An inspiring Tale
-
How come you can post without adding anything useful to this discussion?Originally posted by lionnoisy:lion note:i assume it is MY The Star,not the canadian one.
2.do i consider u love sg,hate sg or dunt know????
When i fully quote aussie reports from aussie main stream newspaper,
u label me anti--aussie.
Can i label u ''netural but with tendancy hate sg''?
Can our own media be trusted to tell us the proper picture of what is really happening with us? Check it's recent worldwide rating.
Your own attack on Australia by trying to paint it as an unappealing place for Singaporeans to go to already exposes one key root problem of our nation: If Australia is really so horrible, why then are our top-educated and intelligent citizens going there at such rates that has our government worried? This must mean something is seriously wrong with us- be it on the nation-building level or what other things that make people see being Singaporean as something that is of no great value.
And to answer your question: do some of the people who have a different opinion on how things are run here Singapore, or instead want something better for it?
Are those who think that the best course of action to take is to believe anything good about our own nation without bothering to see the true picture of things truly be said to be having the best interests of Singapore at heart?
So far we have yet to see you come up with anything solid on how our nation is actually run, except to keep trying to draw up "feel good" articles that simply cut no ice. Being a Singaporean in Singapore is a lot more then if we have MRT trains or is No.1 in this or that- if the heartware is missing we are not much of a nation to begin with.
And you don't seem to have a single thing on the heartware issues to present at all, you seem to think the cheap "feel good" articles on justifiy whatever system this nation is run on.
Maybe if you could stop blowing your horn thinking that by posting media articles and pictures repeatedly will make an impact here and actually getting down to talk like a man in proper discussion people might actually take you seriously, no matter your opinion.
If not, everybody will just laugh at you.
So do I hate Singapore? No, I think I (and many others) love it more then you to be willing to see it for what it really is, and then hope for something better for it and its people.
Love for a nation is more then just having sweet things to say about it... it is having the intergity to go the extra mile beyond the common apathy to see things for what they really are and hope for something real in it. -
ThatÂ’s why lionnoisy, people like you disgust us. You claim to be pro-Singapore and spend countless hours and no amount of energy trying to find the dirt in the eye of our neighbour down-under but yet ignore the plank that is in our own.
You spend more time concerned about the downsides of Down Under while totally missing out the true internal factors that are causing our own top-talented and intelligent citizens to leave, unwilling to deal with the real source of the rot and choosing to inflict the blame on some other nation. All this while you have barely (if any at all) said ANYTHING on the real issue of the brain drain and migration.
You post many “feel good” articles on Singapore, thinking you are a patriot but make no real steps into settling the difficult issues that are TRULY affecting the common man.
All things added up, do not your actions of wilful ignorance and apathy, as well as blame-shifting hurt our nation more then it helps it?
So can we classify you as a person who claims to love Singapore, but actually hates it with his actions? -
If only.Originally posted by iveco:How about having a national unity cabinet? There are MPs from WP who have ministerial qualities. LTK could take the Education portfolio with ease, for starters. -
Actually, its a fact that people like to hear nice things, and choose to ignore criticisms.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:ThatÂ’s why lionnoisy, people like you disgust us. You claim to be pro-Singapore and spend countless hours and no amount of energy trying to find the dirt in the eye of our neighbour down-under but yet ignore the plank that is in our own.
You spend more time concerned about the downsides of Down Under while totally missing out the true internal factors that are causing our own top-talented and intelligent citizens to leave, unwilling to deal with the real source of the rot and choosing to inflict the blame on some other nation. All this while you have barely (if any at all) said ANYTHING on the real issue of the brain drain and migration.
You post many “feel good” articles on Singapore, thinking you are a patriot but make no real steps into settling the difficult issues that are TRULY affecting the common man.
All things added up, do not your actions of wilful ignorance and apathy, as well as blame-shifting hurt our nation more then it helps it?
So can we classify you as a person who claims to love Singapore, but actually hates it with his actions?
This is a fact about our govt. They are only concerned about telling everyone how good they are, and ignoring the unhappiness and issues of the many many many (...) Singaporeans. -
Globalisation affects us regardless of whether the cabinet earns a 100 or a million a year. If Singapore workers cannot compete with foreigners, they will still lose jobs, employers will still move their businesses elsewhere. You cannot avoid globalisation. We can only respond to it.Originally posted by soul_rage:The issues at hand are simple:
Globalisation results in Singaporeans getting a lower std of living becoz they are told to accept lower pay to be more competitive, whilst those in the cabinet enjoy a kind of pay invulnerable to market conditions.
Many Singaporeans are unhappy because they are drawn into the politics of envy. Ministers are paid highly, bankers are paid millions and lawyers charge hundreds of dollars for a letter and thousands for a court appearance. They can charge that because the market is willing to pay for those services. If you can play football like David Beckham, you would be earning millions now.
You do not have to accept lower pay to be competitive. If you can work harder, produce higher quality goods and services for which the market is prepared to pay, your salary can rise. Whether or not you will ride the market or sink in the face of cheap foreign competition depends on how good you are and how quick you are to adapt to market conditions.
It is right that the government is re-engineering jobs and providing re-training. Singaporeans must continually upgrade themselves, especially when the Chinese and the Indians are doing just that. I hope we will read about Singaporeans who take a job as a pipe fiiter for $600 a month like this Chinese worker and work their way up to 3k a month and a diploma from a polytechnic.
The world is not fair. God is not fair. Some are born to riches, some are born with great intelligence and talents. Others are born mediocre. We will not all earn the same salary...but if you work hard, you will not starve. -
It is not right for you to compare ministers pay to people in the private sector. Once again, the purpose of public service is to SERVE the public. And if you talk about the market being willing to pay for the services, then the market for our ministers must surely by US, the Singaporeans, and NO, we are most not willing to pay them such ridiculous pay.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Globalisation affects us regardless of whether the cabinet earns a 100 or a million a year. If Singapore workers cannot compete with foreigners, they will still lose jobs, employers will still move their businesses elsewhere. You cannot avoid globalisation. We can only respond to it.
Many Singaporeans are unhappy because they are drawn into the politics of envy. Ministers are paid highly, bankers are paid millions and lawyers charge hundreds of dollars for a letter and thousands for a court appearance. They can charge that because the market is willing to pay for those services. If you can play football like David Beckham, you would be earning millions now.
You do not have to accept lower pay to be competitive. If you can work harder, produce higher quality goods and services for which the market is prepared to pay, your salary can rise. Whether or not you will ride the market or sink in the face of cheap foreign competition depends on how good you are and how quick you are to adapt to market conditions.
It is right that the government is re-engineering jobs and providing re-training. Singaporeans must continually upgrade themselves, especially when the Chinese and the Indians are doing just that. I hope we will read about Singaporeans who take a job as a pipe fiiter for $600 a month like this Chinese worker and work their way up to 3k a month and a diploma from a polytechnic.
The world is not fair. God is not fair. Some are born to riches, some are born with great intelligence and talents. Others are born mediocre. We will not all earn the same salary...but if you work hard, you will not starve.
Once again, you missed out also on the fact, that all of us in our work are judged by KPI, which we must be deemed to have achieve by our employers in order to advance in our career. Do our govt ministers have the same requirements, that they must get the nod of the Singapore population before paying themselves any more ridiculous pay? NO.
What you mentioned, about the pay of the Singaporeans, is NOT what the govt is advocating. Remember what our govt did, to ask Singaporeans to accept lower fixed pay and higher variable pay so that the companies will find it attractive to come to Singapore due to the lower fixed costs.
Do you know that there is no motivation for companies to pay higher variable pay, and many companies are exploiting this?
True, the world is not fair, God is not fair. But its wrong for our own leaders to provide an additional human touch to make it even worse.
Once again, pay attention to those parts that you missed out in my postings. Leaders are to LEAD, not to just talk. That's what the govt is doing now, talk talk talk, and then not leading by example. Aren't they behaving no different from the pigs in Animal Farm?
Please also think carefully, what justifies that they are talented, and we are mediocre? The word 'talented' is bestowed upon themselves thru their own mouths. We do not find them 'talented', and at times, they are even mediocre. -
I want the best people for the job of government, including and especially those who have served or have been targeted by the private sector. I am prepared to pay good salaries for the best. Yes, you can get people with passion to serve out of a sense of altruism, but they are not necessarily the best managers around. Public servants should serve the public but I want the best public servants for the job and for that I am prepared to pay top dollars.Originally posted by soul_rage:It is not right for you to compare ministers pay to people in the private sector. Once again, the purpose of public service is to SERVE the public.Remember what our govt did, to ask Singaporeans to accept lower fixed pay and higher variable pay so that the companies will find it attractive to come to Singapore due to the lower fixed costs.
There is no motivation to pay higher variable pay unless you are truly valuable to the company. You have to ask yourself: will the company lose money if you leave? Will the company lose you to its competitor if your boss does not increase your pay and will you be a big loss to your boss? If the answer is 'yes', it will be a stupid employer who won't pay higher wages. If you want higher pay, you have to make your boss desperate to keep you in his employ.
Do you know that there is no motivation for companies to pay higher variable pay, and many companies are exploiting this?[/b]Once again, pay attention to those parts that you missed out in my postings. Leaders are to LEAD, not to just talk.
Leaders must lead. That is why good leaders must do what is right for the nation, for the majority of Singaporeans. They have to look at the big picture and ignore the rantings of a small vocal minority. Are they talented? The elections show how Singaporeans feel. Despite the high salaries that frustrate Singaporeans, most of us are still prepared to vote them in. Why? Because like the desperate employer who wants to keep a valuable worker, we want our continued economic success. I am desperate to keep a team of the best people who understands the economy and I am prepared to pay millions to keep them, rather than lose them to Morgan Stanley. And yes, I would rather pay 20 million to have graduates of Oxbridge and Ivy League colleges work for me rather than the peanuts it takes to pay CSJ.
There will always be those who lose out in the global market. But I believe the majority of Singaporeans have benefited from this government's policies and that's why they are still in power. As long as they keep the salaries of the majority rising through each election, they will keep their jobs and their own high salaries. If the majority of Singaporeans lose out, then they will lose the next election. Market forces still decide. -
Please kindly not miss the points again. We have already said, that the elections in Singapore do not truly reflect the actual wishes of Singaporeans, becoz only a small minority of people get to vote. This DOES NOT reflect a strong mandate, because the sample size is too smallOriginally posted by oxford mushroom:Leaders must lead. That is why good leaders must do what is right for the nation, for the majority of Singaporeans. They have to look at the big picture and ignore the rantings of a small vocal minority. Are they talented? The elections show how Singaporeans feel. Despite the high salaries that frustrate Singaporeans, most of us are still prepared to vote them in. Why? Because like the desperate employer who wants to keep a valuable worker, we want our continued economic success. I am desperate to keep a team of the best people who understands the economy and I am prepared to pay millions to keep them, rather than lose them to Morgan Stanley. And yes, I would rather pay 20 million to have graduates of Oxbridge and Ivy League colleges work for me rather than the peanuts it takes to pay CSJ.
There will always be those who lose out in the global market. But I believe the majority of Singaporeans have benefited from this government's policies and that's why they are still in power. As long as they keep the salaries of the majority rising through each election, they will keep their jobs and their own high salaries. If the majority of Singaporeans lose out, then they will lose the next election. Market forces still decide.
Please also do not miss the points again, that our leaders are the MOST HIGHLY paid politicians in the entire world. It is totally ridiculous, because if you compare apples to apples, our leaders should be comparing between political leaders, and NOT private sector. And we are a SMALL little dot.
Please do not also miss the point again, that many companies do not behave like what you said. Many companies (esp Singapore companies) do not treat talent properly. Again, many are brought up with the 'CHEAP AND GOOD' mentality of the govt, and would rather lose talents than to pay more for them. That's why till now, not many Singapore companies succeed in the international arena, becoz with their mentality,they cannot compete with other foreign organisations.
In fact, based on what you said, then I think you better plan emigration soon, coz I firmly believe PAP will see the wrath of the new generation, in the next election. -
By the way mushroom,
since you always insist that we should have the best, why not pick from all over the world, those politicians whom have done a very good job in their political career, then attract them with a pay that is 2x more than their previous pay?
With a doubling of their pay, we are still paying much less than the current bunch of ministers, whom till now, I have not seen any achievements that can justify them labelling themselves as 'talent'.
Wouldn't that be a good idea? Much better than paying so much for a bunch of mediocre people, since those that I suggest, are well and proven people. -
You're not paying good salaries for the best. You're paying obscenely high - in fact, the highest for this particular industry - salaries for something hardly close to being the best.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:I want the best people for the job of government, including and especially those who have served or have been targeted by the private sector. I am prepared to pay good salaries for the best. Yes, you can get people with passion to serve out of a sense of altruism, but they are not necessarily the best managers around. Public servants should serve the public but I want the best public servants for the job and for that I am prepared to pay top dollars.
If it's the principles of a market economy you base your arguments on, try making a case of how the current lot have anything on their CV to suggest they're the "best" (by that, I literally mean being amongst the top executives in a top organisation, not being a director of some state-linked entities).
Name me someone in this cabinet who has held the top post with a Forbes 10 firm - I'd be surprised if Morgan Stanley would even offer a position to some of the jokers in the current pack, nevermind offer them the top post. -
I would like to add to this point on obscene pay.Originally posted by walesa:You're not paying good salaries for the best. You're paying obscenely high - in fact, the highest for this particular industry - salaries for something hardly close to being the best.
If it's the principles of a market economy you base your arguments on, try making a case of how the current lot have anything on their CV to suggest they're the "best" (by that, I literally mean being amongst the top executives in a top organisation, not being a director of some state-linked entities).
Name me someone in this cabinet who has held the top post with a Forbes 10 firm - I'd be surprised if Morgan Stanley would even offer a position to some of the jokers in the current pack, nevermind offer them the top post.
Imagine you are a headhunter, helping to recruit a top personnel to a company for a particular industry. You know that the highest paid in that arena is about 200k PER YEAR. Becoz you want the best talent to work for you, you decide to pay 200k PER MONTH to attract him.
I ask you, oxford mushroom, is this what you mean by paying high to keep talent, or paying STUPIDLY to retain talent?
Which private organisation would pay STUPIDLY like that?
It DOES NOT MAKE business sense.
I am waiting for you to reply to my queries to you, since you seemed to think that they are worth that money. -
Go ask around. Investment managers in their 20s are earning close to a million dollars. Financial managers in London earn a million pounds last Christmas as bonus...Locally, Bank CEOs earn 5 million dollars a year. If we want people of that calibre to run our economy, 20million for the whole team is not much.
Tony Tan as OCBC Chairman and head of Sembawang Shipyard would have taken a big pay cut by being DPM. Similarly, Ng Eng Hen as a br_east surgeon in private practice would have been earning more than a million a year without the stress of a minister.
The responsibility upon a cabinet minister is great. We need people who have shown they can manage a large corporation or have shown themselves to be especially bright. Vivian Balakrishnan was running SGH as its CEO before joinging politics. He had to run a complex organization like a tertiary hospital with an annual turnover of a billion. What have the likes of Chiam See Tong, Chee Soon Juan, Low Thia Kiang and Sylvia Lim have in terms of management experience? Who do you think Morgan Stanley will recruit if they need a manager? Vivian Balakrishnan or Chee Soon Juan? -
Pot calling the kettle black. I have never seen anything I consider useful coming from you either.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:How come you can post without adding anything useful to this discussion?
Can our own media be trusted to tell us the proper picture of what is really happening with us? Check it's recent worldwide rating.
Can the western liberal press with its own interests be expected to tell us what is right for us and how we should run our nation? You are trying to push us back into the fold of colonialism again. Only Singaporeans have the right to decide what kind of a country this should be.
It is utter hypocrisy to deride the government for suppressing alternative views when you are so quick to dismiss any view that differs from yours. Incidentally, we hold the majority view, as reflected in the polls again...and again...and again....and again..... -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
The fact is that LTK was denied a chance at management because his party wasn't the one in power. He would have made an excellent education minister if he had been given that portfolio.
Go ask around. Investment managers in their 20s are earning close to a million dollars. Financial managers in London earn a million pounds last Christmas as [b]bonus...Locally, Bank CEOs earn 5 million dollars a year. If we want people of that calibre to run our economy, 20million for the whole team is not much.
Tony Tan as OCBC Chairman and head of Sembawang Shipyard would have taken a big pay cut by being DPM. Similarly, Ng Eng Hen as a br_east surgeon in private practice would have been earning more than a million a year without the stress of a minister.
The responsibility upon a cabinet minister is great. We need people who have shown they can manage a large corporation or have shown themselves to be especially bright. Vivian Balakrishnan was running SGH as its CEO before joinging politics. He had to run a complex organization like a tertiary hospital with an annual turnover of a billion. What have the likes of Chiam See Tong, Chee Soon Juan, Low Thia Kiang and Sylvia Lim have in terms of management experience? Who do you think Morgan Stanley will recruit if they need a manager? Vivian Balakrishnan or Chee Soon Juan? [/b]
The gift of hindsight is important. Unfortunately, it is impossible to turn the clocks back. We can only draw lessons from the past and steer clear of old mistakes. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Yeah, John Mack (Morgan Stanley CEO) and Lloyd Blankfein (Goldman Sachs CEO) were entitled to a USD40 million and USD87 million bonus respectively in 2006. In Blankfein's case, his achievements included presiding over a firm which yielded a record USD14.6 billion pre-tax profits. These people are paid the kind of money they're without having need to ask for it, much less write their own paychecks.
Go ask around. Investment managers in their 20s are earning close to a million dollars. Financial managers in London earn a million pounds last Christmas as [b]bonus...Locally, Bank CEOs earn 5 million dollars a year. If we want people of that calibre to run our economy, 20million for the whole team is not much.
Tony Tan as OCBC Chairman and head of Sembawang Shipyard would have taken a big pay cut by being DPM. Similarly, Ng Eng Hen as a br_east surgeon in private practice would have been earning more than a million a year without the stress of a minister.
The responsibility upon a cabinet minister is great. We need people who have shown they can manage a large corporation or have shown themselves to be especially bright. Vivian Balakrishnan was running SGH as its CEO before joinging politics. He had to run a complex organization like a tertiary hospital with an annual turnover of a billion. What have the likes of Chiam See Tong, Chee Soon Juan, Low Thia Kiang and Sylvia Lim have in terms of management experience? Who do you think Morgan Stanley will recruit if they need a manager? Vivian Balakrishnan or Chee Soon Juan? [/b]
So have the write-our-own-paycheck thugs here got the sort of credentials to justify that kind of money? Why don't you try asking one of the clowns in the current cabinet to defect to Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs then? Chances of some fascist in the cabinet becoming the CEO (or the top executives) of Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs aren't greater than having an illiterate winning the Nobel Prize in Literature.
All that before you consider the thugs you've got here are not just talking about paying themselves "competitive salaries", but also helping themselves to "pensions" - you don't see Mack and Blankfein making a case for pensions, do you? -
Hehehe, stupid reasoning, pay alot of money to get the best people.
If your faucet is leaky; do you look for a Ph.D in Literature to fix it? He is highly educated, but does he know how to fix the leaky faucet. Or do you get a Ph.D in Literature to do your taxes?
Likewise, if you're sick, you don't look for an Economist.
What makes a good politician?
They only groping in the dark for an excuse to increase salary. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Why are you still comparing with the private industry?
Go ask around. Investment managers in their 20s are earning close to a million dollars. Financial managers in London earn a million pounds last Christmas as [b]bonus...Locally, Bank CEOs earn 5 million dollars a year. If we want people of that calibre to run our economy, 20million for the whole team is not much.
Tony Tan as OCBC Chairman and head of Sembawang Shipyard would have taken a big pay cut by being DPM. Similarly, Ng Eng Hen as a br_east surgeon in private practice would have been earning more than a million a year without the stress of a minister.
The responsibility upon a cabinet minister is great. We need people who have shown they can manage a large corporation or have shown themselves to be especially bright. Vivian Balakrishnan was running SGH as its CEO before joinging politics. He had to run a complex organization like a tertiary hospital with an annual turnover of a billion. What have the likes of Chiam See Tong, Chee Soon Juan, Low Thia Kiang and Sylvia Lim have in terms of management experience? Who do you think Morgan Stanley will recruit if they need a manager? Vivian Balakrishnan or Chee Soon Juan? [/b]
I said again, a private sector leader MAY NOT make a good PUBLIC SERVICE leader, becoz the requirements of the job are different.
Private Sector leader = good leader in public service?
Its like telling me our ministers can join the English Premier League and play as good as Beckham or Ronaldino
As again, we should be attracting OTHER public service leaders to work for Singapore. Din you read my mail properly?
Instead of paying STUPIDLY (200k/MONTH), we should get other countries leaders, pay them twice their salary to come and help Singapore, and still save LOTS of money (compared to NOW) in the process
They are TESTED AND PROVEN in the public service. So why din you answer my queries, instead of still making apples and oranges comparisons? -
I am also curious why you avoid my question as well, on why these leaders are paid SO MUCH MORE than ALL LEADERS in the world, when we are a small little dot?
Is it so difficult to run a small city like this, where the people are all afraid of expressing their views, and even if expressed, cannot do much about any unhappiness?
Again you miss my point, so let me make this point easier for you to understand
Assuming we take politicians as an industry.
The most expensive politician in the world, for example, is paid say only $200k/year.
To attract the best, instead of paying maybe 400k/year, you pay 200k/month.
Now, is that STUPIDITY?
You said you want TRIED and TESTED. So we should get the talents from that industry, and not footballers, or private sector leaders. -
He has trouble coming to terms with the fact that any alternative systems to those churned out by the fascists are actually workable...Originally posted by soul_rage:I am also curious why you avoid my question as well, on why these leaders are paid SO MUCH MORE than ALL LEADERS in the world, when we are a small little dot?
Is it so difficult to run a small city like this, where the people are all afraid of expressing their views, and even if expressed, cannot do much about any unhappiness?
Again you miss my point, so let me make this point easier for you to understand
Assuming we take politicians as an industry.
The most expensive politician in the world, for example, is paid say only $200k/year.
To attract the best, instead of paying maybe 400k/year, you pay 200k/month.
Now, is that STUPIDITY?
You said you want TRIED and TESTED. So we should get the talents from that industry, and not footballers, or private sector leaders. -
Please come up with a more creative and valid argument.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Pot calling the kettle black. I have never seen anything I consider useful coming from you either. [/quote]
Pot calling the kettle black? I'm afraind you're the only one on the stove of unreality.
[quote]Can the western liberal press with its own interests be expected to tell us what is right for us and how we should run our nation? You are trying to push us back into the fold of colonialism again. Only Singaporeans have the right to decide what kind of a country this should be.
It is utter hypocrisy to deride the government for suppressing alternative views when you are so quick to dismiss any view that differs from yours. Incidentally, we hold the majority view, as reflected in the polls again...and again...and again....and again.....
Is anyone quick to dismiss your views or do your views simply crumble under the own weight of their illogic? Please do not blame others if you come up with something stupid.
Polls conducted by who? The 154th? For whom?
And who is this "we" who is part of your fictional army? Where are they?
And what margin of majority? A 16.6 percent? A percentage that has SHRUNK since the margin of 2000?
And please don't try to tell the joke that all or even most of 66.6% actually had an active choice in the matter or are they on political autopilot?
On the other hand, can general apathy be said to be the same of the other 33.4%?
As I am afraid to inform you, you're are both the kettle, and the pot. -
Hear hear! Having lost the elections repeatedly and not even being able to persuade enough supporters to stand for elections, you are now saying the democratic instrument of public elections does not reflect the voice of the people
Suppose you prefer military coups instead 
66.6% is a majority. 82 out of 84 seats is a overwhelming majority. 12 out of 12 victories at the General Elections since 1959 is an unthinkable majority. But alas! the brain of the dinosaur is pea-sized...no wonder they became extinct -
So I suppose any activity conducted in a manner that remotely resembles an election is free and fair, eh?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Hear hear! Having lost the elections repeatedly and not even being able to persuade enough supporters to stand for elections, you are now saying the democratic instrument of public elections does not reflect the voice of the people Suppose you prefer military coups instead
66.6% is a majority. 82 out of 84 seats is a overwhelming majority. 12 out of 12 victories at the General Elections since 1959 is an unthinkable majority. But alas! the brain of the dinosaur is pea-sized...no wonder they became extinct
From Cuba to Nigeria, Singapore to Zimbabwe - they must all be democracies that truly reflect the views of the electorate...
-
I am 'stunned' as to why you are not answering my questions. Perhaps its because you are like our PM, not able to answer because it is no longer justifiable?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Hear hear! Having lost the elections repeatedly and not even being able to persuade enough supporters to stand for elections, you are now saying the democratic instrument of public elections does not reflect the voice of the people Suppose you prefer military coups instead
66.6% is a majority. 82 out of 84 seats is a overwhelming majority. 12 out of 12 victories at the General Elections since 1959 is an unthinkable majority. But alas! the brain of the dinosaur is pea-sized...no wonder they became extinct
Again, 66.6% is the percentage that support PAP, of the voters who voted. Again, I said, how many people in Singapore got to vote? Its not the majority of voters, it was the MINORITY of voters that got to vote.
So its hardly a mandate.
Also its hardly surprising that they win by so much a margin, given the tactics they use:
- Scare tactic (place a serial no. on the voting slip so that people think its traceable)
- Prevention tactic (create GRCs, redraw boundaries, kill the opposition, sue, sue, sue, so that every election, only a MINORITY get to vote)
- Threat tactics (use of Upgrading of Flats as a weaponry, when PAP IS NOT EQUAL to the govt, and upgrading expenses come from taxpayers' money)
Given the above, its hardly a surprise that they keep winning. *shrugs*
Such tactics are only workable on the older generation. They do not work anymore for the younger generation. -
Hehehe.....
Giving out large progress packages just before election to influence voters, then taking back all the progress package payouts by increasing price of essentials and GST. -
So oxford mushroom has abandoned this thread after he cannot answer the questions any further?
Does that mean he is blindly supporting the govt to leech off his money?
Or is he a foreigner that is reaping all the benefits being in Singapore, and so can talk all the nonsense, as it doesn't affect him?