However, it doesn't mean, that the small neighbourhood stores are not being snuffed out; the share of traditional stores are decreasing and one of the reasons could be because of competition with supermarkets. This is my analysis following the results from the report. [/b]
"In South-East Asia, the picture differs, with Singapore the only market where the modern trade dominates.
Compared to North Asia, only 43 percent of sales in South-East Asia go through modern self-service grocery shops.. "
Statistics can be read in so many different ways, and drawn from different methods and data bases, each need to be carefully weighted to obtain the required results.
Is there objectivity to the different requirements from the reports ?
Yes, there is no denial that modern supermarkets and hypermarkets are making their entry into Malaysia, Indonesia and even Vietnam - as reported in your A.C. Nielsen report.
However, the traditional neigborhood grocery stores continue to thrive in the sub-urban and rural areas - and away from the MAJOR URBAN CENTRES where the hypermarket and supermarkets will have the needed larger captive populations centers to form its base.
Then again, at the end of it all - after one earlier diversion, with another one here - where is the direction of your post in relation to this thread ?
If this does not prove that the Singapore Government's involvement in business - especially in the new hypermarkets and supermarkets concepts - have not already killed private enterprise in the neighborhood provision shops and grocery stores ?Your question on ''Whichever the market place - whether in Malaysia or Singapore - have these hypermarkets ever passed off their savings to the consumers, or have they incurred higher costs in their massive operations ?''
Why bother with any report ?
I will answer that if i can find another report whereby i can use the results to give a proper explanation. i will leave it for now.
Just visit the nearest local NTUC stores and check out a few items, which they are supposed to have purchase in bulk to achieve economies of scale, backed up by our strong Singapore Dollars - what is the price of the goods sold in Singapore compared to the same products sold in their home country ?
Mineral water in 1.5 litre bottles from Malaysia retails at SGD 1.20, while the same is sold for 80 sens - (0.40 cents); grade A eggs from Malaysia retails at NTUC at 0.20 cents each, while the same is retailed at 0.20 sens in Malaysia - and the list continues.
Did we not hear from the Singapore's Government that we should have an economic philosphy of Singapore concentrating on our expertise in Services and Industry - leaving our larger neighbors to concentrate on Primary and Agriculture Industries ?
Was it not through this economic specialisation in comparative advantage - and with a stronger Singapore Dollar - that we were supposed to benefit from a lower cost for our essentials ? -
To atobe
Did I read too much into your statements, when you have cleverly inserted some snide remarks at the ability of Singaporean CHINESE ?
like i said, you read too much to it, i wasn't referring to the ability of the singaporean chinese, i was talking about their survival instincts and comparing it with the survival instincts of the chinese minority in other countries. You are twisting my words when i said 'who is the blame', i said that in response to a post from a forumer who largely blamed the sing gov. This forumer said:
You did ask "Who is to blame ?" but continue without making any thoughts except to blame Singaporean CHINESE - even as you accuse the Government pointing at the PEOPLE, and the PEOPLE pointing at the Government.
Who are the PEOPLE you have accused of pointing fingers ?
Did you not end your derogatory statement saying - "this is the story of the singaporean chinese" ?
''But the Sg govt has killed off all chinese entrepreneurialship... we are ruled by elites!!! woooooo!!!! '' - posted on 05 March 2007 · 10:04 PM
Excuse me, you seemed to have blanked out what i said about the education system in singapore, I said:
''My reply was in response to the earlier post about comparisons between the singaporean chinese and the chinese minority in other countries. Of course, when you are talking about the singapore born chinese, what you said about the 'blank slate' applies, especially since they have been brought up through an academic system which values meritrocacy. And that's one the reasons why the singapore chinese are so fundamentally different from the minority chinese in other countries (although chinese families value education but education system is different). When the conditions are right, the survival instincts should kick in. Maybe singapore doesn't have these conditions and as a result people get stuck in their comfort zone. So back the original question, should people just sit and wait till gov change their ways or should people do something on their own first while waiting for the gov to change (that is if they ever change)?'' - 06 March 2007 · 05:54 PM, by saffron60
So no, i did not just 'blame' the singaporean chinese, why don't you read more carefully next time. There are some people who are discontent with the gov, so these are the people who blame the gov. Yup, that is their story, as opposed to the chinese minority in other countries. Don't forget, my statements were made in comparisons to the chinese minority in other countries as a response to the post of another forumer. If you want to find any mistake i made in my response, you got to try harder than that.
-
To atobe
Even as early as 1819, Singapore's location was identified to be strategic by Stamford Raffles, with the Chinese migrants moving in to form the largest group of residents in Singapore during Colonial Rule.
That is your opinion, fair enough.
It was the Chinese population operating in an open economy encouraged and managed "lightly" by the Colonial Government that gave Singapore the advantage to be what it is today.
LKY's contribution came much later in the history of Singapore but with his strong hand of governance, did he not killed private capital and private enterprise ?
It is already recognised that the Government has taken too much wealth from the Citizens through the many revenue generating structures and systems, leaving many Singaporeans to be too poor to look after themselves - whether now or during their old age.The line of discussion is to prove to you that Singaporean Chinese has the initiative and the drive to succeed without the Government pacifiers.
like i said, it's your opinion, if you want to have a negative view of history, so be it. You don't have to 'prove' to me that Singaporean Chinese has the initiative and the drive to succeed without the Government pacifiers. I made some comments earlier about the survival instincts of the singaporean chinese and the education system, and I said that maybe singapore does not have the right conditions for the people to tap into their survival instincts. And we all know who's responsible for creating those conditions in the first place, don't we?
The fact that LKY's government decide to make Singapore dependent on the Government Pacifier is a sinister master plan, to ensure that every single Singaporean will live in an HDB flat that they will pay for with their CPF savings, at a price that will contra the loan the Government take from CPF but leaving the Government with a profit; AND with the ultimate caveat that the HDB flat will be leased only for 99 years and with ZERO value at the end of the lease period.
The ultimate slap of owning an HDB flat is that it is subject to being confiscated if any illegal activities is conducted in the flat.
Should we not skeptically view the ultimate objective of making Singaporeans - Chinese or not - dependent on the Government Pacifier is to allow the Government a leverage of control over Singaporeans ?
Is it not a fact that the entrepreneurial spirit has been blocked by the LKY Government so as to achieve his own plans of getting more Singaporeans to be involved in his industrializing of Singapore's economy ? The thing is, some people see it as a good thing, some people don't. One could also argue that the gov provided the people with the basic necessities for survival (hence, the term 'pacifiers'), and that if people wanted more than that, for example to become wealthy in business, they have to work harder for it. LKY's policies leaned more towards 'socialist' policies, which was aimed at the overall population, some people will argue that it kills entrepreneurship while some people will say that, having basic necessities is good, and if they want more than that, they are willing to work harder.You miss the point with your reply.
Ya, i know you are anti-LKY, I did not miss the point.
LKY was not supported by the Chinese business community during the early days of his involvement in politics, and his early realisation that wealth in private hands need to be controlled to prevent support going to the other political parties.
Dirty or not, it remains a fact that LKY had systematically dismantled private wealth, which ultimately killed private capital and private enterprise - the theme of this thread. -
To atobe
How did you come to this amazing conclusion about the private companies wasn't capable of running the lines" ?
Alright, the words 'not capable' were too strong, what i meant to say was that there were too many problems and finally, the gov took back the train lines. My earlier comments were based on the experience of people who lived through it and i know these people personally. You should take your own advice, since the report that you posted only showed HALF THE STORY of what actually happened.
The chequered history of the British Railway System is well documented, and you would have benefitted if you had done some research before making some conclusions to the situation that are still proving to be fluid at the moment.
''Railtrack was a group of companies that owned the track, signalling, tunnels, bridges, level crossings and all but a handful of the stations of the British railway system from its formation in April 1994 until 2002. On October 3, 2002, the main operating arm - the owner and operator of the national railway network, Railtrack PLC - was sold by its parent company Railtrack Group plc to "not for dividend" company Network Rail (a company limited by guarantee) and was later renamed Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. With that sale, the national railway network passed into the hands of a company without a share capital or shareholders, and in all essential senses the short, troubled and controversial life of Railtrack came to an end.''
''To bring Railtrack's administration to an end, the Government assisted in the formation of Network Rail, which bought Railtrack PLC from RT Group. Network Rail is a company without shareholders, and the Government insists that it is a private sector company, accountable to the public interest through regulation by the Office of Rail Regulation.''
quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railtrack
What happened in the end was that the gov took back the Railtrack's administration. However, there has been debate about whether Network Rail is a public sector or private private sector entity, but ultimately, it is under gov control.
''There has been considerable controversy over whether Network Rail is a public-sector or a private-sector entity. Government ministers and former ministers appear to try to look both ways on this issue. On the one hand, they need Network Rail to be classified in the private sector to avoid the company's enormous debts (over £20 billion) being counted as public expenditure liabilities. On the other hand, they like the idea that the shareholders have gone and the public perception is one of renationalisation - "renationalisation in all but name" is a common media description of what happened to Railtrack when Network Rail took it over.''
quoted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail
''Railtrack had been severely criticised for both its performance in improving the railway infrastructure and for its safety record.'' You can read the full article of the events in wikipedia.
Here are some 'highlights' of the railway privatisation, quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail
''Investment: It is a common view that the railways had been systematically starved of government investment since the 1960s as successive governments openly favoured road transport, and that when the railways were privatised they were already in bad shape and in need of renewal.''
''Since privatisation there has been considerable expenditure on modernising the system, but largely confined to a few routes. The consequences of the Hatfield accident in 2000 caused Railtrack to undertake large-scale track relaying without sufficient planning, and much of the work was substandard and subsequently had to be re-done. Railtrack's poor project management abilities were exemplified with the West Coast Route Modernisation project, which was intended to deliver a 140 mph (225 kmh) route in 2005 at a cost of £2 bn, but is finally likely to deliver a 125 mph (200 kmh) route in 2008 at a cost approaching £13 bn, which was a major factor in the company's financial collapse.''
''Profitability and Efficiency: One of the principal expectations from privatisation was that the railway service could be delivered more efficiently in the private sector because of the profit motive. The expectation that there were considerable costs that could be slashed from the system was not fulfilled; new operators found that BR had already done much of what could be done to improve efficiency. In addition, the profit motive was diluted when some of the passenger franchises ran into financial trouble and entered into management contracts with the franchising authority, which reduced the incentive to innovate. In addition, new health and safety requirements and the complexity of the privatised structure has thrown up additional costs in the industry. In all, the subsidy to the railway from the Government is considerably larger now than it was for BR.''
''Safety: This is one of the more emotive sources of argument. The railway can point to continued improvements in safety under privatisation; in fact the rate of improvement has increased compared to that experienced in the last years of BR. However, five serious rail accidents in the post-privatisation period (Southall (1997), Ladbroke Grove (1999), Hatfield (2000) Potters Bar (2002) and [Cumbria Rail Disaster [Tebay]] (2007)) all undermined confidence in the safety of the privatised railway and highlighted some areas where it appeared that new safety risks had been created as a result of the privatisation process (e.g. the separation of wheel from track).''
When you read the list of effects, you will find that overall, there are more negative effects than positive ones, (please take note that the article is based on arguments between the positive and negative effects of railway privatisation). -
To atobe
From your A.C. Nielsen report - did you miss out this important statement in the report ?
The full statement in the report goes like this:
"In South-East Asia, the picture differs, with Singapore the only market where the modern trade dominates.
Compared to North Asia, only 43 percent of sales in South-East Asia go through modern self-service grocery shops.. "
Statistics can be read in so many different ways, and drawn from different methods and data bases, each need to be carefully weighted to obtain the required results.
Is there objectivity to the different requirements from the reports ?
''In South-East Asia, the picture differs, with Singapore the only market where the modern trade dominates. Compared to North Asia, only 43 percent of sales in South-East Asia go through modern self-service grocery shops, although the shift towards the modern channels continues in nearly all countries. The most significant modern trade growth during 2005 has come from Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam. (Chart 4)''
If you look at chart 3 and chart 4, you will know that the share of the modern trade in these countries are grouped together by regions, north asia, SE asia and south asia respectively. So what is wrong with comparing singapore's share which is relatively the same as HK and taiwan's share? All these countries have more than 80% share, compared to the countries in SE asia (except singapore), the share is between 17% to 48%.
So, what are you trying to imply? That the stats can be read differently because of that? But it's still correct right? And the report later explains in the detail about the shares in modern trade, so there's no contradiction in the figures, if that's what you are implying. i doubt that you are an expert in statistics, so you wouldn't know the methodologies used, so if you want to discredit this report, then you have to come up with proof of 'errors' of the methodologies in areas such as data collection, data sampling, data analysis and so forth.
Don't understand your question on ''Is there objectivity to the different requirements from the reports ?'', what do you mean by different requirements?Yes, there is no denial that modern supermarkets and hypermarkets are making their entry into Malaysia, Indonesia and even Vietnam - as reported in your A.C. Nielsen report.
Let me get this straight, so you are saying that the traditional stores continue to thrive in sub-urban and rural areas because the gov's hypermarket and supermarkets dominate the major urban centres? Bear in mind, the report only states the results of the current trend and it does not explain the reasons for it. But since you are creative in coming up with the reasons for that, then you would have to proof that:
However, the traditional neigborhood grocery stores continue to thrive in the sub-urban and rural areas - and away from the MAJOR URBAN CENTRES where the hypermarket and supermarkets will have the needed larger captive populations centers to form its base.
Then again, at the end of it all - after one earlier diversion, with another one here - where is the direction of your post in relation to this thread ?
If this does not prove that the Singapore Government's involvement in business - especially in the new hypermarkets and supermarkets concepts - have not already killed private enterprise in the neighborhood provision shops and grocery stores ?
1) the majority of supermarkets in singapore are gov owned, because the report stated that singapore is a supermarket dominated market
2) the majority of share of sales go to the gov owned supermarkets,
3) if you have figures for the gov owned convenience stores, even better
All you have now is just talk about NTUC but you don't have any figures to prove your point.
At first i said that i was diverting a little from the topic about NTUC, (because i was talking about the market trends) but i think i ultimately it is relevant to our discussions on the topic. I also said that there are some areas in economy where i think that the gov should allow the local businesses to thrive, but i didn't say that the gov is killing off private entrepreneurship. I also want to clarify that after i said ''Ya, i agree with this, as mentioned earlier'', i was referring to my statement about how gov should allow local businesses to thrive, not that i think that the gov is killing off private entrepreneurship. They may provide competition for other retailers but whether or not they kill private entrepreneurship in the grocery business, that has yet to be proven.
The report is relevant because earlier we were talking about NTUC hypermarket. So this report, shows the trend of consumer grocery spending in singapore as well as other asian countries. Well, you kept saying the gov killed private entrepreneurship because they went into the hypermarket and supermarket business, so the report shows proof that there's a shift in consumer grocery spending which is a trend in most asian countries, which means that the consumers themselves change their way of grocery spending (although there may be many external factors which influence their decision) . So, the behaviour of consumers in singapore are partially responsible for the shift in spending and it can't be said that it is entirely because of government intervention. You have to also take into account the behaviour of singaporean consumers and that some of the factors that influence their decision are not related to gov intervention or gov owned supermarkets and hypermarkets. -
To atobe
Why bother with any report ?
I guess if you are not in the business field, you wouldn't put much emphasis in reading business reports. The economies of scale applies to large chain hypermarket/supermarkets and chain convenience stores, whether it is a privately or gov owned. The mineral water you are talking about, is it the same brand? It would be more fair to use examples from the same brand.
Just visit the nearest local NTUC stores and check out a few items, which they are supposed to have purchase in bulk to achieve economies of scale, backed up by our strong Singapore Dollars - what is the price of the goods sold in Singapore compared to the same products sold in their home country ?
Mineral water in 1.5 litre bottles from Malaysia retails at SGD 1.20, while the same is sold for 80 sens - (0.40 cents); grade A eggs from Malaysia retails at NTUC at 0.20 cents each, while the same is retailed at 0.20 sens in Malaysia - and the list continues.
Did we not hear from the Singapore's Government that we should have an economic philosphy of Singapore concentrating on our expertise in Services and Industry - leaving our larger neighbors to concentrate on Primary and Agriculture Industries ?
Was it not through this economic specialisation in comparative advantage - and with a stronger Singapore Dollar - that we were supposed to benefit from a lower cost for our essentials ?
Wow, 1.5 lit mineral water for 80 cents? That's very cheap, i have never come acrossed that even though i've been to msia many times. I think you may be talking about the price of the 1.5 lit mineral water which is sold at hypermarkets and that would most likely be the hypermarket's house brand. It's an unfair comparison to compare prices with hypermart's house brand (because their line of products are always cheaper than most brands in the same categories).
About the eggs comparison, SG$1 = RM2.30. What's there to compare? A msian who goes to singapore and buys eggs, pays double for it, not the same price he/she would pay when she is in msia. I don't think that comparison helps your argument much. If you are saying that NTUC are charging higher than normal prices for their products, then you have to compare their prices with other retailers in singapore and give those examples instead.
Let's use the 'imported egg' example in an economic context.
The cost of selling imported eggs in a singaporean retailer = opportunity costs + cost of production + transport costs + distribution costs + tax (import, GST) + miscellanous retailer costs
When you are only focusing on the exchange rate and the 'strength of the sing dollar', then you are leaving out all the other factors which influence the price of eggs when it is sold in a singapore retailer. Another factor to consider is the higher cost of living in singapore compared with msia.
Let's compare the price of the egg in a retailer in the UK, it would be about £1 for a dozen eggs, which is about SG$0.30 per egg and RM0.60 per egg. so overall, it costs more to buy an egg in the UK, bear in mind, i'm not talking about imported eggs in the UK, i'm referring to the locally produced eggs. So, it shows that there are 'hidden' costs in involved in selling products. Some may be gov influenced,some market influenced, you have to distinguish between how much gov intervention is there in the market and the supply chain process in order to draw a connection between the prices of products sold in a retailer and gov intervention.
if singapore had land like their larger neighbours, sing gov might have a more diversified approach instead of just concentrating in the services industry. Why are you mentioning such obvious things? -
Originally posted by saffron60:
Are you splitting hairs in the difference between the words 'ability' and 'survival instinct' ?
To atobe
Did I read too much into your statements, when you have cleverly inserted some snide remarks at the ability of Singaporean CHINESE ?
You did ask "Who is to blame ?" but continue without making any thoughts except to blame Singaporean CHINESE - even as you accuse the Government pointing at the PEOPLE, and the PEOPLE pointing at the Government.
Who are the PEOPLE you have accused of pointing fingers ?
Did you not end your derogatory statement saying - "this is the story of the singaporean chinese" ?
like i said, you read too much to it, i wasn't referring to the ability of the singaporean chinese, i was talking about their survival instincts and comparing it with the survival instincts of the chinese minority in other countries. You are twisting my words when i said 'who is the blame', i said that in response to a post from a forumer who largely blamed the sing gov. This forumer said:
''But the Sg govt has killed off all chinese entrepreneurialship... we are ruled by elites!!! woooooo!!!! '' - posted on 05 March 2007 • 10:04 PM
Without any 'ability' can anyone have the capacity to have any 'survival instinct' ?
Is there any disagreement about what you are talking about that is aimed at the Singaporean Chinese ?
Is it not obvious in the direction of your derogatory slant even when you indicate that the - "Gov point finger at people, people point finger at gov...neverending story, but this is the story of singaporean chinese ?
Yes the other forumer "largely blamed the sing gov", but you brilliantly defended the Singapore Government with your statement that "this is the story of singaporean chinese" - as if though the other races are excluded and the Government is blameless; and added further that "If these Chinese can survive in other countries as a minority, what more about those chinese in singapore, who make up more than 70% of the population.
Your last statement suggest that the Singaporean Chinese is useless even as it formed 70% of the population - are you not blaming the chinese for this situation in making a derogatory "statement of fact" ?
The large part of the education system that you have brought up was a digression, which would have formed a thread of its own if we were to discussed in detail .
Excuse me, you seemed to have blanked out what i said about the education system in singapore, I said:
''My reply was in response to the earlier post about comparisons between the singaporean chinese and the chinese minority in other countries. Of course, when you are talking about the singapore born chinese, what you said about the 'blank slate' applies, especially since they have been brought up through an academic system which values meritrocacy. And that's one the reasons why the singapore chinese are so fundamentally different from the minority chinese in other countries (although chinese families value education but education system is different). When the conditions are right, the survival instincts should kick in. Maybe singapore doesn't have these conditions and as a result people get stuck in their comfort zone. So back the original question, should people just sit and wait till gov change their ways or should people do something on their own first while waiting for the gov to change (that is if they ever change)?'' - 06 March 2007 • 05:54 PM, by saffron60
Just to humor you along, I will engage you on this topic.
If you believe that Singapore's education system is based on meritocracy - are you not contradicting yourself by suggesting that it has killed the survival instinct amongst Singaporeans - whether Chinese or otherwise ?
Would it not be true that in a meritocratic system, competitiveness is even sharper, even more accute in an environment where the best and fittest survive ?
If at all, should it not be a fact that the entire Singapore System - built by this LKY Government based on MERITOCRACY - has developed a situation where the best moved ahead, and have left those incapable to catch up to fall by the wayside ?
Is it not a fact that a late U-Turn has been recently made to stabilise the politically sensitive development in which there has been a high rate of attrition, and the casualties are mounting, in a dog-eat-dog environment where those moving up the social-economic ladder has left behind others who could not make the grade.
Have you not appreciated the fact that it is LKY's introduction and insistence of the meritocratic system that has caused more barriers and hurdles in differentiating the Singapore Society into classifications and groups.
The meritocratic system is a sad myth that only advance those who are most capable, and created social barriers and individual immobility.
Is this not the situation now in Singapore, where the meritocratic few are all that is needed, while the remaining mediocre majority are stuck at their respective levels ?
The political-social-economic strictures that have been imposed on Singaporeans, with the draconian laws in place, have made Singaporean incapacited - has it not caused the loss in their ability to survive ?
No, you "did not just 'blame' the singaporean chinese" - you were very explicit in your statement already quoted.
So no, i did not just 'blame' the singaporean chinese, why don't you read more carefully next time. There are some people who are discontent with the gov, so these are the people who blame the gov. Yup, that is their story, as opposed to the chinese minority in other countries. Don't forget, my statements were made in comparisons to the chinese minority in other countries as a response to the post of another forumer. If you want to find any mistake i made in my response, you got to try harder than that.
Now you are backtracking and toning your position even further - by identifying that "There are some people who are discontent with the gov, so these are the people who blame the gov."
This is quite different from your earlier statement - "Gov point finger at people, people point finger at gov...neverending story, but this is the story of singaporean chinese
Even as you attempt to compare Singaporean Chinese with those Chinese who is a minority in other countries, your statements made are hopelessly sweeping and baseless; and in one broad stroke, you have twisted the entire "story of singaporean chinese" -
No, this is not simply about my opinion - and there is nothing fair or not.Originally posted by saffron60:To atobe
Even as early as 1819, Singapore's location was identified to be strategic by Stamford Raffles, with the Chinese migrants moving in to form the largest group of residents in Singapore during Colonial Rule.
It was the Chinese population operating in an open economy encouraged and managed "lightly" by the Colonial Government that gave Singapore the advantage to be what it is today.
LKY's contribution came much later in the history of Singapore but with his strong hand of governance, did he not killed private capital and private enterprise ?
It is already recognised that the Government has taken too much wealth from the Citizens through the many revenue generating structures and systems, leaving many Singaporeans to be too poor to look after themselves - whether now or during their old age.
That is your opinion, fair enough.
Are you denying that Sir Stamford Raffles did not establish Singapore in 1819, and that it was the sheer hard work of Chinese enterprise and labor - as well as the enterprise and labor of the other races coming from across the seas - to built Singapore into a thriving City ?
Singapore's state of affairs today, is the ongoing consequence of over 45 years of continuous rule by LKY and the Political Party that he helped to form, as well as the single minded pursuit of policies advanced by LKY over the other voices from within his Party and the Country.
This single mindedness was revealed even in LKY personal thoughts, which he had written in his memoirs that as a Leader he does not need as much sleep as anyone; he is capable to read all reports coming from all levels of his government; and he is concerned that LHL may not have the same capacity as himself especially with the possibility of a relapse to LHL experience with cancer if he should be placed under pressure.
History is as recorded, and my remarks were more positive about the ability of the early Chinese migrants in Singapore to make Singapore a success during the Colonial Rule.The line of discussion is to prove to you that Singaporean Chinese has the initiative and the drive to succeed without the Government pacifiers.
The fact that LKY's government decide to make Singapore dependent on the Government Pacifier is a sinister master plan, to ensure that every single Singaporean will live in an HDB flat that they will pay for with their CPF savings, at a price that will contra the loan the Government take from CPF but leaving the Government with a profit; AND with the ultimate caveat that the HDB flat will be leased only for 99 years and with ZERO value at the end of the lease period.
The ultimate slap of owning an HDB flat is that it is subject to being confiscated if any illegal activities is conducted in the flat.
Should we not skeptically view the ultimate objective of making Singaporeans - Chinese or not - dependent on the Government Pacifier is to allow the Government a leverage of control over Singaporeans ?
Is it not a fact that the entrepreneurial spirit has been blocked by the LKY Government so as to achieve his own plans of getting more Singaporeans to be involved in his industrializing of Singapore's economy ?like i said, it's your opinion, if you want to have a negative view of history, so be it. You don't have to 'prove' to me that Singaporean Chinese has the initiative and the drive to succeed without the Government pacifiers.
It was your NEGATIVE VIEW towards the history of "singaporean chinese" compared to the POSITVE history of their fore fathers that I have highlighted.
If your negative views is stated with such authority, is it not misleading to those who read your post - and should I not prove you to be wrong ?
This is not about anti-LKY. It is about the entrepreneurial spirit of a race - the Chinese race and Singaporean.
I made some comments earlier about the survival instincts of the singaporean chinese and the education system, and I said that maybe singapore does not have the right conditions for the people to tap into their survival instincts. And we all know who's responsible for creating those conditions in the first place, don't we? [/quote]
Are you so sure that "we all know who's responsible for creating those conditions in the first place, don't we ?"
How could we when you were very emphatic and authoritatively opinionated with your statement - "Gov point finger at people, people point finger at gov...neverending story, but this is the story of singaporean chinese.
Did you not state that Singaporean Chinese is lacking in the ability of any survival instinct - despite forming 70% of the population cannot compare to the Chinese who are minorities in other countries ?
Do you understand what you are bringing up with your statement that "LKY's policies leanded more towards 'socialist' policies ?" This must be the joke of the 21st Century.
The thing is, some people see it as a good thing, some people don't. One could also argue that the gov provided the people with the basic necessities for survival (hence, the term 'pacifiers'), and that if people wanted more than that, for example to become wealthy in business, they have to work harder for it. LKY's policies leaned more towards 'socialist' policies, which was aimed at the overall population, some people will argue that it kills entrepreneurship while some people will say that, having basic necessities is good, and if they want more than that, they are willing to work harder.
Does LKY believe in the social welfare that is characteristics of socialism, or is he only interested in the draconian aspects of socialism that is characteristic of the Communist Socialism ?
Did you not read his memoirs about how he withdrew Singapore from being a member of the World Democratic Socialists Congress, before they moved to kick him and Singapore out ? This was within 10 years after he got Singapore kicked out of Malaysia.
[quote]
You miss the point with your reply.
LKY was not supported by the Chinese business community during the early days of his involvement in politics, and his early realisation that wealth in private hands need to be controlled to prevent support going to the other political parties.
Dirty or not, it remains a fact that LKY had systematically dismantled private wealth, which ultimately killed private capital and private enterprise - the theme of this thread.Ya, i know you are anti-LKY, I did not miss the point.
You can try as hard as you want to explain and tone down your previously held position with more digressive points that are newly raised, but the fact remains that with each new points raised you are making your position even more absurd. -
Originally posted by saffron60:
If you are trying to impress by making useless extracts simply to create a huge envelope of fog that serves to confuse the entire picture, and extract yourself out of an untenable position - you found the wrong angle.
To atobe
How did you come to this amazing conclusion about the private companies wasn't capable of running the lines" ?
The chequered history of the British Railway System is well documented, and you would have benefitted if you had done some research before making some conclusions to the situation that are still proving to be fluid at the moment.
Alright, the words 'not capable' were too strong, what i meant to say was that there were too many problems and finally, the gov took back the train lines. My earlier comments were based on the experience of people who lived through it and i know these people personally. You should take your own advice, since the report that you posted only showed HALF THE STORY of what actually happened.
''Railtrack was a group of companies that owned the track, signalling, tunnels, bridges, level crossings and all but a handful of the stations of the British railway system from its formation in April 1994 until 2002. On October 3, 2002, the main operating arm - the owner and operator of the national railway network, Railtrack PLC - was sold by its parent company Railtrack Group plc to "not for dividend" company Network Rail (a company limited by guarantee) and was later renamed Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. With that sale, the national railway network passed into the hands of a company without a share capital or shareholders, and in all essential senses the short, troubled and controversial life of Railtrack came to an end.''
''To bring Railtrack's administration to an end, the Government assisted in the formation of Network Rail, which bought Railtrack PLC from RT Group. Network Rail is a company without shareholders, and the Government insists that it is a private sector company, accountable to the public interest through regulation by the Office of Rail Regulation.''
quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railtrack
What happened in the end was that the gov took back the Railtrack's administration. However, there has been debate about whether Network Rail is a public sector or private private sector entity, but ultimately, it is under gov control.
''There has been considerable controversy over whether Network Rail is a public-sector or a private-sector entity. Government ministers and former ministers appear to try to look both ways on this issue. On the one hand, they need Network Rail to be classified in the private sector to avoid the company's enormous debts (over £20 billion) being counted as public expenditure liabilities. On the other hand, they like the idea that the shareholders have gone and the public perception is one of renationalisation - "renationalisation in all but name" is a common media description of what happened to Railtrack when Network Rail took it over.''
quoted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail
''Railtrack had been severely criticised for both its performance in improving the railway infrastructure and for its safety record.'' You can read the full article of the events in wikipedia.
Here are some 'highlights' of the railway privatisation, quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail
''Investment: It is a common view that the railways had been systematically starved of government investment since the 1960s as successive governments openly favoured road transport, and that when the railways were privatised they were already in bad shape and in need of renewal.''
''Since privatisation there has been considerable expenditure on modernising the system, but largely confined to a few routes. The consequences of the Hatfield accident in 2000 caused Railtrack to undertake large-scale track relaying without sufficient planning, and much of the work was substandard and subsequently had to be re-done. Railtrack's poor project management abilities were exemplified with the West Coast Route Modernisation project, which was intended to deliver a 140 mph (225 kmh) route in 2005 at a cost of £2 bn, but is finally likely to deliver a 125 mph (200 kmh) route in 2008 at a cost approaching £13 bn, which was a major factor in the company's financial collapse.''
''Profitability and Efficiency: One of the principal expectations from privatisation was that the railway service could be delivered more efficiently in the private sector because of the profit motive. The expectation that there were considerable costs that could be slashed from the system was not fulfilled; new operators found that BR had already done much of what could be done to improve efficiency. In addition, the profit motive was diluted when some of the passenger franchises ran into financial trouble and entered into management contracts with the franchising authority, which reduced the incentive to innovate. In addition, new health and safety requirements and the complexity of the privatised structure has thrown up additional costs in the industry. In all, the subsidy to the railway from the Government is considerably larger now than it was for BR.''
''Safety: This is one of the more emotive sources of argument. The railway can point to continued improvements in safety under privatisation; in fact the rate of improvement has increased compared to that experienced in the last years of BR. However, five serious rail accidents in the post-privatisation period (Southall (1997), Ladbroke Grove (1999), Hatfield (2000) Potters Bar (2002) and [Cumbria Rail Disaster [Tebay]] (2007)) all undermined confidence in the safety of the privatised railway and highlighted some areas where it appeared that new safety risks had been created as a result of the privatisation process (e.g. the separation of wheel from track).''
When you read the list of effects, you will find that overall, there are more negative effects than positive ones, (please take note that the article is based on arguments between the positive and negative effects of railway privatisation).
All that you have written above still does not back up your initial statement that Privatisation of the Railroad in UK cannot compare to the greater efficiency through nationalisation - in having the Government manage the Public Transportation system.
Your extracts above only clearly show the failure of the successive UK government - up till Thatcher and through John Majors leadership - in mishandling the privatisation of the UK Railroad system.
It is a poor example to support your position taken, and I have already indicated to you that prior to LKY's coming into politics, there already exist ten PRIVATELY OWNED Bus Companies that had provided efficient transport service to the Singapore Public.
On one front, we have the LKY Government refusing to allow the Private Companies to increase fares unless they show their ability to improve their transport assets. On the other side, the Private Bus Operators will not invest unless the Government agree to their terms of fare structure so as to be able to recoup their investment.
The failure of the Singapore Private Bus Companies was due to the Government's own political-economic-socialist plans, with the other big picture in mind to starve the Other Political Parties from receiving political support and political funding. -
Now the 'brilliance in reading' that you accuse others of not having is reflected in your own anxiety to score points.Originally posted by saffron60:To atobe
From your A.C. Nielsen report - did you miss out this important statement in the report ?
"In South-East Asia, the picture differs, with Singapore the only market where the modern trade dominates.
Compared to North Asia, only 43 percent of sales in South-East Asia go through modern self-service grocery shops.. "
Statistics can be read in so many different ways, and drawn from different methods and data bases, each need to be carefully weighted to obtain the required results.
Is there objectivity to the different requirements from the reports ?
The full statement in the report goes like this:
''In South-East Asia, the picture differs, with Singapore the only market where the modern trade dominates. Compared to North Asia, only 43 percent of sales in South-East Asia go through modern self-service grocery shops, although the shift towards the modern channels continues in nearly all countries. The most significant modern trade growth during 2005 has come from Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam. (Chart 4)''
If you look at chart 3 and chart 4, you will know that the share of the modern trade in these countries are grouped together by regions, north asia, SE asia and south asia respectively. So what is wrong with comparing singapore's share which is relatively the same as HK and taiwan's share? All these countries have more than 80% share, compared to the countries in SE asia (except singapore), the share is between 17% to 48%.
So, what are you trying to imply? That the stats can be read differently because of that? But it's still correct right? And the report later explains in the detail about the shares in modern trade, so there's no contradiction in the figures, if that's what you are implying. i doubt that you are an expert in statistics, so you wouldn't know the methodologies used, so if you want to discredit this report, then you have to come up with proof of 'errors' of the methodologies in areas such as data collection, data sampling, data analysis and so forth.
Don't understand your question on ''Is there objectivity to the different requirements from the reports ?'', what do you mean by different requirements? [/quote]
Where is the direction of your line of thinking ?
If you are trying to impress, you fail miserably.
All the charts that you can bring up does not hide the fact that in Singapore, the government has created a political-economy that makes one of the most entrepreneurial race become unentrepreneurial.
Concerning "objectivity" : surely you will know that whatever report - with data or charts - that A.C.Nielsen produces, we are at liberty to use the information to fit or support whatever report or views in any manner we need. In other words, report can be subjected to window-dressing. You see what you want to see, or what you can see.
[quote]Yes, there is no denial that modern supermarkets and hypermarkets are making their entry into Malaysia, Indonesia and even Vietnam - as reported in your A.C. Nielsen report.
However, the traditional neigborhood grocery stores continue to thrive in the sub-urban and rural areas - and away from the MAJOR URBAN CENTRES where the hypermarket and supermarkets will have the needed larger captive populations centers to form its base.
Then again, at the end of it all - after one earlier diversion, with another one here - where is the direction of your post in relation to this thread ?
If this does not prove that the Singapore Government's involvement in business - especially in the new hypermarkets and supermarkets concepts - have not already killed private enterprise in the neighborhood provision shops and grocery stores ?
Let me get this straight, so you are saying that the traditional stores continue to thrive in sub-urban and rural areas because the gov's hypermarket and supermarkets dominate the major urban centres? Bear in mind, the report only states the results of the current trend and it does not explain the reasons for it. But since you are creative in coming up with the reasons for that, then you would have to proof that:
1) the majority of supermarkets in singapore are gov owned, because the report stated that singapore is a supermarket dominated market
2) the majority of share of sales go to the gov owned supermarkets,
3) if you have figures for the gov owned convenience stores, even better
All you have now is just talk about NTUC but you don't have any figures to prove your point.
Are you changing my posted words to as - the gov's hypermarket and supermarket, or did I state in very simple words that hypermarket and supermarket in Malaysia are located in large urban population centers ?
It was clearly stated in your A.C. Nielsen's report that - "In South-East Asia, the picture differs, with Singapore the only market where the modern trade dominates."
Is it not a fact that the majority of supermarkets in Singapore is dominated by Government Linked - (not owned) - NTUC Fairprice ?
NTUC FairPrice Co-Operative is a supermarket chain based in Singapore and the largest in the country. The company is a co-operative of the National Trades Union Congress or NTUC. The group has 100 supermarkets across the island, with over 50 outlets of Cheers convenience in the island. NTUC FairPrice has partnered with ExxonMobil to run several stations with a FairPrice branding at the minimarts at their stations. The supermarket has a slogan known as Singapore's very own.
Do you need a more brilliant light to see that being the largest Supermarket store in Singapore, it is obvious that it will have the largest share of the market and revenue ? -
continuationAt first i said that i was diverting a little from the topic about NTUC, (because i was talking about the market trends) but i think i ultimately it is relevant to our discussions on the topic. I also said that there are some areas in economy where i think that the gov should allow the local businesses to thrive, but i didn't say that the gov is killing off private entrepreneurship. I also want to clarify that after i said ''Ya, i agree with this, as mentioned earlier'', i was referring to my statement about how gov should allow local businesses to thrive, not that i think that the gov is killing off private entrepreneurship. They may provide competition for other retailers but whether or not they kill private entrepreneurship in the grocery business, that has yet to be proven.
You seem to flip-flop with your position when it suits you.
First you cry for government intervention in public transport - even when I had shown you that Private Enterprise in Public Transport was already doing well since the Colonial Days, now you are "referring to {your} statement about how gov should allow local business to thrive" and you insult the readers' intelligence by further stating - "but i didn't say that the gov is killing off private entrepreneurship ".
If McDonalds had open its FIRST store in Singapore, within your neighborhood precint - will you not be amongst the first ten thousand residents to visit it during the first six months ?
The report is relevant because earlier we were talking about NTUC hypermarket. So this report, shows the trend of consumer grocery spending in singapore as well as other asian countries. Well, you kept saying the gov killed private entrepreneurship because they went into the hypermarket and supermarket business, so the report shows proof that there's a shift in consumer grocery spending which is a trend in most asian countries, which means that the consumers themselves change their way of grocery spending (although there may be many external factors which influence their decision) . So, the behaviour of consumers in singapore are partially responsible for the shift in spending and it can't be said that it is entirely because of government intervention. You have to also take into account the behaviour of singaporean consumers and that some of the factors that influence their decision are not related to gov intervention or gov owned supermarkets and hypermarkets.
Is it McDonald's fault for having enticed you to patronise its first store in Singapore - that happen to be located in your block ?
If someone offer you a cheap deal to buy a quality car - will you not change your attitude to accept the deal to the quality car ?
Was it not a fact that by allowing NTUC to move into a specialised field of a very specialised Private Enterprise, the government has already begun to mould Singaporean's attitude towards the idea of supermarkets and hypermarkets ? Is this not changing Singaporeans' behaviour and attitude ?
It is a fact that the government allowed NTUC to deviate from its original goals of looking after the welfare of the Singaporean Workers, and went beyond its scope of providing essential food items to Singaporean Workers through Union Members; and in the process killed off the neighborhood grocery stores.
Are you still attempting to place the blame on Singaporean for this change in Social Behaviour. -
Originally posted by saffron60:
What makes you think that I am not in business ?
I guess if you are not in the business field, you wouldn't put much emphasis in reading business reports. The economies of scale applies to large chain hypermarket/supermarkets and chain convenience stores, whether it is a privately or gov owned. The mineral water you are talking about, is it the same brand? It would be more fair to use examples from the same brand.
Wow, 1.5 lit mineral water for 80 cents? That's very cheap, i have never come acrossed that even though i've been to msia many times. I think you may be talking about the price of the 1.5 lit mineral water which is sold at hypermarkets and that would most likely be the hypermarket's house brand. It's an unfair comparison to compare prices with hypermart's house brand (because their line of products are always cheaper than most brands in the same categories).
About the eggs comparison, SG$1 = RM2.30. What's there to compare? A msian who goes to singapore and buys eggs, pays double for it, not the same price he/she would pay when she is in msia. I don't think that comparison helps your argument much. If you are saying that NTUC are charging higher than normal prices for their products, then you have to compare their prices with other retailers in singapore and give those examples instead.
Let's use the 'imported egg' example in an economic context.
The cost of selling imported eggs in a singaporean retailer = opportunity costs + cost of production + transport costs + distribution costs + tax (import, GST) + miscellanous retailer costs
When you are only focusing on the exchange rate and the 'strength of the sing dollar', then you are leaving out all the other factors which influence the price of eggs when it is sold in a singapore retailer. Another factor to consider is the higher cost of living in singapore compared with msia.
Let's compare the price of the egg in a retailer in the UK, it would be about £1 for a dozen eggs, which is about SG$0.30 per egg and RM0.60 per egg. so overall, it costs more to buy an egg in the UK, bear in mind, i'm not talking about imported eggs in the UK, i'm referring to the locally produced eggs. So, it shows that there are 'hidden' costs in involved in selling products. Some may be gov influenced,some market influenced, you have to distinguish between how much gov intervention is there in the market and the supply chain process in order to draw a connection between the prices of products sold in a retailer and gov intervention.
if singapore had land like their larger neighbours, sing gov might have a more diversified approach instead of just concentrating in the services industry. Why are you mentioning such obvious things?
You have shown an immense talent at immersing yourself into looking at the small prints and miss out the bigger plot from the entire book.
For crying out loud, post as many 'cut-and-paste' - digress as much as you want - and make your best effort to fog up the entire thread - the fact will still remains simple - that despite the declared intention of NTUC Fairprice towards Singaporean Union Workers, its prices are not exactly 'FAIR'.
Yes, you are right with your claim that Singapore's land cost is high, however, who has set the land prices so high that businesses are passing off their cost to the consumers, while continuously raking in their profit.
Malaysia may have a huge piece of real estate, however, they have a weaker ringgit, and depend as much on the importing of cement, steel bars, and most building materials. One will say that Malaysia should end up paying a higher price for the building even if the land price is lower.
Yet, Malaysia is able to offset the high import costs paid with a weak ringgit, and still maintain a more competitive retail price to benefit its consumers, who are also protected by a very active Consumer Price Inspectors.
Comparing to Singapore, despite the fact that we have a stronger currency than Malaysia - by two times over - our cost of construction is higher than Malaysia, even when there are more Malaysian construction workers than Singaporeans.
Yes, I can believe your statement that "if singapore had land like their larger neighbours, sing gov might have a more diversified approach instead of just concentrating in the services industry."
The Singapore Government will hoard the land, and auction the land to the highest bidder over its desired price, which will make the final product costs to be atrocious, while increasing revenue to itself.
The obvious is being stated, as you seem not to be able to grasp some basic concepts.
With a stronger dollar, and following the economic philosphy of comparative advantage, we were supposed to be able to buy cheaper primary and agricultural products for our daily essentials; yet the produce sold in the Singapore hypermarkets or supermarkets - are all much higher than those found in Malaysia.
Are you some connosieur of water, with your taste honed from a taste of fine wine ?
Bottled water consist of only mineral and distilled water - whatever the brands sold in Malaysia, the difference is only 10 or 20 sens.
The bottled mineral and distilled water sold in Malaysia, may not carry the same label as NTUC Fairprice will have their own house brands; while other Singaporean supplier may prefer to have their own OEM brand, and still retain the label indicating "Produced in Malaysia".
Why are you complicating a simple subject of eggs by spreading across several continents away ?
Why pick UK, and not Australia, or China, or Korea ?
Grade A eggs in Malaysia are sold at a controlled RETAIL price of 20 to 35 sen, which is about 0.15 cents - Malaysian retail price in Singapore currency.
If at this price, the Malaysian distribution chain will hive off 30 percent to cover their costs, this will make their wholesale price to be somewhere 0.245 sen or 0.12 cents.
Singapore's NTUC should be able to knock off another 10 per cent with its ability to pay cash and taking a bigger load for its more then 100 outlets.
With a stronger currency and ability to buy in bulk, and with shorter or less complex distribution tiers, we are paying much more then the Malaysians. -
talking about small business... anyone remember the mobile fast food van or something like that?
before you, MIW must make 1st apply fully in that case. best part is the one with that idea did not get to do it. he had to do it the other way.
and what happen to all those van now??? where is that guy who come up with that idea???
how not to feel sick? -
Not to worry about this guy, as being an entrepreneur - he will probably have a few ideas up his sleeve and will probably be taking off with another project.Originally posted by Joshua1975:talking about small business... anyone remember the mobile fast food van or something like that?
before you, MIW must make 1st apply fully in that case. best part is the one with that idea did not get to do it. he had to do it the other way.
and what happen to all those van now??? where is that guy who come up with that idea???
how not to feel sick?
Unlucky for the two old ladies in their late 60's, both of whom only wanted to enjoy selling wanton noodles, so as to be independent in their old age; and were simply too proud to seek social welfare.
First the HDB forced them - and all other rental tenants - to buy over their hawker stalls at market real estate prices in prime location, then they were persuaded to commit to a long term loan from the Bank instead of HDB providing the loan.
Within the next four years, the Bank had to foreclose on the two old ladies, who were subsequently forclosed by the bank, and both were made bankrupts.
A classic case of bureaucracy gone crazy. -
To atobe
Are you splitting hairs in the difference between the words 'ability' and 'survival instinct' ?
you are wasting my time on, HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO REPEAT THE SAME THING WITH YOU? WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND SIMPLE ENGLISH? I said gov point finger at people, people point finger at gov, that's the story of singaporean people, IN COMPARISON WITH THE CHINESE MINORITY IN OTHER COUNTRIES. Why you completely ignore my comparisons with the chinese minority? I never said singaporean chinese were useless or had no abilities, don't be so low as to put words in my mouth. Don't you know that abilities consist of more than just survival instincts? Why are you so blur?
Without any 'ability' can anyone have the capacity to have any 'survival instinct' ?
Is there any disagreement about what you are talking about that is aimed at the Singaporean Chinese ?
Is it not obvious in the direction of your derogatory slant even when you indicate that the - "Gov point finger at people, people point finger at gov...neverending story, but this is the story of singaporean chinese ?
Yes the other forumer "largely blamed the sing gov", but you brilliantly defended the Singapore Government with your statement that "this is the story of singaporean chinese" - as if though the other races are excluded and the Government is blameless; and added further that "If these Chinese can survive in other countries as a minority, what more about those chinese in singapore, who make up more than 70% of the population.
Your last statement suggest that the Singaporean Chinese is useless even as it formed 70% of the population - are you not blaming the chinese for this situation in making a derogatory "statement of fact" ?
These are the exact statements i made:
i agree with you that the chinese in singapore are a different breed. When you look at the chinese minority in other countries, even those in developed countries like Canada, UK, US, Australia, either seem to do well in business or at the very least, make ends meet, call it survival instinct. If these Chinese can survive in other countries as a minority, what more about those chinese in singapore, who make up more than 70% of the population.
Do we have a chicken and egg situation here? Is it the gov that kill off chinese entrepreneurship in singapore or is it the chinese singaporean who can't stop sucking the gov pacifier after all these years? Who is to blame? Gov point finger at people, people point finger at gov...neverending story, but this is the story of singaporean chinese. Maybe we should ask this question to the immigrant chinese singaporean who is doing well in a developed country
Ah...but the chinese in other countries as a minority don't have a pacifier and worse still, don't even have 'parents' to look after them, yet they can still make it. I'm not saying that they are 'better' than the singaporean chinese, but ultimately they are survivalists. Has singaporean chinese forgotten their survival instincts? If it is an inborn thing, surely the chinese singaporean will still find a way out of their current dilema and help themselves instead of hoping and wishing....
I WAS FOCUSING ON SURVIVAL INSTINCTS, SO PLEASE DON'T STOOP SO LOW AS TO SAY THAT I INSULT CHINESE SINGAPOREAN PEOPLE..YOU ARE THE ONE WHO MADE UP ALL THESE INSULTING WORDS....NOT ME...DON'T PLAY DIRTY -
To atobe
The large part of the education system that you have brought up was a digression, which would have formed a thread of its own if we were to discussed in detail .
Again, what is the matter with you? Why are being so completely biased? Why did you ignore the fact that i made response based on the post on one of the forumer, here's the post:
Just to humor you along, I will engage you on this topic.
If you believe that Singapore's education system is based on meritocracy - are you not contradicting yourself by suggesting that it has killed the survival instinct amongst Singaporeans - whether Chinese or otherwise ?
Would it not be true that in a meritocratic system, competitiveness is even sharper, even more accute in an environment where the best and fittest survive ?
If at all, should it not be a fact that the entire Singapore System - built by this LKY Government based on MERITOCRACY - has developed a situation where the best moved ahead, and have left those incapable to catch up to fall by the wayside ?
Is it not a fact that a late U-Turn has been recently made to stabilise the politically sensitive development in which there has been a high rate of attrition, and the casualties are mounting, in a dog-eat-dog environment where those moving up the social-economic ladder has left behind others who could not make the grade.
Have you not appreciated the fact that it is LKY's introduction and insistence of the meritocratic system that has caused more barriers and hurdles in differentiating the Singapore Society into classifications and groups.
The meritocratic system is a sad myth that only advance those who are most capable, and created social barriers and individual immobility.
Is this not the situation now in Singapore, where the meritocratic few are all that is needed, while the remaining mediocre majority are stuck at their respective levels ?
The political-social-economic strictures that have been imposed on Singaporeans, with the draconian laws in place, have made Singaporean incapacited - has it not caused the loss in their ability to survive ?
I dont really see it as the problem of Chinese Singaporean. They are just like blank piece of harddisk that inherits the values or (the OS) of the system. If a PRC Chinese was adopted and raised here, he would be like Chinese Singaporean, more honest, less challenging of authority and more afraid to take risks. These values are inherited through socialization in the education system and the environment.
If you ask why Chinese Singaporeans lack the “survival instincts” i think its because they are suck into the paper chase. The Singapore System overemphasizes on academics and distorts the environment of an average Singapore teenager.
Even for working adults, I can see many people try to beat poverty by going for private degrees rather then using their “survival instinct” to start a business. And when academic is not their forte, its really a waste of human resource. They may have started a business or gone into other careers.
- 06 March 2007 · 02:51 AM
You completely missed the point we were discussing in the education system, and why are now talking about completely different thing, PLEASE DON'T WASTE MORE OF YOUR TIME DISECTING PEOPLE'S CONVERSATIONS TO HIGHLIGHT YOUR BIASED VIEWS ON THINGS JUST SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE PEOPLE LOOK BAD. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING HERE AND YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT YOUR THEORIES AGAIN WHICH HAVE GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR CONVERSATION. YOU ARE THE KING OF DIVERSION TACTICS....