Mah: cut petrol taxes not way to cushion rising oil prices
-
There's a silver lining in all this. It makes you think carefully about your driving habits, how much energy you use and what you buy. Look at the bigger picture, people, there's only so much oil we have left on Earth and it's finite! Stop twatting up the only place we can live on.
-
MBT is the most hatred figure . i hope he die soon.
-
Originally posted by 00011000:
Mah needs to know the diff between tax and subsidy. Petrol tax is not subsidy to the consumers.
?? Mah who is paid million $ salary does not know the difference between taxes and subsidy?? What a joke, this must the greatest joke in the political world. -
Originally posted by reyes:
MBT is the most hatred figure . i hope he die soon.
He was voted out before.
-
Originally posted by Civilgoh:
He was voted out before.
The problem with some these ministers is that they think they can talk down to the average singaporean.
Maybe his big White Aussy wife has squeezed him so much that he is blur all the time and he expect us to be like him. -
Originally posted by 00011000:
The problem with some these ministers is that they think they can talk down to the average singaporean.
Maybe his big White wife has squeezed so much that he is blur all the time and he expect us to be like him.Must talk sense with conscience and responsibility to earn the respect of the people. This shorty simply can't make it. I saw his wife and him before, he looks like a dwarf standing next to the angmo wife. The wife very tall and fat and this shorty . . . . . . .
-
Firstly, he will never be voted out. He will be place in a sure-win area.
Secondly, as the day goes by and the foul-up keep increasing, it is evident that we are wasting our hard earned money on poodles that are good at listening to their emperor and cannot think on their own.
Thirdly, the poodles are there with the help of the royal family and more interested in getting more $$$ from the peasants so that they will be rewarded with more dog peanuts.
Thirdly, it is a crime to drive a car here. There is always ERP post or price incease waiting to surprise you everytime you drive. Not forgetting the traffic wardens, which can moonlight as sniper, which are always there to ensure the utmost compliance to the traffic law.
Lastly, the petrol tax is there to help the poor. The "poor" poodles that nothing behind their ear and cannot differentiate tax and subsides.
-
Remember, increasing GST is to help the poor.
So taxes are the same thing as subsidies.
Yes.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Remember, increasing GST is to help the poor.
So taxes are the same thing as subsidies.
Yes.
Yes you are right. The ministers are the elite. So what they said must be 100% correct!
haha...
-
Originally posted by DeerHunter:
Only by facing up to facts and not complains, or lies and halftruths can credible solutions be found.
It is only simple economics. The rise in price of oil is largely due by demand. The more people use oil, the higher it will rise. Only by curbing its demand, will oil price falls.
There is a crucial need to seek alternative energy uses. Fortunately, Singapore has the funds to do so, except that such technologies are not avaliable yet. However, in the case of energy for cars, conversion to CNG is a viable option.
Our country survived today and not crippled was due to the hard work and frugal ways of our previous generation and govt. The govt can easily play populist measures and even lower petrol taxes and everything else.
But then, our next generations will be the ones who will suffer with even higher prices of depleting resources. Our society had always, always thought far and never to neglect or mortgage the next generation's future, and we are not about to do so. Thus the need for funds to find alternative energy resources, quickly. And for that, we need more intelligent people properly compensated to do research and find solutions.
Please la... The economy is nt as simple as just Demand-supply zzz. You forgot the fact that petrol is a necessity, it is something majority cannot do without. As such its demand will probably be price inelastic, meaning that an increase in its price will lead to a less than proportionate decrease in the quantity demanded. Therefore,(though it is nt incorrect to say that keeping the price high will facilitate the reduction of petrol consumption), we do hv the right to question its effectiveness and whether it is the most viable method.
-
Hallo,
No offence, I suppose singapore is based on democracy?
So, the majority have chosen them for , as I was told, the last almost 50 years?
Wow, that is rare in Europe. Of course, we all know that britain has kings and queens and monarchy since at least the middle-ages. But then, that is another topic altogether.
I guess this singapore phenomenon is really worth a few Oxford / Cambridge Doctorate level thesis'es to study the management style , how it works and the people's psychology, mentality, culture, the opposition scene. To learn why it is such a unique form of democracy .
This system is an invention, I am sure. I am really amazed by singapore.
-
Please fellow Singaporeans, please remember the hardship that you have gone through with this current Government. They have done nothing to alleviate our pain while they gave a lot of reasons behind their ideas. If we are mentally strong in our mind, we hope we will not vote blindly.
-
He warned against taking the subsidy route, noting that even countries like China and Malaysia have started to re-think their policies on this.
Mr Mah was speaking on the sidelines of a community event on Saturday.
As pump prices here continue to rise, some Singaporeans are wondering why the government is not stepping in to cushion the impact by cutting petrol taxes.
The government has always maintained that petrol duty - currently about 40 cents for every litre - is meant to promote public transport and curb excessive use of cars.
Mr Mah said: "If you price it wrongly, if you subsidise anything, people will tend to use it more or people will tend not to use it as efficiently as possible and that is going to raise the demand. Once you raise the demand, I think that is in turn going to cause prices to go up even higher."Now by not taxing means they are providing subsidies, this Minister must have attended the same school as one of the sycophants here, can't remember was it Gazelle or oxford mushroom, who use relativity to justify his logic.
With prices so high, even if they remove 50% of the petrol, the petrol will only cost $0.20 cheaper. Instead of paying $2.20, motorist pay $2.00, which is much higher than the low of $1.50 we had before. With such inflated prices, who would want to drive more to drive up demand.
-
QUOTE OF THE YEAR
"If you are a motorist, how do you cut down (energy consumption)? Reduce the number of trips, if possible. Car pool, if possible. Better still, take public transport," he said. -
Originally posted by sinicker:
QUOTE OF THE YEAR
"If you are a motorist, how do you cut down (energy consumption)? Reduce the number of trips, if possible. Car pool, if possible. Better still, take public transport," he said.Let us see if there are any more quotes from the ruling party to compete with the above. For the moment, shall award mbt as the joker pap member of the year and see if any of his ruling party member beats him to get this award.
The gahmen have been pushing for more people taking the public transport for months already and I believe shorty said the above is to encourage more and more people to take public transport. But still, I don't understand he can't differentiate between taxes and subsidy.
-
With the newspapers and all media under the thumb of government whatever the ministers could say what they like now - any reason for not solving problem is good enough.
Why try so hard to solve problems.
So why should ministers solve problems for after all when Mas Selamat escape none needs to solve problems. What difference does it make for without solving problems they would still get their millions dollar salaries and all the bonuses.
What solving problem is he talking about. Three times i.e. excise duty, COE, ERP they said they would solve problems by taxing more three times they have failed.
People pay and pay till they lose their livelihood and retirements because of such incompetence and yet the ministers keep saying they are solving problems not making monies when they are making more monies by not solving the problems.
If they solve the problems then there will be no more monies.
Now the ministers get some other ministers to sing the same tune - another way of making money without solving problem.
<!--
if ( navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase().indexOf('mozilla') != -1 && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('5.') == -1 && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('6.') == -1 )
document.write(' ');
else
document.write('</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td valign="top" nowrap="nowrap"><div style="position:relative"><div style="position:absolute"></div><div style="position:absolute;left:3px;top:-1px"></div></div>');
//-->
-
Originally posted by robertteh:
With the newspapers and all media under the thumb of government whatever the ministers could say what they like now - any reason for not solving problem is good enough.
Why try so hard to solve problems.
So why should ministers solve problems for after all when Mas Selamat escape none needs to solve problems. What difference does it make for without solving problems they would still get their millions dollar salaries and all the bonuses.
What solving problem is he talking about. Three times i.e. excise duty, COE, ERP they said they would solve problems by taxing more three times they have failed.
People pay and pay till they lose their livelihood and retirements because of such incompetence and yet the ministers keep saying they are solving problems not making monies when they are making more monies by not solving the problems.
If they solve the problems then there will be no more monies.
Now the ministers get some other ministers to sing the same tune - another way of making money without solving problem.Our PAP gahmen is very unique in the way they "solve problems". When they say solve problems means : solve problems = earning money out of the people of Singapore.
-
Originally posted by Civilgoh:
Our PAP gahmen is very unique in the way they "solve problems". When they say solve problems means : solve problems = earning money out of the people of Singapore.
Don't let them earn lor...dun drive in !!
-
Originally posted by DeerHunter:
Clever boy, first score on accuracy.What happened to accuracy after only two Facts presented ?
Fact 1: You agreed to this point. Good girl. Expected, afterall, who to expect from a know-rubbish only girl who lives in a rubbish bin?
Fact 2:You agreed to this point. Good girl. Expected, afterall, who to expect from a know-rubbish only girl who lives in a rubbish bin?
Is a deerHunter so desparate for scoring points and will shamelessly ignore inconsistencies revealed, and will now resort to twisting facts even as you will conveniently accuse others for indulging into this black art - when you are an expert practitioner ?
Did you not cleverly mention the following facts in your earlier response that I have mentioned your early display in accuracy ?
Fact 1. Singapore do not have fossilized fuels or own any.
Fact 2. Singapore is only one of the major refining centres in the world.
How do you intend to twist your statements and reconcile your Fact 2 with Fact 3 ?
Fact 3. Singapore still have to import oil for domestic consumption.
Are you attempting to mischeviously divert attention from the obvious flaw in a statement that is clearly not so clever ?
If my information is from residing in a rubbish bin, your dubious knowledge must surely be a result from living in a mansion sized garbage bin.
Clever point made with available information and posted with factual accuracy.
What social spending has this Singapore Government made - when every cent spent is recovered as revenues from the fees charged for its use, and the total amount collected will probably be twice the amount spent.
Social spending - You are blind if you don't see social spending, but then you live in the rubbish bin. Can't be helped, i supposed.
Is there social spending when the Government insist that Singaporeans should not be dependent on this as a crutch ?
Whatever social spending that exist, are the services paid for by the Government at no charge to the citizens, or are the citizens made to pay for such services at prices that result in additional profit to the Government ?
Do you pay for the garbage that you get when you live in a mansion sized garbage bin - or is it free for your choosing, which explains for your ignorance to the cost that Singapore has to pay for what we get from this Government ?
Oil is exported by Oil Companies - is it exported by the Singapore Government ?
What are the 'Premiums' you are referring to - or are you simply beating about the bush hoping some straws will fly off the bush for you to catch ?
How are the "premiums" become subsidies from Oil Companies ?
How do you relate the "premiums" to become Government revenues for social spending ?
The fact is - the Singapore Government do not export oil.
Oil is exported by the Oil Companies at prices determined by the global mechanism, with the Singapore Government imposing annual corporate tax on the annual profits of the Oil Companies.
Oil is a commodity that is nationalized by most countries. Their own companies are state owned. Those private companies that existed before nationalization have to pay hefty royalties to continue their operations in those countries. I can write out the entire pricing and tax mechanisims, but that would be allowing you to laze. Go to the library and find your answers how the premiums are derived at, but do have a shower first, for you stink, espacially comming from a rubbish bin.
To make it simple and cast off your smokes that tried cloud the issue, premiums are the over and above costs of oil that a country can get from exports, on the litre. Taking msia our neighbour as a comparison and easier understand, the scrapping of the subsidies are the 'premiums' they would have earn if they had exported the oil.
But then, Atobe, i expect you don't understand. Just don't try to act smart and cloud the issue, for only your stupidity shows clearly
Are the 'Oil Companies' nationalised in Singapore ?
Are the "premiums - over and above the costs of oil from exports" reflected in the various Financial Reports of the various Oil Companies in Singapore - or are they part of the Financial Revenue in the books of which Ministry ?
Is there a Ministry of Petroleum in Singapore - as if we are an Oil Exporting Country like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Russia ?
Are you confusing yourself with the revenues that the Singapore Government - Finance Ministry - gets through its Corporate Taxes and not from any excise export tax of refined products exported by SHELL, Esso-Mobil, or SPC ?
Hongkong's area of 1,104 sq km is not much bigger than Singapore's 707 sq km ..............compared to Singapore.
I don't even want to rebut on this. You are more stupid than i can ever describe you. Go speak to Thomas Chow,Deputy Secretary for the Environment, Transport and Works, SAR if he believes their road is better managed.
Are you taking umbrage from discussing this due to your obvious lack of knowledge, or are you simply running short of supply of your garbage ?
If only you have used 'google search' it would have brought you to several articles that would have helped you understand the situation, but it will probably deflate your stand on this issue. The following is an extract of Hong Kong Road Traffic Scheme. comparing it with the various Singapore type solutions :
In other cities, similar systems have failed to see the green light for various reasons. For example, Hong Kong first conducted a pilot test on the Electronic Road Pricing system in 1983 to 1985 with positive results.[17] The study also included a simulation of the Singapore Area Licensing Scheme-based 12-hour manual toll collecting system, itself also a world pioneering effort in road pricing since 1975. However, public opposition against the move stalled its implementation. New studies conducted in the 1990s and the opposition towards further reclamation of the Victoria Harbour recently has led to advocates of the ERP as a possible alternative for road management. Thomas Chow, Deputy Secretary for the Environment, Transport and Works, noted, however, that the Central-Wan Chai Bypass, to be built on the reclaimed land, is still needed because the ERP works best if an alternative road system is available, citing the Singapore and London experiences whereby the systems were only implemented after bypasses were available. (see also Edinburgh congestion charge)
If Hong Kong's traffic condition is worst then Singapore, how did Hong Kong turn out to be selected as the Best Place for Business for the Year 2008 ?
Surely, you will know by now that Singapore is expanding the catchment area for more ERP gantries to be placed. This will surely result in a situation where there will be no bypasses available for any vehicles.
At least, the Hong Kongers' protests are listened to by their Government - do Singaporeans' have any opportunity to protest to a Government that think themselves to be smarter then the sum-total of intelligence of ALL Singaporeans ?
It is sheer nonsense that Singapore do not have enough land, .....for "appropriate" market prices before the URA release the land for development - {adding fuel to the hot property market}.
That's nonsense to you, who live in a rubbish bin, but a reality for many, who faces high land costs and traffic congestion.
It is clear by now that you are only able to see what the Government tell you to see, and know what you need to know.
Are you qualified even to know if I live in a rubbish bin, when the Government has dumped you into a $27 garbage bin that you picked for yourself from some limited selection offered to you ?
It is disingeniously misleading to claim that Petrol Tax only affects car owners, as non-car owners are similarly affected when the commercial sector will pass on the cost of their business to all consumers - regardless of car-ownership.
Tell me where i misled, when i already said transport passengers will bear add-on costs? Your attempts to smear is pathetic.
Are transport passengers the only one bearing add-on costs ?
What about those who cannot travel - the old, the infirmed, the handicapped, the poor who cannot even afford public transport ?
Are they not similarly affected by Petrol Tax that affect the commercial activities - the prices of goods and services traded ?
Are you constantly looking at the World through the narrow scope of a 'deerHunter' vision ?
Should we forgive your juvenile mind that never developed beyond what you see with such narrow vision through a "cross-haired hunting scope" ?
Only a die-hard carpet beggar of the MIW will insist that social spending .... ......................energy sources to be installed ?
No, i never use carpet, so it is irrelevant to me. However, that is your belief, and as usual flawed for you live in a rubbish bin and blind to all that had happened or is happening in the alternative energy source search.
Do you need a carpet to be such an obliging 'carpet-beggar' to repeat every word and plagiarise even the style in your efforts to propagate the monolithic statements from your Great Mentor Shepherd ?
Even if you do not own a carpet, the Istana has quite a few, which I am quite sure must have been dumped into your large sized $27 garbage bin.
Only a propagandist will promote this line that fare increases demanded by transport companies are not easy to come by.
Have you counted the number of fare price adjustments since Election 2006 ?
And the result? Remember we do have opposition parties in the parliament as well. And thankfully, not many public transport providers had to fold, otherwise, many may have to walk to work. But not a consequence to you, after all, you live only in a rubbish bin.
Have you not been informed that all the existing bus companies are Government Linked Companies ?
Did your Mentor Shepherd left you out in the cold in the IPO offered ?
Do you think that this Government will let their GLCs operate at a loss ?
This Government had forced the previously owned Private Bus Companies to fold by refusing any increases to the fares requested, and which allowed this Government to shamelessly nationalise the Public Transport Services claiming it to be more efficiently operated under one umbrella.
Yet, almost thirty years todate, we have a multiple number of public transport companies - all linked to Government interests.
Is it now an impasse ?
Are you claiming ............into foreign companies to latch on to their expertise, without any certainty of any outcome ?
Questions, questions. I have no wish to infer or assume. You better state your stand if you want me to respond, otherwise, just crawl back to your bin.
Are you simply too lazy to think, or do you already know the answers to the questions will simply puncture your position, and simply too embarass to admit your own failed efforts at a Grand Standing Performance ?
It is simply no use to be excusing yourself with lame excuses, as it will simply diminish your cherised position to your larger public audience.
-
Originally posted by DeerHunter:
be another generation, when the present one refused to increase the population replacement ratio given the existing difficulties faced to survive on a day to day basis ?
Your view again. but from the rubbish bin.
It is quite obvious that when you are stumped for a reply, you can only resort to your usual juvenile ways that is quite familiar by now to your larger audience.
What ever happen to the macho 'deerHunter' with the visionary narrow scope attached to a wimpy pop-gun ?
Are you certain that the present generation cannot do anything more then what the previous generation - given that we have made so much progress since the 1950s - and can only wait until fruits from the search of alternative energy is made commercially available to us ?
Of course we can, but it would not be enough if we continue to harp on demand for subsidies or tax cuts on petrol which pushes demand and price up for oil.
Is there a meeting of minds after so many combative responses from you ?
Pray tell your audience what your solutions will be for Singaporeans to overcome the high cost of living ?
As matters stand, the present High Cost of Living is presently exacerbated by an intransigent Government to make any response to remove an unnecessary tax burden that will go some way in helping to lower the present cost of living.
Clever understanding of a boy-boy in simple market-forces of "demand-and-supply" - you must have paid careful attention when following aunty to the market ?Nope. And you are not my Aunty. I would rather have a piece of char siew that i can eat than to have an aunty like you, an idiotic dead weight i have to bear here. And your views alone would shame my ancestry.
So this ingrate boy-boy is denying the respectful calling to "Aunty Atobe" ?
Can the undiscerning mind of a juvenile boy-boy know the difference between the real char-siew made of pork meat, and the ones made from cheaper dried soya-curd - after both are drenched in sweet red sauce, and roasted to produce the same fibre texture and taste of char-siew sauces ?
Poor boy-boy suffering from a constant barrage of juvenile embarrassment that is now reflected in some poor dsiplay of adolescent disrespect towards one whom he will call "Aunty" ?
Your dead and weighty ancestors will surely be shamed by your rejection of lessons taught by someone whom you respectfully called ''Aunty" - and for your poor attitude in regarding elders to be idiotic and deadweights.
And nope, regarding the supply and demand. I found that out when i tried to buy a rubbish bin and found the price had gone up. The shopkeeper told me it was not due to oil or anything else, but because our society had found many idiots and needed a huge amount of rubbish bins to thrash folks like you, madam Atobe, in.
With the mind of a juvenile, surely the shopkeeper must have pulled a fast one on you - if the price for rubbish bin has not gone up due to oil, was it made of steel ?
Will a juvenile know that plastic bins are dependent on the raw-materials that are by-products of oil ?
Surely he did not quote $27 for a plastic bin, or even a steel one - as your larger garbage bin was priced at $27 ?
He must have looked at you as an undiscerning juvenile and misled you as a sheer unthinking fool to tell you that "prices are up not due to oil prices" - when everyone and everything is affected by oil price increases..
Can anyone trust a fool to be smarter in judging others to be idiots ?
Are there so many idiots in this society seen by a single fool believing himself to be a 'deerHunter' ?
Have you now elevated your opinion of Atobe - from ''aunty'' to ''madam'' ?
-
Originally posted by sinicker:
QUOTE OF THE YEAR
"If you are a motorist, how do you cut down (energy consumption)? Reduce the number of trips, if possible. Car pool, if possible. Better still, take public transport," he said.Are any of your leaders walking to work? That is good for environment.
Also, don't sprinkle the garden with water. Use nature's rain water to wet them.
and don't keep koi's or any fish. This is environmentally good as it saves water.
Best of all would be don't turn on the aircon, in the homes.
Anyone knows any such examples?
-
Originally posted by sinicker:
QUOTE OF THE YEAR
"If you are a motorist, how do you cut down (energy consumption)? Reduce the number of trips, if possible. Car pool, if possible. Better still, take public transport," he said.Are any of your leaders walking to work? That is good for environment.
Also, don't sprinkle the garden with water. Use nature's rain water to wet them.
and don't keep koi's or any fish. This is environmentally good as it saves water.
Best of all would be don't turn on the aircon, in the homes.
So, would anyone :
1. Reduce the number of aircons in bungalows or condos ?
Better, don't use any. CFC is killing environment and aircon bills are high.
2. Aircon-pool and fish pond-pooling.
Better, bathe-pool. like this saves a lot of water for the environment.
3. Better still, use the Public pools and 1 estate co-share 1 fish tank or pond. That would be most encouraged. Better still, sell away all their cars. Better still, downgrade to live in a flat. Bungalows are too space consuming. Cutting waste is always good.
Anyone knows any such examples?
-
i don't expect them to be so holy as to walk and not use any other forms of transportation or any other examples that you listed.
afterall we're still humans living in a tropical country which is hot and humid.
but just cut the bull crap with what they are always saying, stop making our lives miserable and doing all the things at the wrong time.
-
Originally posted by Civilgoh:
Minister Mah says cutting petrol taxes not the way to cushion rising oil prices
Posted: 21 June 2008 2024 hrsSINGAPORE: National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan has said the government cannot reduce petrol taxes despite the soaring oil prices.
He warned against taking the subsidy route, noting that even countries like China and Malaysia have started to re-think their policies on this.
Mr Mah was speaking on the sidelines of a community event on Saturday.
As pump prices here continue to rise, some Singaporeans are wondering why the government is not stepping in to cushion the impact by cutting petrol taxes.
The government has always maintained that petrol duty - currently about 40 cents for every litre - is meant to promote public transport and curb excessive use of cars.
Mr Mah said: "If you price it wrongly, if you subsidise anything, people will tend to use it more or people will tend not to use it as efficiently as possible and that is going to raise the demand. Once you raise the demand, I think that is in turn going to cause prices to go up even higher."
So instead of lowering taxes, Mr Mah said Singapore's strategy is to change habits and attitudes to cut down on energy consumption.
"If you are a motorist, how do you cut down (energy consumption)? Reduce the number of trips, if possible. Car pool, if possible. Better still, take public transport," he said.
Mr Mah was speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a dialogue session with Tampines residents.
To help reduce energy costs at the township level, he said, the Tampines Town Council is looking at replacing all lights in common areas with energy-saving ones.
The chit-chat session was instituted two years ago as a way for Mr Mah, who is the Tampines Grassroots Organisation adviser, to meet residents in a more informal and smaller setting.
Hence, a lot of municipal issues were raised, one of which was the issue of safety in the light of the recent spate of molest cases in the neighbourhood. To address this, Mr Mah said the town council will seriously look into installing CCTV cameras in blind spots and secluded areas around the neighbourhood. - CNA/irThe government has always maintained that petrol duty - currently about 40 cents for every litre - is meant to promote public transport and curb excessive use of cars.
----> .To promote public transport and curb excessive use of cars????? Joker Mah. Pap will have less earning by cutting petrol taxes. PAP will not resort to anything that will reduce their profit making. NObody is asking for subsidy, cut the taxes on petrol during this difficult time will help lighten the load.
He is crazy! Who is asking for subsidies? We're only asking them to take less from us. He should have his brain examined! -
who dare ask for subsidise?
when the gahmen want to help the needy they raised the gst from 5% to 7%.
when they want to help us prepare for our old age they make it mandatory for us to buy annuity.
we are made to pay and pay when the gahmen "offer to help" us.
