What's PM's LabourDay msg got to do with the aged?
-
1) I dont think you quite understand my point about employer being "generous". As long as there is an opportunity to reduce cost, any tom, dick, harry company will jump on it. So what I am trying to say to you is that if we dont have CPF, do you think your employer will pay you that extra 13%, because what most people care about is their take home salary.Originally posted by walesa:a) Let's consider the case of a large corporation that employs thousands of employees. If you were the employer, are you telling me you wouldn't factor in the 13% employee CPF contribution into your overall operating cost that dictates your employment wage structure? So basically, you're telling me employers are so generous as to be paying you the additional 13% to your CPF contribution as a gesture of goodwill? If that were the case, maybe you'd like to shed some light on why such charitable employers wouldn't bat an eyelid in shifting their operations when the opportunity for a cheaper outsourcing alternative arises?
b) No. There's no correlation to the nonsense you espouse - show me a statistical correlation that proves otherwise. Tendencies and actualities do not necessarily go hand-in-hand, do they?
c) Maybe for folks like you who haven't got a clue on the importance of savings, you do need people to mind your finances for you. Surely, that alone doesn't render it necessary for other more capable and responsible individuals to be denied the right to utilise their savings as they deem fit? If your argument were true, why stop at having a minder for personal savings? Why doesn't this regime deploy minders to ensure I don't cross the road when the red man is on or ensure I consume a balanced diet daily?
2) You need statistic? Just look at the amount of roll over credit card bills and the no. of people taking 90% car and housing loan. If you have money, you dont need to take up such expensive loan because you end up working for the banks.
3) I suspect that you are still a student who have yet to take home your first salary and have yet to experience life on an independent adult who can apply credit card using his own pay slip. When you are done with that, then you ask me the question if the general young adult here in Singapore has the tendency of saving for rainy days. -
Originally posted by Gazelle:
I'm not the least bit interested in engaging you in any sort of debate pertaining to law or economics - you've enough trouble understanding simple logic in plain English as things stand.
If you agree to park you money with any financial institute at an agreed rate of return, you have not right to question how the banks use the money as long as they pay you your interest on time in full.
FYI, banks is not a store room for your saving, they are basically using your money to make more money in whatever way they think generate the best returns.
If you haven't finish your finance 101, I suggest that we stop this discussion because you are leading nowhere
Read what you typed in bold. Fund managers only have access to your money - and a pre-determined amount at your absolute and sole discretion - after you've given them consent to handle your funds. In other words, if you do not wish to have your money entrusted to fund managers for whatever reasons, there's no way they can lay hands on your money.
So are you telling me this regime operates in the same manner as fund managers when it comes to handling your CPF? Do you have that option of ensuring this regime does not touch your money should you not wish to have them interfere in your finances that come in the form of your CPF? -
Evidently, points 2) and 3) (refer to the quote in your post) are absolutely irrelevant and unsubstantiated at best; comical and ridiculous at worst.Originally posted by Gazelle:1) I dont think you quite understand my point about employer being "generous". As long as there is an opportunity to reduce cost, any tom, dick, harry company will jump on it. So what I am trying to say to you is that if we dont have CPF, do you think your employer will pay you that extra 13%, because what most people care about is their take home salary.
2) You need statistic? Just look at the amount of roll over credit card bills and the no. of people taking 90% car and housing loan. If you have money, you dont need to take up such expensive loan because you end up working for the banks.
3) I suspect that you are still a student who have yet to take home your first salary and have yet to experience life on an independent adult who can apply credit card using his own pay slip. When you are done with that, then you ask me the question if the general young adult here in Singapore has the tendency of saving for rainy days.
1) Just answer the following question (justifications for your answer(s) is/are not needed) : do you agree that whatever contributions employers are obliged to contribute to an employee's CPF is factored in as part of employers' operating costs?
2) You're making no sense and to me, still effectively talking nonsense. Where's the correlation that conclusively suggests people spend more money when they're given more to spend? Do you have any tangible figures, obtained from an independent statistical survey done on a significantly large sample population with an unbiased estimate to conclude people actually spend more money when they're given more than when they're given less ?
3) I've no wish nor desire to speak about my experience nor education - my educational qualifications and work experience will dwarf yours in all probability (if you're really interested, you can go and dig up threads elsewhere in this forum where I've briefly mentioned them) and still, I assume less than you do. Typical of shallow-minded folks who think they've seen the world and assume there's only ever 1 exclusive viewpoint to scrutinise matters.
You'll do well just to have a further discussion on point 1. -
You should take your own advice and read carefully the numbers that have been posted in the Department of Statistics and compare that with the Election Results.Originally posted by Gazelle:
Originally posted by Atobe:
In you anxiety to give a reply, it seems you cannot differentiate that Singapore has a population of 4,483,000.
In fact, from the same referenced site of the Department of Statistics that gave Singapore's Total Population of 4,483,000 - as at June 2006, it had also stated that the total number of Singapore Residents was 3,608,500 - which is understood as Singaporean Residents including Permanent Residents.
Is someone playing with numbers ?
Even if the 2,357,700 is to be discounted of Permanent Residents, the difference is only 10%.
This 10% is determined from the data given in the Department of Statistics Report from the Year 2000 statistics, the Total Singapore Citizen in 2000 was 2,973,091, and the Permanent Residents had numbered 290,118 - (Tables 1 on PDF Pages 2 and 3 of 17 pages - respectively ) .
Even if the figures were to be re-juggled, the 66.6% still do not amount to any sweeping mandate.
Try to hold your excitement to give a reply, and clear your head from all your prejudices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Here is a statement from you.
Can 747,860 votes received by the Ruling Party out of a population of 2,357,700 be considered a 'Sweeping Mandate', which amount to about 31.7% of the entire population within or near the voting age ?
747,860 votes or 66.6% from the valid 1,123,000 votes cast, which is representative of only 31.7% of an entire population of 2,357,7000 voting age citizens - can this be a 'Sweeping Mandate' ?
a) How did you derive the 31.7% when within the 2,357,700 million people include PR who doesnt vote? (Am I right that your figure are distorted?
b) The population of Singapore residents has increase from 3.27m to about 3.61m from 2000 to 2006, and Singaporeans birthrate also hit an all time low. Hence dont you think it is incorrect to use the % of PR from 2000 to estimate the population of Singapore citizen in 2006?
c) Are those citizens who didnt have the chance to vote (due to walkover) included in your calculation?
My advice if that spend sometime to think about the number first before making sweeping statement that government if providing distorted information.
a) In my most recent reply, I have stated that - even if we take the Year 2000 figures (being the only one available) as a basis that PR form only 10% of the total Singapore Residents - the final results will remain the same.
The 66% hoopla was merely an empty and desparate boast amidst a surge in interest towards a younger, more sincerely enthusiastic, and untested candidates offered by the Opposition - who are not in for the MONEY.
b) If there are no other latest data concerning the actual percentage of the PR in our Singapore Resident population count, the Year 2000 was used as a basis of reference. Make a wild guess of the actual numbers of PR in our midst - if you will - and place any digit from 1% to 10% of the total Singapore Residents for the Year 2006 (if you believe that the Population numbers have changed in favor of Singaporeans Citizens against the actual numbers of PRs ) - you will be surprised that the final difference remains little change.
c) Your question - ''Are those citizens who didnt have the chance to vote (due to walkover) included in your calculation? '' reveal that either you cannot interpret numbers, or your anxiety to rebut me has taken the better of your ability to think clearly. Try reading the numbers that I have referred to in Wikipedia on the Singapore Elections 2006.
The numbers are all there, show me the figures that I have interpreted by mistake and I will give you marks that you deserve.
I am not sure if you are insisting to argue for the sake of argument, as you do not seem to be heading anywhere with your statements.
Each reply merely elicit another change in course in your direction of argument, I wonder if you are merely attempting to save some face being the author that started this thread running.
If face is so important to you, and there is nothing further to add to what has already been clarified, I will give face to you, and bow out. -
Originally posted by Gazelle:
The trouble with a Lie is that it becomes A Truth when repeated often enough - even by those who are gullible to whatever is spoken by the articulate Liar.
I dont think LKY has anything to worry, for 1 Jamie, there will be 100 capable and reputable people around the world calling LKY a genius. Are you sure the MANY singaporeans are wishing he will disappear from the political scene or is it just a bunch of whinners who will blame everything beside themselves?
If there are 100 capable and reputable persons around the world for every single Jamie, then you better find the other 100 capable and reputable persons for every Singaporean Jamie that will number at least half the Adult population in this Speakers' Corner. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
1) Can you be sure that in 2006, the percentage of PR in Singapore is still 10% of the total Singapore resident just because it was 10% in 2000?
You should take your own advice and read carefully the numbers that have been posted in the Department of Statistics and compare that with the Election Results.
a) In my most recent reply, I have stated that - even if we take the Year 2000 figures (being the only one available) as a basis that PR form only 10% of the total Singapore Residents - the final results will remain the same.
The 66% hoopla was merely an empty and desparate boast amidst a surge in interest towards a younger, more sincerely enthusiastic, and untested candidates offered by the Opposition - who are not in for the MONEY.
b) If there are no other latest data concerning the actual percentage of the PR in our Singapore Resident population count, the Year 2000 was used as a basis of reference. Make a wild guess of the actual numbers of PR in our midst - if you will - and place any digit from 1% to 10% of the total Singapore Residents for the Year 2006 (if you believe that the Population numbers have changed in favor of Singaporeans Citizens against the actual numbers of PRs ) - you will be surprised that the final difference remains little change.
c) Your question - [b]''Are those citizens who didnt have the chance to vote (due to walkover) included in your calculation? '' reveal that either you cannot interpret numbers, or your anxiety to rebut me has taken the better of your ability to think clearly. Try reading the numbers that I have referred to in Wikipedia on the Singapore Elections 2006.
The numbers are all there, show me the figures that I have interpreted by mistake and I will give you marks that you deserve.
I am not sure if you are insisting to argue for the sake of argument, as you do not seem to be heading anywhere with your statements.
Each reply merely elicit another change in course in your direction of argument, I wonder if you are merely attempting to save some face being the author that started this thread running.
If face is so important to you, and there is nothing further to add to what has already been clarified, I will give face to you, and bow out.
[/b]
2) You havent answer my very simple question. How did you get 31.7%?
The is the whole point of my argument because I think you are giving distorted information. -
Originally posted by Gazelle:
Look you are embarrasses yourself long enough to realise that all you have is just words, and nothing to prove atobe wrong at all, and here you could do is just argue back with a sentence, but not fact, and simply to say this, you support PAP policy blindly, clinching on to their idealism and this forum is a place where we don't welcome, PAP supporter, either you can go to their www.youngpap.org.sg or you are going to further embarrasses yourself, you have do nothing but arguing without knowing what you are saying, simply you are looking for flaw in atobe sentence,
1) Can you be sure that in 2006, the percentage of PR in Singapore is still 10% of the total Singapore resident just because it was 10% in 2000?
2) You havent answer my very simple question. How did you get [b]31.7%?
The is the whole point of my argument because I think you are giving distorted information.
[/b]
and seriously, you are such a person, whom i laugh at, in the speaker corner forum, and i really want to take a go at how little you know about this tiny dot on the map, and please for goodness sake, take a good look at your own sentence, you merely argue back for the sake of arguing, we citizen should be entitle to more welfare, and more rights, and what are the rights, that we are entitle of, freedom of speech, this has been denied for years under the ruling of LKY, and how about you tell me what has LHL done for singapore so far, beside raising the gst, increasing their paycheck, by raising the living cost, we citizen will suffer more under the ruling party, if the ruling party is of any good, don't you think we would have support the government whole heartily, DOES THE BLOODY GOVERNMENT DARES TO CALL FOR A SNAP ELECTION at this sort of time?
the reason why, the government able to win so far in the past 2 election, is not because the government is capable, but is because there is no capable opposition able to convince us, that they can be better than PAP, but till recently, all this ho ha, about NKF, GST, Raising of minister paycheck,
Enough is enough, there is a limit to an extent of patience, while we give PAP so much chance to reform, they have yet to prove to us, that they are democratic, THEY ARE NOT, why i said that, there are so much rules and regulation involve in all matter, even you want to speak at the speaker corner at tanjong pajar, you have to apply for permit from the police, i mean, wtf? that place is where we can practise free speech, but we have to apply for permit, ironic......
so do tell me, you who follow blindly in PAP policy, and thinks it is best for the public, do you expect anyone in the forum to support your thoughts, or even agree with you, i don't think so, to be honest, just don't even bother to reply to this post at all, because i doubt you have the capacity to even reply at all, and i would be expecting a rather short post, that you never put any thought into it, and i doubt you have the intellect to be able to do so.
why don't you just STFU, be a government lackey, maybe they will send you a greeting card, and praise you for the effort. Goodness you remind me of those moron at the youngpap blog, please take a good look at your own post, you yet able to argue anything at all, or you could do is just finding flaw in other people sentence.
my 2 cents worth of thought on you, i should have just
on all your post, because you are just lame -
Originally posted by Gazelle:
to answer your first question, simple
1) Can you be sure that in 2006, the percentage of PR in Singapore is still 10% of the total Singapore resident just because it was 10% in 2000?
2) You havent answer my very simple question. How did you get [b]31.7%?
The is the whole point of my argument because I think you are giving distorted information.
[/b]
Population: projected total population target 6.5 million by 2030
Total population: (source: SDOS )
1970: 2.07 million (2.01m SC/SPR & 61,000 foreigners)
1980: 2.41 million (2.28m SC/SPR & 131,000 foreigners)
1990: 3.05 million (2.74m SC/SPR & 311,000 foreigners)
2000: 4.03 million (3.27m SC/SPR & 745,500 foreigners)
2006 4.48 million (3.60m SC/SPR & 875,000 foreigners)
Citizenships & SPRs Granted to foreigners by ICA (source: ST 060507)
Year Citizenships SPRs
2002 7,600 39,500
2003 6,800 32,000
2004 7,600 36,900
2005 12,900 52,300
2006 13,200 57,300
2) WHAT THE F U C K, YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO SIMPLE MATHS, IS IT!!!!!!!!!!
if you take a total of 100% and PAP won the election a majority of over 66% and if 10% of the citizen is PR, then tell me how much is the percentage of citizen that voted for the opposition - over 30%!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOW I GIVEN YOU STATISTICS, ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?!?!
AND I AM GOING TO PROVIDE YOU THE DAMN LINK AND NO! ITS NOT FROM WIKI
http://www.filmo.com/singapore.htm
AND DON'T YOU DARE TO EVEN SAID THAT THOSE ARE WRONG!!!!!!!
BECAUSE BLOODY HELL, I ALWAYS CHECKED MY SOURCE BEFORE POSTING
AND LASTLY, IF YOU COUNTED THE WALKOVER THAT THE PAP WON!!!!!! I DON'T EVEN WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH CITIZEN HAS ACTUALLY VOTED FOR PAP!!!!!!! -
http://www.unesco.org/most/apmrnw13.htm
1970
Total Population - 2,074.5 (000s)
Citizens - 90%
Permanent Residents - 6.7%
Non-citizens non-PRs - 2.9%
1980
Total Population - 2,413.9 (000s)
Citizens - 90.9%
Permanent Residents - 3.6%
Non-citizens non-PRs - 5.5%
1990
Total Population - 3,016.4 (000s)
Citizens - 86.0%
Permanent Residents - 3.7%
Non-citizens non-PRs - 10.3%
tell me something!!!!!! SINCE THE BLOODY GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN ENCOURAGING MORE FT!!!! do you think the 10.3% will increase or not!!!!!! in this century!!!!!!!!!!
FFS, i already provided you so much information so please FFS, STFU!!!!! -
YOU HAVE YET TO PROVE ANY FORM OF STATISTIC AND I HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH SO MUCH INFORMATION and please FFS, STFU, and please only this country has CPF, the rest of the country, its call PENSION, so do you understand, NOOB?Originally posted by Gazelle:1) I dont think you quite understand my point about employer being "generous". As long as there is an opportunity to reduce cost, any tom, dick, harry company will jump on it. So what I am trying to say to you is that if we dont have CPF, do you think your employer will pay you that extra 13%, because what most people care about is their take home salary.
2) You need statistic? Just look at the amount of roll over credit card bills and the no. of people taking 90% car and housing loan. If you have money, you dont need to take up such expensive loan because you end up working for the banks.
3) I suspect that you are still a student who have yet to take home your first salary and have yet to experience life on an independent adult who can apply credit card using his own pay slip. When you are done with that, then you ask me the question if the general young adult here in Singapore has the tendency of saving for rainy days.
and let the reason why, we don't need to pay so much interest rate for our housing loan is because we can use our cpf to pay for it, and it is a debt trap, we work so hard and in the end, we draw from our cpf which is our pension to pay for the HDB,and end up the money goes back to the government, WOW and please do you think the corporate tax has been lower by 2% this year is for what!
DO YOUR BLOODY RESEARCH OR I AM ON THE VERGE OF FLAMING YOU PIECE OF S H I T and i have flame enough to realise one thing, they end up calling me names, when they loses a flame war, and yes, i will be here waiting for your statistic, please try and prove me wrong or STFU -
Originally posted by Gazelle:Let put it this way my young skywalker. Lets assume that your dad, who provided you with whatever you have today, have a very different style of thinking and approach to life, would you ask him for Fcuk OFF or disappear?
Not a proper analogy. Leaders may be replaced in the hope for better governance but not a father.
If you are a loser you are a loser, there is nobody to blame but yourself. Because you can say that this country if fcuk type but look around there are tons of people in Singapore who is having a really comfortable life.
Does having a comfortable life necessarily equate an approval of the country's governance?
A person's quality of life is not the point here. It's this country's governance.
And let me qualify myself, being poor is not equal to being a loser. -
Rock^Star
do you really know he just make a darn mistake in his post, and you even dare to quote his dumb words
Does having a comfortable life necessarily equate an approval of the country's governance?
this bloody sentence is, telling us that, Hey we are the government, and we are not going to protect your rights, and we are in favour of the company interest more than yours
we are not expecting a comfortable life, we have to earn it ourselves, but when the standard of living is raising, but our paycheck is not raising at all, and who do we look for, the government, because we vote them into power, and so, they shalt protect our rights, instead of increasing the gst, over the past 5 years
Not a proper analogy. Leaders may be replaced in the hope for better governance but not a father.
we want to have more freedom of rights, the freedom to speak freely,
we are old enough to know what we want, and PAP is not even protecting our rights at all
think real carefully, they increase the gst by 2% and lower the corporate tax by 2%, what does that tells you?
A person's quality of life is not the point here. It's this country's governance.
if a person standard of living is not the point, then why do we still want to stay in this country? what are you talking about? if the citizens are not happy with the government, do you think we will still vote for them if our quantity of life is poor or at least min standard?
LOOK PLEASE DON'T BE A FOOL LIKE HIM, who doesn't know what is he saying! -
Rock^Star
if you can't think of any of your own words, please don't become like that moron, who is shooting his mouth without even think before he type any words, if such a person is a PAP supporter, he is doing more damage to the PAP reputation, he is none other than a brainwashed citizen who can't think for himself, and need to clinch on to the hopes of PAP,
he is a fine example, of a sheep, waiting to be taken to the slaughterhouse, and i am not going to listen to PAP, has to say, i don't agree with them at all, do i oppose them? NO!, i am a citizen who wants to see a balance of power in singapore, so that those PAP dogs have to work twice as hard to earn back our trust, and our belief, neither do i wish to see the fall of PAP, as they, our founding fathers have sacrifice so much for us,
but in this century, we have gain another wisdom to know what we wants. and we want more, human are selfish, and no party in this world can fulfil human beings desire, we will want more
BUT FFS, AT LEAST THINK FOR OUR SAKE FOR ONCE,
I AM SEEK AND TRIED OF, LISTENING TO THAT CRAP, LHL, HAS TO SAY -
oh, please be more understanding
WTF! HAVE NOT WE BEEN MORE UNDERSTANDING ENOUGH FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS,
YOU CUT THE EMPLOYEE CPF CONTRIBUTION, OK NEVERMIND, THEN THAT FORMER PM, GOH, PROMISE TO RAISE IT BACK, THEN IN THE END, WHAT HAPPEN, IT NEVER HAPPEN AT ALL
SO PLEASE IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING DECENT ENOUGH TO COUNTER BACK MY WORDS,
STFU, OR YOU ARE JUST ANOTHER BLOODY NOOB -
Can you be sure that tomorrow your Life will not be shorter by 10% just because you have managed to live through until 12 May 2007 ?Originally posted by Gazelle:
Originally posted by Atobe:
You should take your own advice and read carefully the numbers that have been posted in the Department of Statistics and compare that with the Election Results.
a) In my most recent reply, I have stated that - even if we take the Year 2000 figures (being the only one available) as a basis that PR form only 10% of the total Singapore Residents - the final results will remain the same.
The 66% hoopla was merely an empty and desparate boast amidst a surge in interest towards a younger, more sincerely enthusiastic, and untested candidates offered by the Opposition - who are not in for the MONEY.
b) If there are no other latest data concerning the actual percentage of the PR in our Singapore Resident population count, the Year 2000 was used as a basis of reference. Make a wild guess of the actual numbers of PR in our midst - if you will - and place any digit from 1% to 10% of the total Singapore Residents for the Year 2006 (if you believe that the Population numbers have changed in favor of Singaporeans Citizens against the actual numbers of PRs ) - you will be surprised that the final difference remains little change.
c) Your question - ''Are those citizens who didnt have the chance to vote (due to walkover) included in your calculation? '' reveal that either you cannot interpret numbers, or your anxiety to rebut me has taken the better of your ability to think clearly. Try reading the numbers that I have referred to in Wikipedia on the Singapore Elections 2006.
The numbers are all there, show me the figures that I have interpreted by mistake and I will give you marks that you deserve.
I am not sure if you are insisting to argue for the sake of argument, as you do not seem to be heading anywhere with your statements.
Each reply merely elicit another change in course in your direction of argument, I wonder if you are merely attempting to save some face being the author that started this thread running.
If face is so important to you, and there is nothing further to add to what has already been clarified, I will give face to you, and bow out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1) Can you be sure that in 2006, the percentage of PR in Singapore is still 10% of the total Singapore resident just because it was 10% in 2000?
Even insurers also cannot be certain of the future which they hedge with a set of past data, and extrapolate into the future - give and take some loss in accuracy.
If you believe that my 10% is - more or less - in error, what alternative percentage will satisfy you ?
Boy, are you desparately in need of a 'win' in an argument ?
2) You havent answer my very simple question. How did you get 31.7%?
The is the whole point of my argument because I think you are giving distorted information.
[/b]
Do I have to help you to win your argument ? Need more spoon feeding with the 31.7% ?
Go figure it out, and play with the 10% on the principal number, and see how close you get to this 31.7% that you believe to be in error.
If you believe yourself to be a super-genius, prove it. -
If you want to talk about statistic and vote, you better be accurate, all else you are just like what you accuse the government of doing manipulating numbers.Originally posted by Atobe:
Can you be sure that tomorrow your Life will not be shorter by 10% just because you have managed to live through until 12 May 2007 ?
Even insurers also cannot be certain of the future which they hedge with a set of past data, and extrapolate into the future - give and take some loss in accuracy.
If you believe that my 10% is - more or less - in error, what alternative percentage will satisfy you ? -
Originally posted by Atobe:
This is not about arguement dude, this is about facts. The fact is that you have made a fundamentally wrong calculation and you are now trying very hard to cover your own blunder, and disappointing those who think you have done a brilliant job.
Boy, are you desparately in need of a 'win' in an argument ?
Do I have to help you to win your argument ? Need more spoon feeding with the [b]31.7% ?
Go figure it out, and play with the 10% on the principal number, and see how close you get to this 31.7% that you believe to be in error.
If you believe yourself to be a super-genius, prove it.
[/b]
You dont need to be genius to know that the population of Singapore Residents include both citizens and PRs. -
Some smart arese has quoted a bunch of statistic which still doesnt anwser my simple question of how can you be sure that out of the 3.6m Singapore Residents in 2006, 10% or 360,000 are PR?Originally posted by allentyb:to answer your first question, simple
Population: projected total population target 6.5 million by 2030
Total population: (source: SDOS )
1970: 2.07 million (2.01m SC/SPR & 61,000 foreigners)
1980: 2.41 million (2.28m SC/SPR & 131,000 foreigners)
1990: 3.05 million (2.74m SC/SPR & 311,000 foreigners)
2000: 4.03 million (3.27m SC/SPR & 745,500 foreigners)
2006 4.48 million (3.60m SC/SPR & 875,000 foreigners)
Citizenships & SPRs Granted to foreigners by ICA (source: ST 060507)
Year Citizenships SPRs
2002 7,600 39,500
2003 6,800 32,000
2004 7,600 36,900
2005 12,900 52,300
2006 13,200 57,300
2) WHAT THE F U C K, YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO SIMPLE MATHS, IS IT!!!!!!!!!!
if you take a total of 100% and PAP won the election a majority of over 66% and if 10% of the citizen is PR, then tell me how much is the percentage of citizen that voted for the opposition - over 30%!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOW I GIVEN YOU STATISTICS, ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?!?!
AND I AM GOING TO PROVIDE YOU THE DAMN LINK AND NO! ITS NOT FROM WIKI
http://www.filmo.com/singapore.htm
AND DON'T YOU DARE TO EVEN SAID THAT THOSE ARE WRONG!!!!!!!
BECAUSE BLOODY HELL, I ALWAYS CHECKED MY SOURCE BEFORE POSTING
AND LASTLY, IF YOU COUNTED THE WALKOVER THAT THE PAP WON!!!!!! I DON'T EVEN WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH CITIZEN HAS ACTUALLY VOTED FOR PAP!!!!!!!
Since you are so great with your numbers, can you please explain how Atobe get the 31.7% vote, if he didnt include PR as the population base in his calculation? -
read the next post, goodness, i should have expect a brain washed citizen like you, can't come up with something better, i already given you statistic and now you are arguing about my flaw in my sentence, why not, stop arguing for the sake of arguing, it already look ugly on you.Originally posted by Gazelle:Some smart arese has quoted a bunch of statistic which still doesnt anwser my simple question of how can you be sure that out of the 3.6m Singapore Residents in 2006, 10% or 360,000 are PR?
Since you are so great with your numbers, can you please explain how Atobe get the 31.7% vote, if he didnt include PR as the population base in his calculation? -
Gazelle
you never read his post carefully before posting at all
nobody can provide you with accurate figure at all, do i really have to dig out all the statistic before you realise how ignorant, you are? you are the one who can't see the big picture at all, i already explain so clearly in my post, if you can't think of something good, to reply my post, then don't, i should expect that you can only think of, so little words, to counter my post, as you already run out of words to say already
you keep on and on emphasis on something, you don't know you are repeating yourself meh? -
nobody can answer your question about how much is the population, we can provide you the estimated figure, and it is for you to accept it, but in your case, you just arguing for the sake of argue, and you wanted that 'win' so badly, which proven one thing, you don't understand how ignorant you are, you choose big words, like, fundamental - dude, the figure itself, is a estimate, so there is no foundation to begin withOriginally posted by Gazelle:This is not about arguement dude, this is about facts. The fact is that you have made a fundamentally wrong calculation and you are now trying very hard to cover your own blunder, and disappointing those who think you have done a brilliant job.
You dont need to be genius to know that the population of Singapore Residents include both citizens and PRs.
please lah, do you really expect, the census to be accurate meh? wah kao, hello, please lah, stop making a fool of yourself, i already counter so much points that you make, i really explain myself clear, enough, and you still fail to understand what mistake you make, AH? -
PLEASE READ THIS POST, MAYBE YOU HAVE OVERLOOK IT AND CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT, AT LEAST, YOU KNOW WHERE IS YOUR MISTAKE
Originally posted by allentyb:
Rock^Star
do you really know he just make a darn mistake in his post, and you even dare to quote his dumb words
[b]Does having a comfortable life necessarily equate an approval of the country's governance?
this bloody sentence is, telling us that, Hey we are the government, and we are not going to protect your rights, and we are in favour of the company interest more than yours
we are not expecting a comfortable life, we have to earn it ourselves, but when the standard of living is raising, but our paycheck is not raising at all, and who do we look for, the government, because we vote them into power, and so, they shalt protect our rights, instead of increasing the gst, over the past 5 years
Not a proper analogy. Leaders may be replaced in the hope for better governance but not a father.
we want to have more freedom of rights, the freedom to speak freely,
we are old enough to know what we want, and PAP is not even protecting our rights at all
think real carefully, they increase the gst by 2% and lower the corporate tax by 2%, what does that tells you?
A person's quality of life is not the point here. It's this country's governance.
if a person standard of living is not the point, then why do we still want to stay in this country? what are you talking about? if the citizens are not happy with the government, do you think we will still vote for them if our quantity of life is poor or at least min standard?
LOOK PLEASE DON'T BE A FOOL LIKE HIM, who doesn't know what is he saying![/b] -
If you want to talk about big picture, then why should we be talking about the % of PAP victory. We should rather be saying yeah, a win is a win.Originally posted by allentyb:Gazelle
you never read his post carefully before posting at all
nobody can provide you with accurate figure at all, do i really have to dig out all the statistic before you realise how ignorant, you are? you are the one who can't see the big picture at all, i already explain so clearly in my post, if you can't think of something good, to reply my post, then don't, i should expect that you can only think of, so little words, to counter my post, as you already run out of words to say already
you keep on and on emphasis on something, you don't know you are repeating yourself meh?
i will challange you go dig out those information which I have request, include the 31.7% which you have forgotten to mention. -
ok, i explain in a even simple term, it will be so simple that anyone will be able to understand,
If a government is really that good, don't you think the citizen will actually support them whole heartily, and we will have not have any qualms against the government at all
but look around you, and especially in the speaker corner forum, how many negative topic is about the government, it already tells you that, we are not happy with the government
is this too difficult for you to comprehend, or do i have to type in singlish, in hope that you will be able to understand, if you can't even counter back, all my post, then don't reply at all, and honestly speaking, you can go back and being a sheep waiting for the slaughterhouse, while i have my cup of tea, watching you, being drag into the slaughterhouse, and your patriotism will eat you up, because in the world - every man for himself.
They know that they are losing vote, what simple folks want is, a good standard of living, nothing more, with the raising of gst, over living costs have increased, our paycheck doesn't increase at all, and who will we blame - the government
and why do we look for the goverment? BECAUSE WE VOTE THOSE DOG INTO POWER!
Do you know that you make so much mistake in your post, and i am actually laughing at you. and i already correct your sentence by replying to your post, which i usually don't do that. -
what are you talking about? we already know that PAP won the last election, by 66% and please on your side, counter my post back, or STFUOriginally posted by Gazelle:If you want to talk about big picture, then why should we be talking about the % of PAP victory. We should rather be saying yeah, a win is a win.
i will challange you go dig out those information which I have request, include the 31.7% which you have forgotten to mention.
and i already given you all the information, and what more, do you want?
don't you know, you are changing the topic, i ask you a question and yet you can't even reply back, and then you argue back with a reply, HUH
you are insisting on your own point, without any form of proof, or backing, and you want to talk c o c k sing song. goodness -
nobody will be able to tell you anything about, how much is the percentage of citizen, PR and the FT in singapore in this current year
as there is NO CURRENT CENSUS IS PROVIDED AT ALL!!!!!!!!!
so FFS, at least on your side, do some RESEARCH OR YOU WILL BE EMBARRASSES OR YOU WISHES TO CONTINUE ON WITH THIS ARGUMENT WHEN YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT YOU ARE AT THE LOSING END,
YOU HAVE ONLY BEEN ABLE TO ARGUE ON THE 31.7%, OK, FOR THAT PART, IT IS SO SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND, IF YOU ACTUALLY BOTHER TO READ WHAT ATOBE HAS TO SAY, HE ALREADY MENTION, IT IS AN ESTIMATION, BECAUSE NO ONE ON EARTH WILL BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU ANY EXACT FIGURE AT ALL!!!!!!
SO FOR YOUR ARGUMENT ON THE 31.7% HAS BEEN DEFEATED
SO NOW ARE YOU HAPPY, THAT WE SHOWER YOU WITH ALL THE ATTENTION THAT YOU NEED, AND YOU ARE JUST BEEN ARGUMENTALLY, AND YOU ALREADY RUN OUT OF WORDS, TO SAY, WHY NOT, JUST STEP DOWN, AND WE WILL GO EASY ON YOU,