Making one of e most entrepreneurial race unentrepreneurial
-
No, you "did not just 'blame' the singaporean chinese" - you were very explicit in your statement already quoted.
Why are so daft? Isn't it a fact that there are discontent people in singapore? hasn't it occured to you that we were referring to the PRESENT, isn't it a fact that the ruling party's popularity has been dropping over the years? Can't you make a connection between the two? Isn't it obivous that when i say 'people', those people i was talking about are the discontent? also, don't forget that those remarks are made in comparison with the chinese minority in other countries. The chinese minority have small political representation in whichever country they are in, because of the fact that they are a minority. So they can't complain, they can only suck it up and live their lives the best way they can.
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"
Anyway, hasn't it always been the gov's way, when people ask for changes, gov always come back and say, no if you want this or that you have to work harder, blah blah, and then people say, no, gov have to change first in order for us to have this or that..blah..blah..see what i mean about gov pointing finger at people, and people pointing finger at gov? Do you get it now? -
To atobe
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.
There you go again, that is your interpretation of socialism. The statement that i made was a NEUTRAL one, you understand what NEUTRAL means right?
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.
So, if you want to judge LKY and his policies, go ahead, be my guest, but it's got nothing to do with me, ok? because i only made a neutral statement.This is not about anti-LKY. It is about the entrepreneurial spirit of a race - the Chinese race and Singaporean.
like i said, you read too much into what i write and you draw your own silliy conclusions about what i'm trying to say. You accuse me of being insulting to the chinese singaporean. c'mon, if it was really true, i would have been fiercely attacked by other forumers and even the forumer that i was having a discussion with, didn't seem to think that i was insulting the chinese singaporean. So why only you seem to think that? I think you've got a real corrupt mind, that's why you always seem to take the negative view of what people are trying to say.
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. -
To atobe
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.
All that i have written about the privatisation of the train lines in the UK was the truth of what happened. WHEREAS YOU TOLD ONLY HALF THE STORY TO TRY TO TWIST IT TO MAKE IT SEEM THAT THE PRIVATE COMPANIES WERE CAPABLE OF RUNNING THE LINES. IT LOOKS LIKE ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR COVER UPS, WHERE YOU READ SOMETHING ON THE INTERNET, NOT KNOWING THE FULL STORY OF WHAT HAPPENEND AND SIMPLY CUT AND PASTE IT HERE TO PROVE YOUR POINT. BEAR IN MIND, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME YOU ARE TRYING THIS CHEATING TACTIC HERE, I HAVE CAUGHT YOU ONCE BEFORE, SO PLEASE DON'T STOOP SO LOW AS TO USE CHEATING TACTICS, OK? Btw, i did acknowledge that THATCHER WAS IN THE WRONG FOR PRIVATISING THE TRAIN LINES, but MY STAND IS THAT, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IS SOMETHING WHICH THE GOV SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLING AND I GAVE THE STORY ABOUT UK TRAIN LINES AS AN EXAMPLE. If you don't agree with me on this, fine, it's ok, but please don't try to change the story about what actually happened in the UK. YOU WEREN'T THERE, YOU'VE NEVER LIVED THROUGH THAT EXPERIENCE, IVE TALKED TO PEOPLE WHO WENT THROUGH IT AND THERE ARE A LOT OF INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET WHICH SUPPORTS MY VIEWS, SO THERE'S NO NEED TO COVER UP.
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.
If you really believe that you are right, please show me more evidence of your claims...c'mon, show me!!!!! Show me the proof....i'm still waiting for it
What you are saying about the LKY's involvement in the public transport system has been said earlier...you are just repeating yourself. If that's your stand, that's fine. You don't have to keep repeating..i'm not like you, where i have to tell you the same thing 3 or 4 times until you get it into your head, and sometimes even more times than that. -
Erm dude, using caps to emphasize is cool... but kinda defeats the purpose if it makes everything hard to read...
Isn't the whole point getting information across? -
Where is the direction of your line of thinking ?
You sound very naive here, you think that a well respected company like AC nielsen doesn't understand the objectivity of their own reports? If you were to go to a client using the very same report that we were discussing, and you made such comments like that, you would be scolded and humiliated by the client. That's the real world for you. If you don't understand how to read statistics report, that's ok, if you don't want to admit it, fine, nobody is forcing you to admit anything. You talk about 'objectivity' as though you understand the report very well, c'mon lah, earlier, you made a mistake about reading the report, you acted as though the report was giving contradicting information, but when you read it again after i point out your mistake, now you say ''we are at liberty to use the info to fit or support whatever report or views in any manner we need''...you are dead wrong about that, there are many different types of reports used for different purposes or different objectives. Clearly, you don't understand what the objective of this report is..if you make such naive statements. I have told you a few times already what the purpose of the report is...and you pooh pooh the whole notion and call it 'window dressing'. like that i can also say the same thing with your theories as well..they are just 'window dressing'
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.
-
Paragraphs dude! Paragraphs!
Or else nobody will bother to read or reply! -
To atobe
Now the 'brilliance in reading' that you accuse others of not having is reflected in your own anxiety to score points.
I got confused by your statement:
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 ?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.
Here, i thought you were talking about the situation in singapore.
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 ?
Well, it's partly your fault, because you didn't indicate which country/countries you were talking in the second paragraph.
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 ?
Again, you misunderstand what i say, of course when you compare NTUC chain of supermarkets and convenience stores, with individual supermarket chains like cold storage, then NTUC is the largest, that's true. But what i'm saying is that you have to compare ALL THE OTHER SUPERMARKET CHAINS AND WITH THOSE WHICH BELONG TO NTUC. Otherwise, how are going to show that NTUC dominate the grocery modern trade in singapore in terms of no of stores? Let's look at the figures, NTUC has got slightly more than a 100 supermarkets and cold storage has got about 80 supermarkets. So this shows, that the two chains dominate the market or it's called a virtual duopoly.
Ok, i should have told you earlier, when we are talking about the share of modern trade, we are referring to the sales in modern trade. So this means that even if there are many stores in a certain area, but it doesn't mean that the share of sales will be proportionate to the no of stores in that area. Let me give you an example.
Area 1 = 10 stores, share of sales = 30% of total sales at national level
Area 2 = 6 stores, share of sales = 50% of total sales at national level
this means that even though area 1 has got more stores than area 2, a larger share of sales still goes to area 2. It doesn't necessarily mean that just because you have more stores than another supermarket chain, that you should have more sales. And to proof that, we need to look at the data. So this means that you have to show the share data of NTUC and compare that with cold storage data and with the total combined share data of the other supermarkets. Ultimately, share of sales is more important than no of stores. -
Hehe Singapore can do business one meh... haha. In the past maybe, but now you start a business just to survive....
-
First of all, what is your definition of 'more competitive retail price'? And how do you compare this situation between msia and singapore? It may seem to you that the ringgit is weaker, therefore msia should end up paying a higher price for the building even if the land price is lower. Do you have any evidence that msia imports the amount of cement, steel bars, and most building materials that should make the prices of buildings more expensive? Again, this is your theory...but you show no proof. You cannot ignore the supply chain process and just focus on the strength of the sing dollar. At every step of the supply chain process, someone gets a 'cut' and this drives up the cost of the product. These so called active 'Consumer Price Inspectors', do you know how they operate? do you think they are able to cover the whole of msia? Why is it during chinese new year every yr, the chinese get slaughtered with 2 or 3 times more than what they usually pay for food? Again, those are just your theories, in theory, consumers are suppose to get protection, but in reality, it doesn't always happen. what i'm explaining to you are the realities of the market, the supply chain is a reality, so you can't ignore that it exists.
What makes you think that I am not in business ?
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.
About the cost of construction in sinagpore, you also have to consider the higher cost of living in singapore compared to msia, that's why a construction worker in singapore gets paid more than in msia.
About the 'NTUC Fairprice towards Singaporean Union Workers, its prices are not exactly 'FAIR'. , you have to compare their prices with other supermarkets in singapore in order to get a fair comparison. It doesn't make sense to compare that with the same items in msia and say that the prices in singapore are unfair. Like that i can also say, the price of mineral water in UK is much higher, so the prices in UK are unfair or i can also say, the price of mineral water in indonesia is much cheaper, msia prices are unfair. -
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.
You remark about bottled water sold in msia is completely off, there are many brands in msia, example, 1.5 lit, the prices of cheap to mid range brands are between RM1.00 to RM3.00 and the more expensive imported brands can be as high as RM6.00 or more. Looks like i know more about bottled water in msia than you. What century do you live in? Haven't you heard of what's called a BRAND? And the pricing which is associated with brands, the same with bottled water lah....
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 ?
I already talked about the supply chain process, the example you give here, is a very straightforward example in theory, but it does not apply in the real world. The supply chain process is longer than that, each time it passes through someone hands, that person makes a profit from it. It's not a simple 'percentage' of costs like what you just said. Anyway, you only talk about msian costs, what about singapore's cost e.g. retailer, distribution, so forth? And when we talk about the price, you also have to look at market factors as well, such as price perception, demand..and others. To go into business is not easy, there's a lot of things to consider.
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.
I HOPE I GET YOUR ATTENTION HERE, I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT I'LL BE GOING OVERSEAS FOR WHILE, NOT SURE FOR HOW LONG SO I WON'T BE ABLE TO REPLY YOU ANYTIME SOON. SORRY IF I SOUND PRESUMPTIOUS AND DEFENSIVE BUT I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK THAT I'M 'CHICKENING' OUT IF I DON'T REPLY TO YOU. KNOWING YOUR STYLE OF WRITING, YOU PROBABLY WILL THINK THAT I HAVE . SO WHILE I'M AWAY, PLEASE BE A GOOD BOY, DON'T SMEAR MY GOOD NAME. I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO SHOULD SMEAR MY OWN NAME. THANKS. -
Sorry, if you find it hard to read, it was meant for atobe, but i use simple enough english, so hopefully it's not that difficult to read.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Erm dude, using caps to emphasize is cool... but kinda defeats the purpose if it makes everything hard to read...
Isn't the whole point getting information across? -
I fail to see how the UK can be used as any relevant example to our situation.
In LKY's own book, he portrayed that that the old situation as unreliable and what not, that it would guarantee good bus services and that it was inefficient to have too many bus services. That itself was sufficient justification for the Govt to buy over all the companies under one umbrella group.
However, now that I think about it, why did the Govt really need to have everything under one roof? That all the companies were making losses and in the red did not really mean that there would be no bus services whatsoever eventually, and typical with the PAP, he used that alarmist reason to justify the Govt's takeover.
If one were to follow standard trends in economics, eventually there would be consolidation, and some apologists would have said that the PAP did them a favour. However, on hindsight, why did the PAP Govt do for? What gain did it get? Other than gaining a stranglehold on an essential service and thus the ability to manipulate the market wholesale? Certainly that is in line with the Govt's preference for control. It controls almost about anything that is an essential service to Singaporeans.
Ultimately, there was no real reason for it, and none of the companies had even collapsed or were even on the verge. If one uses Occam's Razor, the only simplest reason is political. Economically, the Govt could simply force all the companies into giving essential transport routes and maintaining certain standards of service which would mean very little Govt involvement ultimately.
It is certainly telling that when many private transport operators stepped up to say they don't mind servicing the public, the Govt slapped them with unreasonable restrictions which meant that it was neither competitive nor economically feasible for them to join. Obviously the Govt knew that and if they didn't, I wonder why we are even paying them this much taxes for the job they are doing. -
Bold letters again - but this time in pure black ? I am surprised at your capacity with your typical flip-flop characteristics in writing.
Did I make up all those insulting words,,,, or were they read in the tone of the statements that you have made with the intention of deriding Singaporean - the CHINESE in particular ?
If you did not say Singaporean Chinese were useless or had no abilities - what was the intent of the words that you have chosen and printed in your reply on -Originally posted by saffron60:
To atobe
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? [/quote]
Now you are being dishonest with yourself with the above amendments made, compared to what had actually been posted by you on -5 March 2007 10.04PM
Gov point finger at people, people point finger at gov...neverending story, but this is the story of singaporean chinese.
You did print the words "singaporean chinese" - or are you accusing me of editing your response dated 5 March 2007 at 10.04PM ?
[quote]
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?
5 March 2007 10.04PM
"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,
Did you not suggest that Singapore Chinese is a different breed from all other Chinese who are a minority in other developed countries - suggesting in an insulting way that the Singapore Chinese has no ability at survival instinct ?
If one has no ability at all, can one have any capacity to have a sense of survival instinct ?
Is it not obvious that abilities consist more than just survival instinct ?
It will be correct to suggest that the more abilities one has, the better equipped one will be to hone a sharper sense of the survival instinct ?
In your previous post on 8 March 2007 5.24PM - you insist on splitting hairs with your statement: - "i wasn't referring to the ability of the singaporean chinese, i was talking about their survival instincts".
If there any difference ?
By extension of your suggestion that Singapore Chinese has no - (or poor) - suvival instinct, you are already suggesting that the Singapore Chinese are useless bunch, and only know how to point fingers at the Government.
Has the Chinese being minorities in the developed countries been able to build anything for their community to the same level of development as in Singapore - without the help of those Others who are the majority in their developed countries ?
You seem to miss the words - developed countries - in which the minority Chinese have located themselves.
Are these developed countries more open and transparent in their form of politics and economics - WITHOUT the ONE PARTY DOMINANCE as in Singapore ? Despite the handicap that Singaporean Chinese are caught in, Singapore has been developed by Singaporean Chinese and the other ethnic groups to what it is today.
We will excuse your stupidity if you fail to see that despite the fact that Singapore is in the center of pressures exerted by the 'GREEN' countries enveloping this 'RED' dot, we are where we are today due to our IMMENSE SENSE OF SURVIVAL INSTINCT.
Are you not been derogatory towards the Singapore Chinese with the tone of this paragraph alone ?
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.
Have you fully understand the political-economic environment that the Singapore Chinese are caught in - when you mindlessly compare the Singapore Chinese with those other migrant Chinese in developed countries such as Canada, UK, US, Australia ?
So what if the Singapore Chinese should make up even 100% of the population ?
If the population of any other countries are subjected to a Government that abuse their monopolistic grip on politics and parliamentary procedures, as well as making all Singaoporeans enslaved into their One-Party Economy - as Singaporeans are subjected to - it will naturally result in a population being subjugated and imprisoned in an environment of ONE Party dominance in all sphere of political-economic life that stifle initiative, creativity, accountability, openess and transparency.
The political-economic histories of the Philippines and Indonesia political-economic system was similarly dependent on a system of patronage, and controlled largely by ONE Strong Personality Cult and his cronies - Marcos and Suharto respectively. What have we seen in those countries - in an environment, where the Chinese were a minority, with no control over their own future ?
At least in Singapore, the Chinese are in the majority, and the Government is aware that its own political future has to be carefully managed, even as it went all out to squeeze Singaporeans - Chinese or any other ethnicity - to coral them into their own vision of total dominance in the political and economic spheres.
The Singaporean Chinese had brought Singapore to what it is today - not exactly by the entire singular effort of LKY and his pioneering Team, and the subsequent follow-on teams.
You dare say that the Chinese who are a minority in those developed countries can survive better than Singaporean Chinese, when the Singapore of today has been built through the sweat of our forefathers - as well as your parents - from the colonial days until this present day ?
Look hard again before you make passing casual observations and disclaiming any responsibility for the nuances of the chosen words that were and REMAIN quite explicit in its derogatory characteristics. -
Have you stop blaming Singaporean Chinese now that you have dropped the two words from your ever glowing statement that will not pin the responsibility on the right party ?
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
Try harder to worm your way out of the trap that you laid for yourself so ingeniously with your mindless postings.
"Gov point finger at people, people point finger at gov...neverending story"
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
Nobody is playing dirty, the fact of the matter is clearly laid out for all to read - from the first post that you have made through each and every response you made.
You can try to explain and flip-flop your position, skip the words, fog the issues, the fact remains you have made two important statements that clearly insulted Singaporean Chinese for being hooked on the Government pacifiers - even when it is the Government who has removed the capacity of Singaporeans to look after themselves, so as to be under the control of the Government who will dispense favors when they deem fit.
The politics practised by the Singapore Government - that you are protecting - is clear for all to see in the manner in which they govern Singapore and the two constituencies controlled by the Other Alternative Parties.
To win back the two constituencies, the Government has been holding back pacifiers from the constituents, taunting and tempting the electorates there of the benefits that they can get if they subject themselves to the ONE PARTY RULE.
The Singaporean Chinese - and the other ethnic groups in Potong Pasir and Hougang have shown their SURVIVAL INSTINCT despite the hostility of the Government towards Singapore Citizens who have paid their taxes, but remain outside the scope of government pacifiers given to other constituencies under the ONE PARTY control.
You are still saying that SINGAPOREANS are WITHOUT any SURVIVAL INSTINCT ?
Have you not insulted Singaporeans in general ?
You continue to amaze me with your brilliance in oblique thinking and in the manner that you come to a conclusion by basing your facts at a tangent to the issues.Originally posted by saffron60:
Are we not "discussing" your views about Singaporean Chinese NOT HAVING the 'SURVIVAL INSTINCT' ?
To atobe
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:
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....
The views that you have printed and developed have been clearly discussed, and the erroneous conclusion in your position has been highlighted, are you now changing your position in your typical flip-flop manner ?
Have I made any diversion when I have carefully - in your words - disected your erroneous "conversation" that has been made with such authority in deriding the Singaporean Chinese Community ? -
Daft ? Now I wonder where you are coming from - not a common word used by the practitioners of 'singlish' - Singaporean Chinese or otherwise ? Perhaps past-present resident from UK, or from some past-present British colonial territories ?Originally posted by saffron60:
Original post by Atobe:
No, you "did not just 'blame' the singaporean chinese" - you were very explicit in your statement already quoted.
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"Why are so daft? Isn't it a fact that there are discontent people in singapore? hasn't it occured to you that we were referring to the PRESENT, isn't it a fact that the ruling party's popularity has been dropping over the years? Can't you make a connection between the two? Isn't it obivous that when i say 'people', those people i was talking about are the discontent? also, don't forget that those remarks are made in comparison with the chinese minority in other countries. The chinese minority have small political representation in whichever country they are in, because of the fact that they are a minority. So they can't complain, they can only suck it up and live their lives the best way they can.
Was there a dispute concerning the period of time of the discussion - PRESENT or PAST ?
Was there any disagreement concerning the existence of discontented people in Singapore ? Or was it over the words - Singaporean Chinese in particular ?
Did you not print those words - "Gov point finger at people, people point finger at gov...neverending story, but this is the story of singaporean chinese" ?
Were you not quite specific and focus with your comment that those PEOPLE are the Singapore Chinese - in particular ?
Did you not suggest that the chinese minority have a better life residing in the developed countries ? Should it not be a fact that the developed countries are supposed to be also more developed in their politial environment ?
Why are you suggesting that they have no voice, no representation ?
Have they not migrated to a better environment in the 'developed' countries than Singapore - where complains are never responded to the satisfaction of Singaporeans - and if ever, it is in a typical bureaucratic format ?
Surely, those chinese minority have migrated to a far better place than what the majority in Singapore are facing with what YOU have printed about the Singapore Government giving a typical reply as indicated below.
I read what I see from what you have posted, and I have underlined words to crystalize the emphasis in the tone and manner of the intent in your statement which makes it offensive.
Anyway, hasn't it always been the gov's way, when people ask for changes, gov always come back and say, no if you want this or that you have to work harder, blah blah, and then people say, no, gov have to change first in order for us to have this or that..blah..blah..see what i mean about gov pointing finger at people, and people pointing finger at gov? Do you get it now?
"Gov point finger at people, people point finger at gov...neverending story, but this is the story of singaporean chinese"
How did those people - whom you refer in general, become only the singaporean chinese that you seem to have filtered out from 'the people' ? -
Did you not write that - "LKY's policies leanded more towards 'socialist' policies" ?Originally posted by saffron60:To atobe
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.
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.
There you go again, that is your interpretation of socialism. The statement that i made was a NEUTRAL one, you understand what NEUTRAL means right?
So, if you want to judge LKY and his policies, go ahead, be my guest, but it's got nothing to do with me, ok? because i only made a neutral statement.
What "socialist policies" were you referring to in your statement ?
LKY does not believe in Social Welfarism that is characteristic of Socialist Policies, and his draconian methods of ONE PARTY governance is typical of the Communism style Socialism.
What "socialist policies" are you referring to in your statement ?
Is it not typical of your style in making any statement on the blurr of a moment - grabbing straws from thin air simply to score points and salvage your imagined loss pride ?
Try harder to worm your way out of the trap you laid so well with your own cleverness.This is not about anti-LKY. It is about the entrepreneurial spirit of a race - the Chinese race and Singaporean.
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.like i said, you read too much into what i write and you draw your own silliy conclusions about what i'm trying to say. You accuse me of being insulting to the chinese singaporean. c'mon, if it was really true, i would have been fiercely attacked by other forumers and even the forumer that i was having a discussion with, didn't seem to think that i was insulting the chinese singaporean. So why only you seem to think that? I think you've got a real corrupt mind, that's why you always seem to take the negative view of what people are trying to say.
I leave it to the others to join in this exchange, and I am not sure how many will want to join in the reading of this long reprints and statements that you have made without any paragraphing.
I leave it to the other readers to respond to your statement, and I cannot second guess what is preventing them from contributing their views.
The fact remains clear of your insulting conclusion that Singaporean Chinese have no SURVIVAL INSTINCT, as they are hooked on the Government Pacifiers. -
Originally posted by saffron60:
Now you are throwing tantrums again, and sounding typically silly with your huffing and puffing in CAPS.
To atobe
All that i have written about the privatisation of the train lines in the UK was the truth of what happened. WHEREAS YOU TOLD ONLY HALF THE STORY TO TRY TO TWIST IT TO MAKE IT SEEM THAT THE PRIVATE COMPANIES WERE CAPABLE OF RUNNING THE LINES. IT LOOKS LIKE ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR COVER UPS, WHERE YOU READ SOMETHING ON THE INTERNET, NOT KNOWING THE FULL STORY OF WHAT HAPPENEND AND SIMPLY CUT AND PASTE IT HERE TO PROVE YOUR POINT. BEAR IN MIND, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME YOU ARE TRYING THIS CHEATING TACTIC HERE, I HAVE CAUGHT YOU ONCE BEFORE, SO PLEASE DON'T STOOP SO LOW AS TO USE CHEATING TACTICS, OK? Btw, i did acknowledge that THATCHER WAS IN THE WRONG FOR PRIVATISING THE TRAIN LINES, but MY STAND IS THAT, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IS SOMETHING WHICH THE GOV SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLING AND I GAVE THE STORY ABOUT UK TRAIN LINES AS AN EXAMPLE. If you don't agree with me on this, fine, it's ok, but please don't try to change the story about what actually happened in the UK. YOU WEREN'T THERE, YOU'VE NEVER LIVED THROUGH THAT EXPERIENCE, IVE TALKED TO PEOPLE WHO WENT THROUGH IT AND THERE ARE A LOT OF INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET WHICH SUPPORTS MY VIEWS, SO THERE'S NO NEED TO COVER UP.
If you really believe that you are right, please show me more evidence of your claims...c'mon, show me!!!!! Show me the proof....i'm still waiting for it
What you are saying about the LKY's involvement in the public transport system has been said earlier...you are just repeating yourself. If that's your stand, that's fine. You don't have to keep repeating..i'm not like you, where i have to tell you the same thing 3 or 4 times until you get it into your head, and sometimes even more times than that.
Did I twist the events of what have been printed in the wikipedia which I had made reference from ?
Was there a need to hide anything or print the full text when the referenced site was already given in my post of 8 March 2007 08.53AM - in the titled piece : Britain on Slow Track ?
The part that was extracted - with the reference site also given - was more then sufficient to highlight the parts that were needed to reinforce my position, and the referenced site exist to detail the entire disastrous events of nationalisation - and which you have also made reference to the same piece.
Our difference on this issue centered on your claim that despite the bad experience of nationalisation, UK's experience with government management and operation of the Public Transport should be followed, as was stated in your post which I had referred to in my reply on 8 March 2007 08.53AM : and I am reprinting below:Originally posted by saffron60:
Is there any twisting of the facts when I have printed are already documented in Wikipedia - that the Nationalisation was a disaster, and that the privatisation process has made the situation worst by the heavy handed interference from the Government that tied the hands of the Private Operators.
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.
You ignored the heavy handed interference of the government and took the failure of Private Operators of the railroad system as justificiation for continued government ownership and operation of the railroad system.
Even in Communist Vietnam today, the government owned rail system is still in the doldrum, and private enterprise is showing the way forward, with private capital to renovate and upgrade the system.
Malaysian YTL has offered to build a High-Speed Rail to connect Singapore with Kuala Lumpur, when the government owned Malayan Railway is stuck in their antiquated and bureaucratic thinking.
My positon was clear that private public bus service was tenable, as shown by the existence of 10 bus companies offering an efficient public bus companies that reached every small corner of Singapore from the time BEFORE LKY came into public office.
These 10 bus companies were systematically removed under the pretext of inefficient service, when the actual reasons was to nip private wealth from growing larger and beyond the control of the government, and threaten the political future of the Ruling Party with financial support given to the other alternative political parties.
You seem to be contiuously desparate and fixated to prove me wrong, and to catch me on the wrong foot, unforunately, in your self-imposed anxiety and pride, you trip over your own efforts and continuously have to back-track when I exposed the weaknesses of your arguments.
So what is the purpose of tantrums ? Have you been left impotent in your capacity to think clearly, and can only manage in rambling in an endless flow of CAPS ?
This is pathetic writing and can only annoy the senses of anyone trying to follow your positon; and you are complaining that there are no one coming between us to participate in this discussion.
Are you the type who cannot hold your own, and need some third parties to say that I am wrong, and you are correct ? -
Originally posted by saffron60:
Yes, one can make multiple reports for multiple purpose, and each of these reports can still be interpreted in many different ways to suit one's purpose or reach whatever objectives one has in mind.
You sound very naive here, you think that a well respected company like AC nielsen doesn't understand the objectivity of their own reports? If you were to go to a client using the very same report that we were discussing, and you made such comments like that, you would be scolded and humiliated by the client. That's the real world for you. If you don't understand how to read statistics report, that's ok, if you don't want to admit it, fine, nobody is forcing you to admit anything. You talk about 'objectivity' as though you understand the report very well, c'mon lah, earlier, you made a mistake about reading the report, you acted as though the report was giving contradicting information, but when you read it again after i point out your mistake, now you say ''we are at liberty to use the info to fit or support whatever report or views in any manner we need''...you are dead wrong about that, there are many different types of reports used for different purposes or different objectives. Clearly, you don't understand what the objective of this report is..if you make such naive statements. I have told you a few times already what the purpose of the report is...and you pooh pooh the whole notion and call it 'window dressing'. like that i can also say the same thing with your theories as well..they are just 'window dressing'
Are you disputing the possibility of the fact that anybody's report is open for use by anyone, in any way that one prefer to read and use the data and information that is stated in the Report ?
You have preferred to slant the report to justify your position which I had first referred to - in my response on 7 March 2007 05.36AM, quoting you as follows:
"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 ) ."
You continued in this line of interpretation with your post on 7 March 2007 11.50PM :-
"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."
Did you not read the statement in my last response - 8 March 2007 08.53AM, which you have made referenc to and printed as follows -
"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.. "
How did your brilliant reading of the AC Nielsen report bring you to the conclusion that - "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" ?
Were you not engaging in your own exercise in using the report with a different objective in your mind ?
Again, what are you huffing and puffing over ? -
How pathetic ? You got lost in your own brilliant argument, and with no way to back track in your own preferred way of arguing your position, by using someone's else report that you can barely understand.Originally posted by saffron60:To atobe
Now the 'brilliance in reading' that you accuse others of not having is reflected in your own anxiety to score points.
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 ?
I got confused by your statement:
Just to help you along - you did mention in your response which I quoted in my post of 9 March 2007 4.23AM - that
Serve the pudding anyway you like - the choice is yours.
"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. "[/quote]
If you are confused with my response to your statement, I cannot help you to put out the fire that you have started ?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.Here, i thought you were talking about the situation in singapore.
So it is my fault for your stupidity ?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 ?Well, it's partly your fault, because you didn't indicate which country/countries you were talking in the second paragraph.
Which countries were you referring to in the AC Nielsen's report ?
[quote]
Again, you misunderstand what i say, of course when you compare NTUC chain of supermarkets and convenience stores, with individual supermarket chains like cold storage, then NTUC is the largest, that's true. But what i'm saying is that you have to compare ALL THE OTHER SUPERMARKET CHAINS AND WITH THOSE WHICH BELONG TO NTUC. Otherwise, how are going to show that NTUC dominate the grocery modern trade in singapore in terms of no of stores? Let's look at the figures, NTUC has got slightly more than a 100 supermarkets and cold storage has got about 80 supermarkets. So this shows, that the two chains dominate the market or it's called a virtual duopoly.
Ok, i should have told you earlier, when we are talking about the share of modern trade, we are referring to the sales in modern trade. So this means that even if there are many stores in a certain area, but it doesn't mean that the share of sales will be proportionate to the no of stores in that area. Let me give you an example.
Area 1 = 10 stores, share of sales = 30% of total sales at national level
Area 2 = 6 stores, share of sales = 50% of total sales at national level
this means that even though area 1 has got more stores than area 2, a larger share of sales still goes to area 2. It doesn't necessarily mean that just because you have more stores than another supermarket chain, that you should have more sales. And to proof that, we need to look at the data. So this means that you have to show the share data of NTUC and compare that with cold storage data and with the total combined share data of the other supermarkets. Ultimately, share of sales is more important than no of stores. Here you go again, trying very hard to twist out of a tight spot that you got yourself with a brain that is no better than your mouth, and with more explanations and corrections.
Did you not make your demand quite clearly - as stated in my post of 9 March 2007 04.23AM ?
For your benefit of not confusing yourself, you did simply state -"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:
What differenc can there be whatever the share of "modern trade" - as if hypermarkets and supermarkets are anything but "modern" ?
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. "
If having the biggest number of outlets cannot achieve a higher market share of revenue, then you make a very poor businessman. -
Originally posted by saffron60:
Typical response of a loser is to ask for evidence from others, knowing full well that information are out there but all it takes is time to search and organise.
First of all, what is your definition of 'more competitive retail price'? And how do you compare this situation between msia and singapore? It may seem to you that the ringgit is weaker, therefore msia should end up paying a higher price for the building even if the land price is lower. Do you have any evidence that msia imports the amount of cement, steel bars, and most building materials that should make the prices of buildings more expensive? Again, this is your theory...but you show no proof. You cannot ignore the supply chain process and just focus on the strength of the sing dollar. At every step of the supply chain process, someone gets a 'cut' and this drives up the cost of the product. These so called active 'Consumer Price Inspectors', do you know how they operate? do you think they are able to cover the whole of msia? Why is it during chinese new year every yr, the chinese get slaughtered with 2 or 3 times more than what they usually pay for food? Again, those are just your theories, in theory, consumers are suppose to get protection, but in reality, it doesn't always happen. what i'm explaining to you are the realities of the market, the supply chain is a reality, so you can't ignore that it exists.
From the following Malaysian Steel Industry Report - "The steel industry in Malaysia is considered a policy driven industry and certain production and products are regulated through import and export procedures and also price control mechanisms.
Other than slow domestic demand, the Malaysian steel industry was affected by severe fluctuations of prices of materials and products during the year. But this impact was felt all around the region with cooling down of prices particularly during the Q3 and Q4 of 2005. The situation was due to Asian oversupply, rising China exports and high inventory control."
From a report by The Mineral Industry of Malaysia, the following was mentioned about the state of the cement industry in Malaysia in 2004 -
"In 2004, cement production continued to increase because of the continued growth in demand. The shortage of sand in Malaysia affected the cement sector. Ther Federal Government stopped issuing licenses to companies to dredge sand along the coastal areas. Existing sand licenses issued by the Land and Cooperative Development Ministry would not be renewed when they expired because the operations posed threats to marine ecology in Malaysia. The shortage of concrete-based materials affected the construction sector (Star, The, 2004)."
Based on the ongoing volatility of steel prices, shortage of sand, and competitive prices available on cement-clinker from Malaysia at US$33.50 per Metric Tonne. Malaysia (strictly CQD basis) - in which Singapore is also subjected to the same supply side conditions, can we guess what will be the property prices that have been developed in Malaysia and Singapore ?
If you consider that land is scarce in Singapore and abundant in Malaysia, what if we were to compare prices of properties built on Prime Land as a common point of reference and with both being Capital Cities ?
The Ampang Putra Residency is built on prime land in the heart of Kuala Lumpur, featuring two 26-storey towers, with service suites, studio suites, three room service suites from 607 sq ft to 1,290 sq ft - complete with 24-hour security surveillance and CCTV monitoring system, 795 bays of parking on five levels - all to be completed by end-2009.
At this point in time, the studio suites are being priced from RM150,000 onwards, while the 3-room suites are priced from RM250,000 onward.
Comparing these Malaysian PRIVATE DEVELOPED properties in the heart of Kuala Lumpur to the HDB units - (that are built on a repetitive mass production design and with land that is recovered from Singaporeans at a fraction of the Singapore market value being offered as compensation) - the HDB 3-room unit is sold at S$110,000 for a 60 sq M or approx 600 sq ft; while a 5-Room Unit with 110 sq M or 1,100 sq ft is priced at S$240,000.
Under such circumstances, what have you to say about the atrocious difference in propery prices ?
There is the factor of a weaker Ringgit compared to a strong Singapore Dollar, and building materials subjected to world market forces - why should the Malaysian homes built by profit-oriented Private Developers be cheaper than those built on mass produced designed public housing regulated strictly by government tenders - and with the same homes being built on Prime Land ?
Why should HDB homes built with supposed subsidies be more expensive than Malaysian homes built by profit oriented private developers ?
When Singapore's first DPM and Finance Minister Dr Goh Keng Swee decided for Singapore to abandon pig and poultry farming, and agricultural farming on landed properties - he held the argument that Singapore's small land area does not allow for any economies of scale in such activities, and the same piece of real estate used for high value added production will help us to prosper and buy our such produce that can be produced or manufactured at a lower cost than we can.
This was the economic specalization of work in reality, and according to the comparative advantage that is offered by countries that have characteristics that make it different and more productive in that special area.
It remains a fact that the vision envisaged by Dr Goh is now a reality that Singapore has achieved progress and a Singapore Dollar that is the strongest in the immediate region.
However despite our currency strength, the cost of the basic food have remained high, inspite the fact that we have allowed others to perform the process of manufacture and production due to the advantages that they have compared to our situation. Are we being misled ? -
continuation
What else could be the reason ? You have suggested the reason to be the long distribution chain for the product to arrive into Singapore ?
Did you consider that NTUC Fairprice will deal directly with the source at every available opportunity, and seldom work through middlemen ? This is particularly true of NTUC Fairprice purchase policy on essentials such as rice, meat, poultry, eggs, dairy products, sugar, salt, flour.
NTUC Fairprice will support the local network of middlemen that are representatives of non-essential products, which are not as competitive or price sensitive to the consumer.
It was only recently that NTUC Fairprice has signed up to the Efficient Consumer Response system, helping it to sharpen its management of the supply chain - which consist of itself at one end, the transportation or distribution system in the middle and the manufacturing or production process at the other end - with no middlemen.
Savings are supposed to be achieved, but how does it translate in lower retail prices for the IMMEDIATE BENEFIT to the consumers ?
While Singaporeans struggle with their monthly food bills, NTUC Fairprice has continuously reported bumper profits year-on-year, and accumulating enough reserves to build larger commercial properties, venture overseas to set up partnership in upstream supply chain, as well as opening overseas supermarkets similar to the aggressive Wal-mart expansion strategy; and also putting the accumulated reserves into other industries - such as Health-care, Pharmaceutical, Transport Services, Insurance, Lifestyle Programs in Entertainment, Travel and Resorts services.
The entire growth was based on the accumulation of cash reserves and working the reserves in new ventures that generate more money, with the ultimate showcasing of the capitalist symbol in a tall flashy glass building of its own built on prime land on Shenton Way.
With this NTUC building at One Marina Boulevard - built at a cost of S$282 Million - how will it benefit the union members ?
If this is not another ambitious project of every minister having his own castle in the sky. -
Your talk is about simple economic supply chain in your usual effort to impress but without addressing the core of the issue that are being debated.Originally posted by saffron60:
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".
[b]You remark about bottled water sold in msia is completely off, there are many brands in msia, example, 1.5 lit, the prices of cheap to mid range brands are between RM1.00 to RM3.00 and the more expensive imported brands can be as high as RM6.00 or more. Looks like i know more about bottled water in msia than you. What century do you live in? Haven't you heard of what's called a BRAND? And the pricing which is associated with brands, the same with bottled water lah.... [/quote]
Did I write about imported water, or was the comparison about water produced and bottled in Malaysia - labelled as 'Product of Malaysia' ?
You sure are desparate to score points that you are not even aware of the date of this discussion.
Keep grasping straws from thin air and you may just be drunk on water alone, without the need to sniff on saffron ?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.I already talked about the supply chain process, the example you give here, is a very straightforward example in theory, but it does not apply in the real world. The supply chain process is longer than that, each time it passes through someone hands, that person makes a profit from it. It's not a simple 'percentage' of costs like what you just said. Anyway, you only talk about msian costs, what about singapore's cost e.g. retailer, distribution, so forth? And when we talk about the price, you also have to look at market factors as well, such as price perception, demand..and others. To go into business is not easy, there's a lot of things to consider.
Have you lost track of the entire thread - and this ongoing debate that started with you insulting the Singaporean Chinese for the inability to have any survival instinct, and dependent on government pacifiers ?
You made a digression with you A.C. Nielsen report to justify the fact that it was natural for hypermarkets and supermarkets to exist, even as I had indicated that the Government's involvement in the economy was to subjugate the Singaporean citizens to an economy of dependence on the Government.
And now you are digressing further with your useless shallow and superficial understanding of the mere supply chain structures ? Have you not considered the economics of the entire industry that is not merely restricted to the supply chain structures but involving the other sectors of the economy as well ?
For NTUC Fairprice to generate the kind of profit that it has reported on a year-on-year basis, NTUC Fairprice will have to and must shorten the supply chain line to the source, as well as to involve itself in the other aspects of the economy that has a handle on its cost of operations.
With the simplistic views, backtracking, remodelling, and flip-flopping of your positions and statements - what else can you offer to worm your way out of your insulting statements towards Singaporean Chinese.
Your insulting statement could have been acceptable towards Singaporeans in general - if you have simply stated :- "people point at gov, gov point at people, in the end that is the history of all singaporean residents".
Is it so difficult simply to admit that is was a silly remark made by you - when your hand wrote faster than your brain, which resulted in the statement being made with such authority ?
At least, we could have forgiven your brain for not being able to control the speed of your hand movements.
[quote]
I HOPE I GET YOUR ATTENTION HERE, I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT I'LL BE GOING OVERSEAS FOR WHILE, NOT SURE FOR HOW LONG SO I WON'T BE ABLE TO REPLY YOU ANYTIME SOON. SORRY IF I SOUND PRESUMPTIOUS AND DEFENSIVE BUT I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK THAT I'M 'CHICKENING' OUT IF I DON'T REPLY TO YOU. KNOWING YOUR STYLE OF WRITING, YOU PROBABLY WILL THINK THAT I HAVE . SO WHILE I'M AWAY, PLEASE BE A GOOD BOY, DON'T SMEAR MY GOOD NAME. I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO SHOULD SMEAR MY OWN NAME. THANKS. Everything has its time and place, if you are not happy with my response, the matter can still wait for your return - there is no hurry, and this is not exactly a matter of Life and Death.
Is there a need to smear your name, when you have so expertly made yourself so vulnerably insecure by merely making such a statement ?
It clearly show the type of person behind the writings - putting pride before value.
Is it any wonder that you will continue to pursue with this matter to save face, when none is worth saving considering all the shameful about-turns, fogging the issues, uncertain re-explanations and flip-floppng ?
It does not matter whether you continue with a reply or not, but if you want me to get off this thread, you had better come up with a better point.
All the same, walk on the right side, and make sure your brain is functioning at the same speed as your hands and legs, or we may not be entertained further with your continued absence.