Singaporean vs. Singaporean
-
Should Singapore government provide more tax incentives for Singapore born Singaporeans.
-
What benefits are there being a Singaporean anyway ?
-
You took the words right out of my mouth....glad you think this way....what benefits are there anyway...besides....its all superficial benefits....you want real benefits, emigrate like us....and watch Sillypore drive itself to the ground and just laugh it off from afarOriginally posted by Trump_Card:What benefits are there being a Singaporean anyway ? -
Local only given subsidized medical n education. Last ime the PR the same benefit which is the reason seldom PR became local citizzen.Originally posted by Coquitlam:You took the words right out of my mouth....glad you think this way....what benefits are there anyway...besides....its all superficial benefits....you want real benefits, emigrate like us....and watch Sillypore drive itself to the ground and just laugh it off from afar -
Well, the gahmen scared that if pr given the same benefits, more citizens will leave...but that's what many of us who have left want....for more citizens to quit.....then they will see light and see how much they have missed out in teh world....HK and China are better places to go to now to live....Originally posted by will4:Local only given subsidized medical n education. Last ime the PR the same benefit which is the reason seldom PR became local citizzen.
Besides, where I live, I respect the gahmen as there are no differences between citizens and PRs besides the fact that we cannot hold office or vote which is perfectly reasonable.... -
PR still got benefit than some foreigners.Originally posted by Coquitlam:Well, the gahmen scared that if pr given the same benefits, more citizens will leave...but that's what many of us who have left want....for more citizens to quit.....then they will see light and see how much they have missed out in teh world....HK and China are better places to go to now to live....
Besides, where I live, I respect the gahmen as there are no differences between citizens and PRs besides the fact that we cannot hold office or vote which is perfectly reasonable.... -
Or, we can stay and make Singapore a even better success and laugh at those who left. Nahh.... we drop the laughing part, but we can still make Singapore a success. What are the benefits of being a Singaporeans? Well, most of us did grow up in a stable and peaceful environment with good education. Sure there are also other places in the world that can provide that, but that doesn't make them better. Singapore is already the best city to live in Asia (according to some US survey), so it's a blessing if you were born into Singapore as a Singaporean. If you were able to emigrate because of your high education, give Singapore some credit. If you were able to make your fortune in Singapore without having to pay off huge bribery to corrupt officials or having to fear that someone might just rob you or kidnap one of your love ones, give Singapore some credit. If you grow up without having to witness one crime or the other like rapes occuring every 19 second or 2-3 cases of gunshot murder per year; give Singapore some credit.Originally posted by Coquitlam:You took the words right out of my mouth....glad you think this way....what benefits are there anyway...besides....its all superficial benefits....you want real benefits, emigrate like us....and watch Sillypore drive itself to the ground and just laugh it off from afar
There's nothing wrong if you find that there are other places in the world that suits you better, but there is something very wrong if you try to emotionally bully other people into leaving their home. -
ROFL ...SO funny ....bully other people into leaving their home. HAHHAHHHAHAOriginally posted by wisefool83:Or, we can stay and make Singapore a even better success and laugh at those who left. Nahh.... we drop the laughing part, but we can still make Singapore a success. What are the benefits of being a Singaporeans? Well, most of us did grow up in a stable and peaceful environment with good education. Sure there are also other places in the world that can provide that, but that doesn't make them better. Singapore is already the best city to live in Asia (according to some US survey), so it's a blessing if you were born into Singapore as a Singaporean. If you were able to emigrate because of your high education, give Singapore some credit. If you were able to make your fortune in Singapore without having to pay off huge bribery to corrupt officials or having to fear that someone might just rob you or kidnap one of your love ones, give Singapore some credit. If you grow up without having to witness one crime or the other like rapes occuring every 19 second or 2-3 cases of gunshot murder per year; give Singapore some credit.
There's nothing wrong if you find that there are other places in the world that suits you better, but there is something very wrong if you try to emotionally bully other people into leaving their home.
Macham like donkey pushing the cart .
Not many will leave their comfort zone . In fact very few unless they have to in order to survive or in search of a better life.
Having said that , Singapore has a good education system if you have been schooled in the gifted program all your life - wait not good....EXCELLENT education system. As for me , I am not gifted but I learn an important lesson in life - if your daddy is very rich or have connections and make huge donations - you go to the best class in primary one , become a prefect from primary 3 onwards . Now if your daddy is really really filthy rich, you become head prefect.
benefit of being in a school like that , except my daddy is not that rich and not connected at all.
Crime happens everywhere . Low crime doesn't mean no crime. And you don't know when or WHETHER you will get hit . My mother got robbed in Singapore twice , once with me as a little kid . Of course Singapore is safer than Australia in terms of statistics.
Bribery ....so far never experienced bribery in Singapore or Australia at all. -
other than national slavery what other 'benefit' singapore has for us...
-
+1Originally posted by wisefool83:Or, we can stay and make Singapore a even better success and laugh at those who left. Nahh.... we drop the laughing part, but we can still make Singapore a success. What are the benefits of being a Singaporeans? Well, most of us did grow up in a stable and peaceful environment with good education. Sure there are also other places in the world that can provide that, but that doesn't make them better. Singapore is already the best city to live in Asia (according to some US survey), so it's a blessing if you were born into Singapore as a Singaporean. If you were able to emigrate because of your high education, give Singapore some credit. If you were able to make your fortune in Singapore without having to pay off huge bribery to corrupt officials or having to fear that someone might just rob you or kidnap one of your love ones, give Singapore some credit. If you grow up without having to witness one crime or the other like rapes occuring every 19 second or 2-3 cases of gunshot murder per year; give Singapore some credit.
There's nothing wrong if you find that there are other places in the world that suits you better, but there is something very wrong if you try to emotionally bully other people into leaving their home. -
In wad way is that a benefit???Originally posted by kengkia:other than national slavery what other 'benefit' singapore has for us... -
Benefit is that you are staying in a very SAFE and Clean country but EXPENSIVE...
-
You have to adopt an open view of the world, instead of your narrow views. Singapore is a success, but success comes at the expense of the people, where the poor are marginalised. Singapore has a stable and peaceful environment, but it's not exclusive to Singapore, don't make it sound as if it's the only country in the world which has a stable environment.Originally posted by wisefool83:Or, we can stay and make Singapore a even better success and laugh at those who left. Nahh.... we drop the laughing part, but we can still make Singapore a success. What are the benefits of being a Singaporeans? Well, most of us did grow up in a stable and peaceful environment with good education. Sure there are also other places in the world that can provide that, but that doesn't make them better. Singapore is already the best city to live in Asia (according to some US survey), so it's a blessing if you were born into Singapore as a Singaporean. If you were able to emigrate because of your high education, give Singapore some credit. If you were able to make your fortune in Singapore without having to pay off huge bribery to corrupt officials or having to fear that someone might just rob you or kidnap one of your love ones, give Singapore some credit. If you grow up without having to witness one crime or the other like rapes occuring every 19 second or 2-3 cases of gunshot murder per year; give Singapore some credit.
There's nothing wrong if you find that there are other places in the world that suits you better, but there is something very wrong if you try to emotionally bully other people into leaving their home.
Everybody in a decent country will be able to eimgrate, it's not only exclusive to Singaporeans. Even the mainland Chinese are able to emigrate and Singapore is grabbing them by the hordes.
What is corruption? The accepting of monetary rewards for favours by using one's position? You accept the payment of $1 million to $2 million to "help" perform some deed by abusing your authority. What Singapore has done is, pay off the $1 millon to $2 million to the person who is in a position to commit corruption. What does this tell us about the person in question, he does not have any principles, the extra payment is to stop him from accepting bribes from others.
To accept bribe and commit corruption in economic terms is a question of risk and rewards. What is the bribe and what are the consequences if you are caught. A person robbing someone of $10,000 in country A is sentenced to 1 week jail, while another person robbing someone of $10,000 in country B is sentence to 10 years jail. Which is a stronger deterrent? What the ruling party has done is, they are giving the $10,000 to the robber and telling the robber not to rob, the robber gets away with the reward without any risk at all.
You want a safer country at the expense of civil liberties? Why not try Democratic People's Republic of Korea? I heard it has very low crime rates too. If you want lower crime rates, just have public execution for thefts, rapes, robbery, pickpockets, embezzelment, kidnapping (oops, I think we already have death sentence of this crime) by our Gurkha firing squad. I am sure crime rates will drop lower.
Most "Canadian visitors to the DPRK do not experience problems. The crime rate is low. Petty crime occurs, especially at the airport in Pyongyang and in public markets."
"In 1997, Amnesty International gathered detailed eyewitness accounts from independent and unconnected sources of at least 23 people, including one woman, who were publicly executed in several locations in North Korea between 1970 and 1992. The organization reported that the death penalty is handed down to those convicted of a wide ranges of crimes, from theft, to assault and rape, and murder.(22)"
Anyway, what gives another person to take another persons life? Who gave the government to take away the life of another person, life in itself is sacred. If a person has committed a heinous crime and is a danger to the population, shouldn't that person be isolated from the rest of the population, like in a penitentiary, instead of taking his/her life. If a person does not have the right to take his own life (committing suicide), what right has the government to take this person's life? Life is only worth living if you live in liberty, given a choice of living in a prison cell for 10 years and living in liberty for a year. Which would you choose?
"Emotionally bully"? I think you are distorting the picture, nobody is intimidating anybody into emigrating. We were just providing another perspective to another country's way of life. Unless you call the provision of information to forumers an emotional intimidation. It's always good to look at things from a wide range of perspectives instead of just looking at it from one direction (which is so typical of PAP supporters). Do you look at just the front view of a design, or do you look at the front view, side view and top view? -
Well, I can name one. Hehe.. I do not need a visa to enter into the U.S, unlike my Indonesian and Malaysian friends who have to go through the arduous and sometimes humiliating process of getting theirs. I know I'll draw some flak for coming out with this, but c'mmon ppl, lets be positive in the light of so much negativity. Hehe.
-
I don't have to pay $10500 if my block gets lift upgrading and my floor doesn't have a lift landing.
-
A government which takes from Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
Anyone who reads the forums can guess who are the Pauls here. -
Arr..I think we can all go to God in our own ways. Hehe..Originally posted by googoomuck:A government which takes from Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
Anyone who reads the forums can guess who are the Pauls here. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:You have to adopt an open view of the world, instead of your narrow views. Singapore is a success, but success comes at the expense of the people, where the poor are marginalised. Singapore has a stable and peaceful environment, but it's not exclusive to Singapore, don't make it sound as if it's the only country in the world which has a stable environment.
Yup, Singapore is not the only country in the world which has a stable environment, but it's certainly one of them. There are far more countries in the world that are less stable than Singapore, which still makes stability one of Singapore's attraction.
Everybody in a decent country will be able to eimgrate, it's not only exclusive to Singaporeans. Even the mainland Chinese are able to emigrate and Singapore is grabbing them by the hordes.
Not really, a lot of people are unable to emigrate because they don't have enough talent or cash. Most countries such as Australia and New Zealand only accepts emigrants with cash or ability. Most China Chinese are able to migrate because of cash, that's because they are the richer people within their society. Most Singaporeans that migrate are also able to do so either because they are rich enough or educated enough. Which as I have stressed in the earlier post that you have to give Singapore some credit for
What is corruption? The accepting of monetary rewards for favours by using one's position? You accept the payment of $1 million to $2 million to "help" perform some deed by abusing your authority. What Singapore has done is, pay off the $1 millon to $2 million to the person who is in a position to commit corruption. What does this tell us about the person in question, he does not have any principles, the extra payment is to stop him from accepting bribes from others.
Not exactly, corruption in chinese is Tan Wu which mean "greed and dirty". A person being paid highy is not enough to justify him/her being corrupt, he or she has to take the money tru illegal or means which otherwise betrays the trust places upon him/her.
To accept bribe and commit corruption in economic terms is a question of risk and rewards. What is the bribe and what are the consequences if you are caught. A person robbing someone of $10,000 in country A is sentenced to 1 week jail, while another person robbing someone of $10,000 in country B is sentence to 10 years jail. Which is a stronger deterrent? What the ruling party has done is, they are giving the $10,000 to the robber and telling the robber not to rob, the robber gets away with the reward without any risk at all.
A robber is not born as one, but forced into one by circumstance, cause robbing does involve risk and generally, if a robber is able to earn his keep, he will not rob. Thus a job is given to a person so he/she can earn his own keep
I understand that the above answers with regards to corruption are not of satisfactory standard, but I do not wish to hijack another pple's thread. If you wishes to discuss more on corruption, we can do so by starting our own thread.
You want a safer country at the expense of civil liberties? Why not try Democratic People's Republic of Korea? I heard it has very low crime rates too. If you want lower crime rates, just have public execution for thefts, rapes, robbery, pickpockets, embezzelment, kidnapping (oops, I think we already have death sentence of this crime) by our Gurkha firing squad. I am sure crime rates will drop lower.
Everything has a price, and I think for Singapore's safety, our civil liberties were restricted by minimum amount. I mean, most of us can live in Singapore without having to worry about crossing the line very often. If the "expense of civil liberties" refers to restriction on freedom of expression, then yes, I'm sure we are not of the US's standard. But personally I'm not very impressed by US's freedom of speech which often encourages "borking" and irresponsible journalism. (Again, if you want to debate on balance of civil liberties vs security and such, let's do so in depth in a thread of our own.)
Most "Canadian visitors to the DPRK do not experience problems. The crime rate is low. Petty crime occurs, especially at the airport in Pyongyang and in public markets."
"In 1997, Amnesty International gathered detailed eyewitness accounts from independent and unconnected sources of at least 23 people, including one woman, who were publicly executed in several locations in North Korea between 1970 and 1992. The organization reported that the death penalty is handed down to those convicted of a wide ranges of crimes, from theft, to assault and rape, and murder.(22)"
Anyway, what gives another person to take another persons life? Who gave the government to take away the life of another person, life in itself is sacred. If a person has committed a heinous crime and is a danger to the population, shouldn't that person be isolated from the rest of the population, like in a penitentiary, instead of taking his/her life. If a person does not have the right to take his own life (committing suicide), what right has the government to take this person's life? Life is only worth living if you live in liberty, given a choice of living in a prison cell for 10 years and living in liberty for a year. Which would you choose?
Ah yes, philosophical questions. I like.
What gives another person (the right) to take another person's life? The questions assumes that all men are born civilised and that life are somehow sacred by nature. But if we were to adopt Hobbes' assumption of bellum omnium contra omnes (war of all against all) in the state of nature, the question would have to be rephrase to be "What prevents another person from taking another person's life?" After all, if you were the size of Arnold, and I'm the size of kenny, and I'm filthy rich while you are dirt poor and there's no law to prevent you from taking what is mine. You might need little persuasion to simply walk over me and take what is mine to be yours. Afterall, who said that life is sacred? And if someone did, what is the basis of so?
Sure we can isolate a person from the society, but why must the society pay for it? If a law abiding but poor citizen has to starve and shiver on the streets, why should the society pay to provide for a murderer to live in relative comfort in a cell? If we were to choose to an economical mean of isolation which is like exiling the convict to some deserted island with no resources whatsoever and let him eventually suffer a slow lonely death of starvation, isn't more cruel than hanging him?
Yes, we can often hope to correct the convicts and help them integrate back into the society, but we must also not neglect the deterant factor of law. While I do not agree to some of the death sentences that our judicial has passed, I also do not think that we should go to the other extreme and remove death sentence altogether.
Life is only worth living in liberty? What is liberty then? If Singapore is to you but a cell, is the world not just a bigger cell for all of us? Are we humans anything but prisoner to our own abilities, are our bodies not the prison for our soul?
"Emotionally bully"? I think you are distorting the picture, nobody is intimidating anybody into emigrating. We were just providing another perspective to another country's way of life. Unless you call the provision of information to forumers an emotional intimidation. It's always good to look at things from a wide range of perspectives instead of just looking at it from one direction (which is so typical of PAP supporters). Do you look at just the front view of a design, or do you look at the front view, side view and top view?
I am of the view that the use of the word "Sillyporean" by the Coquitlam suggests that people who stayed on in Singapore are silly and that the only mean of not being silly is to migrate from Singapore. I'm also of the view that the sentence that suggests the migrants to laugh at "Sillyporeans" when "Sillypore" crashes to be of taunting nature and consist of emotional bullying element. However, it is a subjective feeling and I can understand if we do not share the same feeling, given our different stand. -
Can use proper colours for your text, instead of yellow, it's very difficult to see.
-
there is no perfect system. But slowly and surely, its becoming tougher to survive in Singapore. I wonder is it because it is run by someone who studied all his life overseas and has not experienced life as a normal person in the very country he's come back to run. Hence the Mee Siam Mai Hum.
-
Mistyblue, no worries.....One of our "respected one " has spoken liaoOriginally posted by mistyblue:there is no perfect system. But slowly and surely, its becoming tougher to survive in Singapore. I wonder is it because it is run by someone who studied all his life overseas and has not experienced life as a normal person in the very country he's come back to run. Hence the Mee Siam Mai Hum.
Welfare system will be refined to suit changing needs: Tharman
Channel NewsAsia - Thursday, June 28SINGAPORE : Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said Singapore does not have to be defensive about the way it mandates the Central Provident Fund savings.
He said the retirement benefit schemes here may not be perfect but the government will always be refining it to suit the needs of its citizens.
Singapore, he added, has an advantage since many people here already have a culture of saving for their golden years.
"Countries that have relied on purely volunteer approaches have found that over time, for one reason or another, all over the world, a very substantial group of any population does not look very far to the future. It does not think very hard about its retirement needs," said the Education Minister.
The minister was speaking at the launch of a new Centre for Social Development at the National University of Singapore.
The centre is set up in collaboration with the Washington University.
It will train graduates on social policies and programmes.
It also aims to promote Singapore's social policies to the world. - CNA /ls
Errr.......They keep forgetting our CPF money is "Our" saving and not welfare.
-
why everytime somebody look at Singapore with a positive view is said to be having narrow views?? I believe with a broader heart no views are narrow views.Originally posted by maurizio13:You have to adopt an open view of the world, instead of your narrow views. Singapore is a success, but
-
What are the countries you are using for comparison (those that are less stable)? Israel? Iraq? Iran? Afghanistan? North Korea? Is the demographics (population composition) the same? If our MM, SM and PM are so capable, they should go over Indonesia and help transform them into first world economies with third world civil liberties.Originally posted by wisefool83:Yup, Singapore is not the only country in the world which has a stable environment, but it's certainly one of them. There are far more countries in the world that are less stable than Singapore, which still makes stability one of Singapore's attraction.
When you make such comparison, you are also stating that the poor and untalented of Singapore are not able to migrate too. Isn't it the same as the other countries. Most mainland Chinese are able to migrate because of cash? Are you sure? Do you have any statistics to prove it? I have some mainland Chinese friends, the majority of them are working class FTs who has a basic degree from China. I know of hawkers who are PRs in Singapore too. If everybody in Singapore has the ability to migrate, then I will give the ruling party credit, else it's just the same as the any other third world country.Originally posted by wisefool83:Not really, a lot of people are unable to emigrate because they don't have enough talent or cash. Most countries such as Australia and New Zealand only accepts emigrants with cash or ability. Most China Chinese are able to migrate because of cash, that's because they are the richer people within their society. Most Singaporeans that migrate are also able to do so either because they are rich enough or educated enough. Which as I have stressed in the earlier post that you have to give Singapore some credit for
Hypothetically, if I take over the government tomorrow and declare my pay to be $1 billion a year. In your words, being paid with a high salary is not corrupt because it's legal. Hell! I run the government and the judiciary, anything I say goes, if it's not legal, I can make it legal through parliament. The principles of legality depends on who is in government. When Thaksin was PM of Thailand, everything he did was legal, when he was ousted, he is corrupted. Care to explain the concept of legality in such a case?Originally posted by wisefool83:Not exactly, corruption in chinese is Tan Wu which mean "greed and dirty". A person being paid highy is not enough to justify him/her being corrupt, he or she has to take the money tru illegal or means which otherwise betrays the trust places upon him/her.
Some robbers are a result of circumstances, no work, no money to survive. But what about robbers that are paid millions? What do you call that? Greed? Greed is not a result of circumstances.Originally posted by wisefool83:A robber is not born as one, but forced into one by circumstance, cause robbing does involve risk and generally, if a robber is able to earn his keep, he will not rob. Thus a job is given to a person so he/she can earn his own keep
I understand that the above answers with regards to corruption are not of satisfactory standard, but I do not wish to hijack another pple's thread. If you wishes to discuss more on corruption, we can do so by starting our own thread.
Minimum amount? When you are displease with your family members in your house, can you voice your displeasure, if you are a big family can you gather all your family members to voice your displeasure at your parents? Singapore is your home, can you voice your displeasure in a group?Originally posted by wisefool83:Everything has a price, and I think for Singapore's safety, our civil liberties were restricted by minimum amount. I mean, most of us can live in Singapore without having to worry about crossing the line very often. If the "expense of civil liberties" refers to restriction on freedom of expression, then yes, I'm sure we are not of the US's standard. But personally I'm not very impressed by US's freedom of speech which often encourages "borking" and irresponsible journalism. (Again, if you want to debate on balance of civil liberties vs security and such, let's do so in depth in a thread of our own.)
Irresponsible journalism? That is for you to prove, do not assume that your point of view is always right, everybody has their own views on issue. What might be right to you might not be right for others. A cliche would be "One Man's Meat is Another Man's Poison". This would prove that your views are limited to only your own, only your view is correct, others are wrong. -
Not exactly, corruption in chinese is Tan Wu which mean "greed and dirty". A person being paid highy is not enough to justify him/her being corrupt, he or she has to take the money tru illegal or means which otherwise betrays the trust places upon him/her.
I like this one, so one day if I was in charge of things, I will pass a law to take all the money wisefool83 has ever earned through his own hard work as well as to take all the credits for the things he has ever achieved.
By his logic I am not greedy or dirty because all this was by the book and law. -
I decided to continue my discussion with 13 and Trex here http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=265506
to avoid hijacking. Thanks