5 day work week. How about other matters on Saturdays?
-
PART ONE
atobe writes on 7 September 2004Great news, after restoring the 10% cut to the wages of Ministers and most Civil Servants, they are now giving themselves a 5-Day work week to enjoy the extra 10% wages.
This is the relevant excerpt of what Lee Hsien Loong ACTUALLY said in his speech (www.gov.sg) on 22 Aug 2004So, the Civil Service will go to a five-day week. I didn't know you were all civil servants! It will apply also to schools and army camps, but we will not reduce the official working hours. So, whatever it is, 44 hours, you have to do, you cover that during the week.
This is what I said on 10 September 2004The point is you are wrong in stating that getting Saturdays off is tantamount to working fewer hours for more money.
This is what Atobe challenges on 12 September 2004Am I wrong simply on your say so ?
And this is my final answer today (12 September 2004):
Yes, you are still wrong. It's very clear where you went wrong from the very first statement. And it's not because I 'simply' said so, but because you didn't listen/read LHL's speech carefully and made a mistake. Is it so difficult on your ego to be corrected on a simple obvious error?
atobe writesAre there that many Singaporeans being truly "quite happy" that this rearrangement to their work schedules will give them a whole day off, and "Many are happy to work 30-60 mins more each weekday, instead of coming back on Saturdays" ?
This question is best answered by LHL who explained why the government was compelled to change to a five day week after many new civil service recruits expressed their wish to work five days.
What is your basis for such unsubstantiated confidence in such a position ?
You seem to display an unfounded sense of superiority with your assumptions made that will be applicable to, and agreeable by, all Singaporeans.
"We have always resisted a five-day week......when we talk to employees coming in or staff coming in and ask them, "What is it which you are looking for?", the first thing they ask us is, "Do you work on Saturdays?" because they want that time. Two days of a weekend is different from one-and-a-half days of a weekend. So, after having said, "No" for a very long time, I think it is time to turn this stone over also. "
The government is actually acceding to the requests of the majority. They are giving in to demands from the majority after many years of rejecting the five-day work week demand. No policy can satisfy all Singaporeans (and certainly I did NOT say all Singaporeans will be pleased.) Due to the nature of my research/work carried out in a formal setting over the last three years as well as government feedback received (no, I don't work for the government as SnowFlag asked), the majority of people I have talked to are pleased with the new changes. They are pleased the government is finally adopting working days adopted by Western governments, societies and companies. They are happy that instead of having to come into the office on Saturdays, they can allocate the entire day for non-work related activities.
Atobe writesYour opinion are merely your own assumptionsÂ…Â….Do you have any contact with this generation of womenfolk - age between 28 years to 48 years, married with young or teenage children ?
Again in the formal setting I mentioned earlier, I can say that the majority (more than four-fifths) are pleased with the new working hours. I should be the one asking you, who are these civil servants in your social/work circle who are dismayed they can no longer work on Saturdays, and who are furious, shocked and angry that they now have an entire day to themselves?
Atobe writesDo you even have an inkling of understanding of what a working mother is going through in having to cope with her job and to mother her children ?
These statements are irrelevant to the issue. They digress to appeal to emotion, rather than logic. The total working hours remain the same, while working schedules are tweaked slightly by 30-60 minutes. Working mothers work 30-60 minutes longer daily now in the civil service now, they no longer have to work on Saturdays.....this is exactly what people have been asking the government to consider for a long time. You imply this is somehow unsatisfactory to the working mother who has to ‘cope with her job and to mother her children’ because of what…………….?? She can’t prepare meals 30 to 60 minutes earlier? She will now have the entire day with her family thereby breaking her routine, and placing stress on having to spend (gasp!) one whole Saturday facing the kids? Just what exactly is the link? And what exactly does struggling “to make ends meet, and living on a family income of less than (not ‘then’)$3000 per month” have to do with the subject of civil service working hours being tweaked slightly? Pray point out the logical link.
Perhaps you come from a better endowed family with less problems faced by those having to struggle to make ends meet, and living on a COMBINED family income of less then $3,000 per month ?
Atobe writesIf your figures are correct, it will certainly reflect Singapore's position is not to bad vis-a-vis the situation with the other countries.
My figures are certainly accurate. You can do your own checks with respective government websites to confirm them yourself. Without bringing in more factors to complicate this issue, I don’t see any ‘headstart in policy’ being made by other countries. Your claims are neither confirmed by economic figures nor economic reality.
Unfortunately, Singapore do not have the attributes that will help those mentioned countries - such as population and territorial size, industrial strength - which will give these countries a headstart in flexiblity of policies when dealing with their present unemployment problems.
And if I may correct your ignorance of economics or economic reality, population or territorial size are not the only (and definitely not the most important) determinants of unemployment rates, otherwise, big countries with big populations would all be economic superpowers now (think China, India, Russia, Indonesia). In fact, statistically, small countries with small populations are more likely to succeed according to The Economist in its article ‘Small But Perfectly Formed' in http://www.stanford.edu/~wacziarg/articles/economist/econart.html ). You also made a paradoxical statement- if countries with industrial strength give it a headstart in dealing with unemployment problems, why haven’t they already done so eons ago? In cases like Germany or Australia, high unemployment rates have been an economic reality for many years compared to the past few years Singapore has experienced. -
PART TWO
Atobe writesThe "feel good" propaganda, and play of numbers with statistics, does not hide the fact that there remains an unemployed number of 4.5% of KNOWN Singaporeans being unemployed.
You dismiss all official figures as ‘propaganda’, but the only propaganda I see is yours. If the Singaporean government wants to perpetuate propaganda, they have certainly done a horrific job. I wonder why high unemployment figures were revealed in the past years in the first place, and why the government repeatedly issues statements that reveal the bad state of the economy, the global challenges from 2001-2003 then? You display an ignorance of the economic concept of ‘unemployment’. Of course, the government only includes numbers it knows, do you expect it to inflate numbers, or include things it doesn’t know? Now that would be dishonest, besides being speculative. (Hahaha.
This 4.5% is only a conservative number, and the real data is perhaps too politically sensitive and damagingÂ…
) You may also want to check your grammar/sentence structure 'unemployed number of 4.5% of known...' What is an 'unemployed number'? Are you being deliberately meaningless?
And then you go on to qualify your statement by adding ‘and the real data is perhaps too politically sensitive…..’ suggesting you aren't really certain of what you are saying. What ‘real data’ are you pointing to? Are you implying the government is doctoring figures? What evidence do you have this is not ‘real data’?
It’s far too easy to dismiss numbers you don’t agree with as ‘propaganda’ and resort to suggestions of deceit. I don’t see you disagreeing with government numbers in 2002 that pointed out the economy was dong badly and the unemployment rate was high! I don’t see you insisting “the government is lying to us! The economy did well in 2002 actually!” Perhaps you should ask yourself why you only accept government figures when they are bad numbers, but accuse the government of propaganda when the economy improves, and positive data is published.
Atobe writesNo one is disputing with the fact that with globalisation being the catch word for most countries to "integrate" at all tiers of economic activities, it will be the solution to the present Singapore sluggish economy.....even while they have embraced the liberal principles of 'Globalization'.
You write a lot of meaningless drivel about ‘liberal principles of globalization’ without actually saying anything, other than fill up space. What is so liberal about globalization? Do you even know what the political concept of ‘liberalism’ refers to philosophically? The pertinent question to ask now is, IS the economy improving? Has it taken a turn for the better from the previous few years? The answers are evident.
I might also add that that we already established in previous posts (10 Sept 2004) as well as this post that the economy is improving with annual growth expected at 8-9% this year, and last quarterly growth at 11.9%. You acknowledged yourself (on 12 Sept 2004 2:33pm) that "Singapore's position is not to bad vis-a-vis the situation with the other countries. " In your continuing post just 1 MINUTE LATER (2:34pm on the same day), Singapore has suddenly developed a 'sluggish economy'?!?!? Consistency would be good and much appreciated here! It'll be wise not to change facts, and viewpoints so quickly (in one minute too!) just to suit your own argument.
Atobe writesWhile it is correct that where no skillful Singaporeans are available, a foreign worker will be and should be employed. Unfortunately, while it had been said that with each Single Qualified Foreign Worker being employed, there will be more then six local workers being employed too.
Â…Â….what exactly is the point you are making here? Yes, more than six local workers will be employed for every one foreigner worker employed Â…in fact the exact figure is NINE as I pointed out earlier. So what is your disagreement? Trying to fill up more space?
Atobe writesThis has nothing to do with semantic games, but we are discussing about Government Over-the-Counter Services staying open on a Saturday even when a 5-day work week is implemented; and how did you come to a conclusion that traffic will not get any worse, when there already exist a traffic problem even during a 6-day workweek ?
I suggested that traffic congestion has always been bad on Saturdays (and Sundays and public holidays too!). I didnÂ’t say it will not get any worse (or any better for that matter). I merely stated explicitly that people will not refrain from running errands during lunch hour now and in the future. I also stated explicitly that many government services can be accessed online and face-to-face personal attention is not a common weekly occurrence. And traffic is always bad during working days, especially morning and evening rush hour, which is why the ERP is implemented only then. As for why people will not all be joining the queue to access government services on Saturdays, re-read my previous post.
Atobe writesThe reasons you gave are clear ?
Yes, they are.
Atobe writesIf you have not perform any "SERIOUS" household chores, how can you be in any position to pass judgmental statements that allow you to understand how the demands that the working housewives have to face daily ?
What are ‘serious household chores’? Hahahaha…laundry? Cooking? How does one differentiate the serious, from the non-serious? Why do you insist on saying’working housewives’ when I pointed out your error and suggested 'working mother', or 'working woman' A housewife by conventional lexical understanding does not work, she is a ‘stay-at-home’ homemaker. -
PART THREE
Atobe writesThe fact that it was necessary to perform your required services at the Government Service Counter, whatever the duration of time taken for your need to be completed, would already have resulted in you being added to whatever queu that exist, and the additonal workload on these Governent Workers attending to your need.
Again, meaningless drivel. You state the obvious without saying anything. What government services do you need to perform frequently? You renew your passport personally every week? If you need a service personally, why should it be construed as ‘additional workload’ to the civil servant? Trying hard to press a point without saying anything?
Atobe writesAre we not continuing with our "discussion" concerning traffic congestion, or do you prefer to drop this issue.
We are talking about traffic congestion. ThatÂ’s why taking the MRT reduces (1) traffic congestion besides (2) environmental pollution. Your (3) parking woes reinforce this.
Atobe writesDo you know that leaving my car at a Private Carpark will cost $4 for one hour in the Central Business District, MRT fares of at least $1.60 for a short distance two way round trip ?
Take the MRT then (since (4)cheaper for you, especially when you claim you need 6 hours to renew passport!!) 4 disadvantages of driving ahve been pointed out based on what you said. You want to face parking problems and pay 6 x 4 ($24) or NO parking woes and pay $1.60/$3.20 (?) via MRT?
Atobe writesWhether Singapore is being on par or being ranked in whatever position in any international survey of "govt e-readiness" does not have any significant bearingÂ….
Why not? You complain that Singaporean government websites are poorly designed, and hence imply inefficiency. I pointed out that this is invalidated by international surveys which rank SingaporeÂ’s government e-readiness highly. It has a direct bearing since I disproved your point using evidence from rigorous methodological studies.
Atobe writesSo are you now into a game of semantics, and avoid the real issues posed to you, or do you simply have no response other then to divert attention from the issues laid out, by starting a reply into another direction ?
I think you are the one unable to comprehend direct answers. You claim that the government speaks with a ‘fork(ed) tongue’. I showed you where you read wrongly.
Do you believe that collecting revenue from citizens should be a more significant component in the tax structure ?
Atobe writesIf collecting revenue from the citizens is critical to the revenue collectionÂ….
Another tautological statement?
Atobe writesSo you want to enlarge this debate from revenue collection - personal tax (income or consumption tax) - to that of international trade as well ?
The debate was not originally on revenue and tax collection, but an example used by me to (1) show that exports and trade are an important component of economic growth, and (2) bonuses and AWS are not directly dependent on revenue collection, but economic growth in general.
Atobe writesAre you gullible enough to believe that Singapore has "the world's highest per capita international trade dependency" - making it 2.5 times the country's GDP ?
ItÂ’s not gullibility. This is an economic fact acknowledged by academics, economists, and international institutions and governments. It is also used in international economic reseach, and is the subject of many academic articles and texts. High trade dependency can be a good or bad thing (and is not necessarily a good thing as you suggest). One negative aspect: one is more influenced/affected by global economic cycles and swings than other less foreign trade dependent countries. See for example this description from the American Association for Advancement of Science, a non-profit organization:
Trade dependency
The extent to which countries are dependent on international trade depends on many factors, including population and natural resources. Small, rich countries with few natural resources....are generally the most dependent on trade. Thus the top ten countries for whom trade represents the highest proportion of GDP include Singapore (top at 93 percent)Â…Â…..
Atobe writesIs our industrial output anywhere near that of Hongkong, Taiwan or Korea (forget Japan) ?
I used the term per capita trade dependency in my previous post. Overall trade volume numbers are not higher than Japan for example. But divide it by population (hence the term ‘per capita’) and it is the world’s highest.
Clarity, precision, refraining from meaningless drivel to fill up space, and factual evidence will aid and substantiate your responses. Tautological, long, rambling, digressive replies will not. -
PART ONE
Originally posted by TidalWave333:
This is the relevant excerpt of what Lee Hsien Loong ACTUALLY said in his speech (www.gov.sg) on 22 Aug 2004
atobe writes on 7 September 2004
Great news, after restoring the 10% cut to the wages of Ministers and most Civil Servants, they are now giving themselves a 5-Day work week to enjoy the extra 10% wages.So, the Civil Service will go to a five-day week. I didn't know you were all civil servants! It will apply also to schools and army camps, but we will not reduce the official working hours. So, whatever it is, 44 hours, you have to do, you cover that during the week.
This is what I said on 10 September 2004The point is you are wrong in stating that getting Saturdays off is tantamount to working fewer hours for more money.
This is what Atobe challenges on 12 September 2004Am I wrong simply on your say so ?
And this is my final answer today (12 September 2004):
Yes, you are still wrong. It's very clear where you went wrong from the very first statement. And it's not because I 'simply' said so, but because you didn't listen/read LHL's speech carefully and made a mistake. Is it so difficult on your ego to be corrected on a simple obvious error?
Your tenacity to find fault in my post truly amazes me.
Did you not read my reply on 10 Septemeber 2004 04:43A.M. in which I had already responded to your correction of my earlier statement, which obviously you did not read as an acknowledgement:Posted by Atobe 10 September 2004 - 04:43A.M.
Now I wonder who is on an ego trip, in making "meaningless drivel to fill up space" for each issue that you have not read with objectivity, and in your haphazard haste to prove me wrong on each and every mundane matter ?
Is this not cleverness on the part of LHL, and being typical of the style of the Ruling Party that formed this Government - giving a little, and taking back just as much, if not MORE ?
Giving everyone the Saturday off, but making one work longer hours during the weekdays.
Is it beneficial at all ?continuing post by TidalWave333:
This question is best answered by LHL who explained why the government was compelled to change to a five day week after many new civil service recruits expressed their wish to work five days.
atobe writes
Are there that many Singaporeans being truly "quite happy" that this rearrangement to their work schedules will give them a whole day off, and "Many are happy to work 30-60 mins more each weekday, instead of coming back on Saturdays" ?
What is your basis for such unsubstantiated confidence in such a position ?
You seem to display an unfounded sense of superiority with your assumptions made that will be applicable to, and agreeable by, all Singaporeans.
"We have always resisted a five-day week......when we talk to employees coming in or staff coming in and ask them, "What is it which you are looking for?", the first thing they ask us is, "Do you work on Saturdays?" because they want that time. Two days of a weekend is different from one-and-a-half days of a weekend. So, after having said, "No" for a very long time, I think it is time to turn this stone over also. "
The government is actually acceding to the requests of the majority. They are giving in to demands from the majority after many years of rejecting the five-day work week demand. No policy can satisfy all Singaporeans (and certainly I did NOT say all Singaporeans will be pleased.) Due to the nature of my research/work carried out in a formal setting over the last three years as well as government feedback received (no, I don't work for the government as SnowFlag asked), the majority of people I have talked to are pleased with the new changes. They are pleased the government is finally adopting working days adopted by Western governments, societies and companies. They are happy that instead of having to come into the office on Saturdays, they can allocate the entire day for non-work related activities.
In your continued haste to dribble up all that is emitted from LHL, will you be so gullible to take in every single word from him with mindless efficiency ?
Western Government and societies and companies worked far less hours than the 44 hour week practised by the Singapore Government.
Even in the Private Sector in Singapore, some Companies that follow a 5-day week do not insist on a 44 hour week, and even go a step further by allowing their Employees flexi-working hours.
What is the big deal of this ..... "time to turn this stone over also" .... that merely allow him to exercise his "new" muscle as a new PM ?
If he had decided to turn the stones concerning a new change in the manner that Politics is practised in Singapore, with such a significant issue that he is willing and dare to change, then perhaps it will be a more noble and significant event that will allow me to see him in a more positive light.
Until then, he is not yet a man of his own making.continuing post by TidalWave333:
Again in the formal setting I mentioned earlier, I can say that the majority (more than four-fifths) are pleased with the new working hours. I should be the one asking you, who are these civil servants in your social/work circle who are dismayed they can no longer work on Saturdays, and who are furious, shocked and angry that they now have an entire day to themselves?
Atobe writes
[quote]Your opinion are merely your own assumptionsÂ…Â….Do you have any contact with this generation of womenfolk - age between 28 years to 48 years, married with young or teenage children ?
Excuse me, what formal setting did you mention earlier ?
Or are you referring to the 'formal setting' that LHL had conducted his "research" ?
So quoting his text is not enough, now you have even decided that you can wear his shoes ?
Will Civil Servants dare to complain ?
The housewives are those who are married to close friends, associates, social contacts, whom I have had the privileged of communicating and listening to some of their views on social, economic and political affairs that affect their domestic life.
If you are still active in SDU (or any of its other equivalent), then it is little wonder that you have yet to be in a position to understand this side of Life. -
Part One - continuation:
continuing post by TidalWave333:
These statements are irrelevant to the issue. They digress to appeal to emotion, rather than logic. The total working hours remain the same, while working schedules are tweaked slightly by 30-60 minutes. Working mothers work 30-60 minutes longer daily now in the civil service now, they no longer have to work on Saturdays.....this is exactly what people have been asking the government to consider for a long time. You imply this is somehow unsatisfactory to the working mother who has to ‘cope with her job and to mother her children’ because of what…………….?? She can’t prepare meals 30 to 60 minutes earlier? She will now have the entire day with her family thereby breaking her routine, and placing stress on having to spend (gasp!) one whole Saturday facing the kids? Just what exactly is the link? And what exactly does struggling “to make ends meet, and living on a family income of less than (not ‘then’)$3000 per month” have to do with the subject of civil service working hours being tweaked slightly? Pray point out the logical link.
Atobe writes
Do you even have an inkling of understanding of what a working mother is going through in having to cope with her job and to mother her children ?
Perhaps you come from a better endowed family with less problems faced by those having to struggle to make ends meet, and living on a COMBINED family income of less then $3,000 per month ?
Now you are digressing with your exaggeration in your preffered direction of argument that do not address the points that I have made.
Were "kids" the issue of my last post, or did I mention the fact that the Housewife will finish off 30 to 60 minutes later each day, that will affect her household chores of preparing meals and doing the laundry ?
As mentioned earlier, if you are still a SINGLE, we will be addressing this issue at a tangent, as you will not understand the issues faced by a working housewife.
If giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are NOT a Single, your inability to appreciate the woes of a working housewife can only be attributed to you enjoying a different lifestyle, that probably allow your working housewife a better life that has none or very little chores at home.
In either case, it will be near impossible for you to appreciate the problems experienced by the average working housewife, who is from the HDB heartland.continuing post by TidalWave333:
My figures are certainly accurate. You can do your own checks with respective government websites to confirm them yourself. Without bringing in more factors to complicate this issue, I don’t see any ‘headstart in policy’ being made by other countries. Your claims are neither confirmed by economic figures nor economic reality.
Atobe writes
If your figures are correct, it will certainly reflect Singapore's position is not to bad vis-a-vis the situation with the other countries.
Unfortunately, Singapore do not have the attributes that will help those mentioned countries - such as population and territorial size, industrial strength - which will give these countries a headstart in flexiblity of policies when dealing with their present unemployment problems.
And if I may correct your ignorance of economics or economic reality, population or territorial size are not the only (and definitely not the most important) determinants of unemployment rates, otherwise, big countries with big populations would all be economic superpowers now (think China, India, Russia, Indonesia). In fact, statistically, small countries with small populations are more likely to succeed according to The Economist in its article ‘Small But Perfectly Formed' in http://www.stanford.edu/~wacziarg/articles/economist/econart.html ). You also made a paradoxical statement- if countries with industrial strength give it a headstart in dealing with unemployment problems, why haven’t they already done so eons ago? In cases like Germany or Australia, high unemployment rates have been an economic reality for many years compared to the past few years Singapore has experienced.
Your astuteness in economic argument seems impressive at a glance, but perhaps your experience is gained from academic readings then from discerning observations.
Did I insist that "Population and / or territorial size" are the only determinants, or is this your own inference of what was stated in passing and which you have taken out of context to fit your own agenda ?atobe writes
China and India is already stirring from their many years of deep slumber, and even your beloved mentors from the Ruling Party is already telling Singaporeans to wake up to the challenges from these countries.
If your figures are correct, it will certainly reflect Singapore's position is not to bad vis-a-vis the situation with the other countries.
Unfortunately, Singapore do not have the attributes that will help those mentioned countries - such as population and territorial size, industrial strength - which will give these countries a headstart in flexiblity of policies when dealing with their present unemployment problems
In the short span of the last 20 years, since China opened its doors, we have seen China's foreign reserves and trade surplusses increased in geometric proportions - that even outstripped Singapore's reserves by three times.
Are you still living in your preferred matrix vision ?
Do you have a serious misunderstanding of the problems that Germany and Australia are facing that despite their having a strong industrial base, they cannot find a solution to their present unemployment problems ?
GermanyÂ’s present problem with a relative high unemployment percentage is due very much to the financial burden in absorbing the Communist half of East Germany - that brought with it a huge and inefficient economic and industrial structure, despite a well educated work force with good basic skills.
With Germany being part of a larger European Community, its national border is no longer a limitation to the opportunities available for its continued ability to resolve the unemployment problems. Being a member of a wider European Community has helped Germany to prevent an otherwise higher unemployment rate.
Is Australia having any problems in resolving her unemployment issue, or is its economy performing so well that the Australian Currency has increased in value over the Singapore Currency by more then 30 Percent between 2002 to 2004 ?
If small size has a better advantage – as you have stated by quoting from some source – then by your own measure of performance, where was Singapore in the same period that you suggested in measuring – “eons ago” ? -
PART TWO
Originally posted by TidalWave333:
You dismiss all official figures as ‘propaganda’, but the only propaganda I see is yours. If the Singaporean government wants to perpetuate propaganda, they have certainly done a horrific job. I wonder why high unemployment figures were revealed in the past years in the first place, and why the government repeatedly issues statements that reveal the bad state of the economy, the global challenges from 2001-2003 then?
Atobe writes
The "feel good" propaganda, and play of numbers with statistics, does not hide the fact that there remains an unemployed number of 4.5% of KNOWN Singaporeans being unemployed.
This 4.5% is only a conservative number, and the real data is perhaps too politically sensitive and damagingÂ…
Certainly the Government has done a few horrific jobs when you were probably not mature enough to have noticed in your haste to grow up.
It ignored all the symptoms of an economy grinding to a halt prior to the economic melt down of 1987. Its arrogance is similar to your present state of condescending superiority in all matters, and absolute impatience with alternative views that opposes their sacred stands.
During the early 1980's, Employers were clamoring for Government help to lower CPF, Wage Increments, Cost of Development, and a list of do's and don'ts to help the commercial and industrial sectors to tide over a bad patch of economic cycle leading to the 1987 crash.
When the economy actually crashed in 1987, the Government hurriedly created an Economic Review Committee, and put an inexperienced upstart Brigadier-General to lord over a committee of community leaders from the commercial and industrial sectors - (with some headlined rejection from brighter personalities).
The recommendations from the 1987 ERC was never fully implemented, and the economy had recovered by its own natural cyclic evolutions, with a moderate push from the Singapore Government by tweaking the CPF and Wage Rates - that were soon restored to its full 40% rate for CPF, and NWC of 8% increases.
Having ignored the careful studied proposals by the 1987 ERC, the status quo in conducting affairs continued until the Financial Crisis of 1997 crashed onto us, even when the signs were already warning us that the continued methods cannnot "sustain or protect us through another storm".
A second Economic Review Committee was again started in 1997, headed by the same Brigadier-General (this with a symbolically noble "Retired" qualification), leading an enlarged and seemingly youthful Committee members - with the same slogan of 'No Stones will be left unturned' and 'there will be no sacred cows'.
For a Government that can ignore the figures and warning signs that are already evident, can we believe some of the statistics that are put up that merely white-wash the real experience, and replace it with a psychological experience ?
Remember the old man's quote: "A Lie will no longer be a Lie, when it is repeated often enough by qualified men".continuing post by TidalWave333:
What you see is what you get, unless you have the full data - which are often marked as "State Secrets" ?
You display an ignorance of the economic concept of ‘unemployment’. Of course, the government only includes numbers it knows, do you expect it to inflate numbers, or include things it doesn’t know? Now that would be dishonest, besides being speculative. (Hahaha. ) You may also want to check your grammar/sentence structure 'unemployed number of 4.5% of known...' What is an 'unemployed number'? Are you being deliberately meaningless?
And then you go on to qualify your statement by adding ‘and the real data is perhaps too politically sensitive…..’ suggesting you aren't really certain of what you are saying. What ‘real data’ are you pointing to? Are you implying the government is doctoring figures? What evidence do you have this is not ‘real data’?
It’s far too easy to dismiss numbers you don’t agree with as ‘propaganda’ and resort to suggestions of deceit. I don’t see you disagreeing with government numbers in 2002 that pointed out the economy was dong badly and the unemployment rate was high! I don’t see you insisting “the government is lying to us! The economy did well in 2002 actually!” Perhaps you should ask yourself why you only accept government figures when they are bad numbers, but accuse the government of propaganda when the economy improves, and positive data is published.
Again, if I display ignorance to the term 'unemployment', perhaps you have shown your absolute arrogance in your preferred slant of viewing my post, quoting sentences incompletely to prove your own position.
If this is not deceit on your part, what else can we infer ?
Is this not similar to the Government's position of not fully reporting on issues of state that can help academicians and the public to understand the true state of affairs; and if when any information are handed out, it will obviously be carefully vetted and "corrections" made to ensure that the 'CORRECT' views are given to fit the 'AGENDA'.
Do you think our Government is stupid to the level of your argument ?
Give them more credit then what you deserve for yourself.
If you will read the following articles, and do some mathematical and numbers comparisons, linking the required number of jobs to keep unemployment down, and the numbers of new entrants into the job market - perhaps the depth of the unemployment problem is not fully admitted.
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw04/040114a1.htm
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/031031ft.htm
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw04/040103ns.htm
Then again, can you grasp the limited information that we are allowed to have to make any sense of the present situation ?
This Government is a great believer in "No bad news can help in a bad situation, and it is better to concentrate on the good news to keep the spirit bouyant" .continuing post by TidalWave333:
You write a lot of meaningless drivel about ‘liberal principles of globalization’ without actually saying anything, other than fill up space.
Atobe writes
No one is disputing with the fact that with globalisation being the catch word for most countries to "integrate" at all tiers of economic activities, it will be the solution to the present Singapore sluggish economy.....even while they have embraced the liberal principles of 'Globalization'.
Just as the proverb said that a 'bad worker blames his tools' - it is applicable in your case too.
If all you see in the points raised are "drivel" - why are you indulging yourself with the long efforts to respond, which surely must have taken a better part of your leisure time - if not simply to satisfy your own childish ego to show yourself in a better light then others ?continuing post by TidalWave333:
Having asked that, do you even know enough of the concept yourself - before even attempting to explore the political concept with a philosophical re-interpretation ?
What is so liberal about globalization? Do you even know what the political concept of ‘liberalism’ refers to philosophically? -
Part Two - continuation 1
continuing post by TidalWave333:
"Singapore's position is not bad wis-a-vis the situation with the other countries" - this statement did not indicate any given numbers or percentages, if you can discern.
The pertinent question to ask now is, IS the economy improving? Has it taken a turn for the better from the previous few years? The answers are evident.
I might also add that that we already established in previous posts (10 Sept 2004) as well as this post that the economy is improving with annual growth expected at 8-9% this year, and last quarterly growth at 11.9%. You acknowledged yourself (on 12 Sept 2004 2:33pm) that "Singapore's position is not to bad vis-a-vis the situation with the other countries. " In your continuing post just 1 MINUTE LATER (2:34pm on the same day), Singapore has suddenly developed a 'sluggish economy'?!?!? Consistency would be good and much appreciated here! It'll be wise not to change facts, and viewpoints so quickly (in one minute too!) just to suit your own argument.
By your method of argument, if annual growth is EXPECTED at 8-9% this year, should we expect it to happen now, and with the full effects to be felt ACROSS ALL SECTORS of the Singapore Economy ?
Singapore's economy maybe seen to be zipping along, but it is generally acknowledged that only certain sectors are experiencing this "zippiness".
Not only should 'consistency' be necessary and appreciated, but a good dose of common sense and less condescending superiority of one's position will allow some help to oneself in a fuller understanding of other viewpoints.
Then again, with the Singapore educational foundation of "rote learning" and "spoon feeding", can anyone be blamed if they need to be constantly guided along.continuing post by TidalWave333:
Â…Â….what exactly is the point you are making here? Yes, more than six local workers will be employed for every one foreigner worker employed Â…in fact the exact figure is NINE as I pointed out earlier. So what is your disagreement? Trying to fill up more space?
Atobe writes
While it is correct that where no skillful Singaporeans are available, a foreign worker will be and should be employed. Unfortunately, while it had been said that with each Single Qualified Foreign Worker being employed, there will be more then six local workers being employed too.
If you are only prepared to quote out of context, and can only see what you prefer to see, can you be helped at all.
Will you try again to read what you have left out from my post, and read it in its full context ?
In order to help you NOT to loudly repeat yourself about filling empty space - in your mind, I will not quote the full text of what you have 'extracted' from my post.continuing post by TidalWave333:
I suggested that traffic congestion has always been bad on Saturdays (and Sundays and public holidays too!). I didnÂ’t say it will not get any worse (or any better for that matter). I merely stated explicitly that people will not refrain from running errands during lunch hour now and in the future. I also stated explicitly that many government services can be accessed online and face-to-face personal attention is not a common weekly occurrence. And traffic is always bad during working days, especially morning and evening rush hour, which is why the ERP is implemented only then. As for why people will not all be joining the queue to access government services on Saturdays, re-read my previous post.
Atobe writes
This has nothing to do with semantic games, but we are discussing about Government Over-the-Counter Services staying open on a Saturday even when a 5-day work week is implemented; and how did you come to a conclusion that traffic will not get any worse, when there already exist a traffic problem even during a 6-day workweek ?
Now you are short changing your own position - by quoting part of the text from your fuller post. Can I help you here ?continuing post by TidalWave333:
Traffic congestion has always been heavy on Saturdays, (and Sundays and public holidays too!) but not for the reasons you stated- shopping, family-related recreational activities. I am not sure if having a day off means MORE people are going to rush down to queue up at govt counters instead of using the time for social and family activities. Why can't they continue to see to them during lunch hour if there is a real need for personal attention at govt buildings? Besides, with electronic online services, many things can be done in the comfort of one's home.
Atobe writes
You will be lucky if those will not be further increased, and meanwhile they must stay due to the fact that some Government Over-the-Counter Services will stay open on Saturdays - leading to heavier traffic flow when nearly everyone will adopt a 5-Day workweek.
Amazing? Did I state anywhere before this post that traffic congestion has always been heavy on Saturdays "for the reasons you
stated - shopping, family-related recreational activities" - putting your own inference as mine ?
I have stated in my reply at the same time that lunch hours are too short to run any errands at the Government Counters, and that such activities when performed by every person on an Off-day on Saturdays will worsen the traffic congestion situation.
In your remarkable brilliance you will want to quarrel over a factual event - (that having Saturdays off will result in a worsening of the traffic congestion), and you can unrealistically suggest solutions that are impractical - e-Gov service and visiting "Govt counters" during Lunch Hours ?continuing post by TidalWave333:
Yes, they are.
Atobe writes
The reasons you gave are clear ?
A psychological condition in desparately being right ?
Is that all you can give as an answer to all that was written:from 12 September 2004 - 02:50A.M.
The reasons I gave are clear, perhaps you (unintentionally?) distorted it. Honestly, you don't think that an extra full Saturday off is spent doing household chores? Working mothers will reschedule their time to complete chores since they are working just up to one hour longer daily on weekdays, not five. Those with maids have no worries. Housewives have no worries. I am sure even you realise your paranoia that people coming home an hour later will result in havoc at home is a sheer exaggeration to say the least. Perhaps havoc will occur if mothers need to work past midnight everyday, but not 30-60 mins more a day. Using lunch hour to run errands is not a big deal...people do it all the time, they do it now, and they will continue to do it in the future even with Saturdays off.
atobe writes
Without making clear the reason for your statement, how can you attempt to give any speculation that there will not be more people queuing up "at govt counters instead of using the time for social and family activities" - (what social and family activities, if there are household chores as elaborated in my preceding paragraph ? )
Are your reasons given in any way clear ?
Did I distort the fact when all that I wrote was a simple question as follows:-
If you believe that "Traffic congestion has always been heavy on Saturdays, (and Sundays and public holidays too!) but not for the reasons you stated- shopping, family-related recreational activities" - then what can be the cause for the traffic congestion on these Sundays and Public Holidays ?
Again you do not wish to give any reasons for such an assumption, but prefer to divert attention by (again) unsubstantiated statements that I am distorting facts. -
Part Two Continuation 2
continuing post by TidalWave333:
What are ‘serious household chores’? Hahahaha…laundry? Cooking? How does one differentiate the serious, from the non-serious? Why do you insist on saying’working housewives’ when I pointed out your error and suggested 'working mother', or 'working woman' A housewife by conventional lexical understanding does not work, she is a ‘stay-at-home’ homemaker.
Atobe writes
If you have not perform any "SERIOUS" household chores, how can you be in any position to pass judgmental statements that allow you to understand how the demands that the working housewives have to face daily ?
So the cycle is complete in passing the typical arrogance of the Ruling Party to the die-hard 'PAPpies'.
The term "working housewives" is not an outdated term, that is now less heard - with modern preference to 'working mother' or 'working woman' - which do not necessarily give a fuller meaning to the tasks that a 'housewife' does at home, and still having to work as an employee to some enterprise.
You have the hypocractic arrogance to cry my posts to be a game of verbal semantics and drivels, but will indulge in the same practise by hiding behind a thin guise in attempting to be accurate in some "verbage " - (verbal garbage).
It is truly amazing the lengths that one will take to gain some simple glory. -
PART THREE
Originally posted by TidalWave333:
Again, meaningless drivel. You state the obvious without saying anything. What government services do you need to perform frequently? You renew your passport personally every week? If you need a service personally, why should it be construed as ‘additional workload’ to the civil servant? Trying hard to press a point without saying anything?
Atobe writes
The fact that it was necessary to perform your required services at the Government Service Counter, whatever the duration of time taken for your need to be completed, would already have resulted in you being added to whatever queu that exist, and the additonal workload on these Governent Workers attending to your need.
Again, if you close your mind and eyes, and lock out what you do not wish to see, can you be helped any further ?
If you only consider your worthless self without any need of Government's service, at least have the consideration that there is a larger number in a population of 4.5 million Singaporeans, who will need to perform a variety of tasks at the various Government and Statutory Boards Counters.
Since your limited capacity only can view Passport service, let us keep it simple to overcome your inadequacies.
Even if you do not visit the Passport Office every day over a period of 365 days (will you take out the 54 weekends, or shall I do it for you) , would you like to squeeze 4 Million Singaporeans over 365 days ?
Or can your mental capacity take a statistical model to assume that in any one given day, there will be a least 1% (or whatever the percentage number you prefer) of the Singapore Population at the Passport Counter ?
If you are in any position now to take a higher view of events, what if the service required is not limited to applying or renewing Passport but also for other immigration matters, or any other services that are performed at the Immigration Building ?
What if - you still have the capacity to take a holistic view of all services that are provided by the Government, Statutory Boards, and Essential Services Units, that will need different Singaporeans to travel to different destinations, and with some significant percentage moving cross-Island to be served at the Service Counter, will this also not cause a heavier traffic congestion ?continuing post by TidalWave333:
We are talking about traffic congestion. ThatÂ’s why taking the MRT reduces (1) traffic congestion besides (2) environmental pollution. Your (3) parking woes reinforce this.
Atobe writes
Are we not continuing with our "discussion" concerning traffic congestion, or do you prefer to drop this issue.
The economic viability of taking the MRT versus driving oneself with a car will require the better part of a separate thread.continuing post by TidalWave333:
Take the MRT then (since (4)cheaper for you, especially when you claim you need 6 hours to renew passport!!) 4 disadvantages of driving ahve been pointed out based on what you said. You want to face parking problems and pay 6 x 4 ($24) or NO parking woes and pay $1.60/$3.20 (?) via MRT?
Atobe writes
Do you know that leaving my car at a Private Carpark will cost $4 for one hour in the Central Business District, MRT fares of at least $1.60 for a short distance two way round trip ?
Ditto to my reply above - so as to avoid torturing your mental sense that seems to have been affected with you adopting the same drivel habit too.Originally posted by TidalWave333:
Why not? You complain that Singaporean government websites are poorly designed, and hence imply inefficiency. I pointed out that this is invalidated by international surveys which rank SingaporeÂ’s government e-readiness highly. It has a direct bearing since I disproved your point using evidence from rigorous methodological studies.
Atobe writes
Whether Singapore is being on par or being ranked in whatever position in any international survey of "govt e-readiness" does not have any significant bearingÂ….
You claim that according to international survey, Singapore Government has achieve a high ranking for being "e-readiness" for on-line service.
However, this does not mean that being connected is similar to the service being usable or user friendly.
Most international surveys are cursory at best, and will unlikely delve deeper then the surface observation of the situation.Originally posted by TidalWave333:
I think you are the one unable to comprehend direct answers. You claim that the government speaks with a ‘fork(ed) tongue’. I showed you where you read wrongly.
Atobe writes
[quote]So are you now into a game of semantics, and avoid the real issues posed to you, or do you simply have no response other then to divert attention from the issues laid out, by starting a reply into another direction ?
Do you believe that collecting revenue from citizens should be a more significant component in the tax structure ?
The following was posted by you in
continuing post by TidalWave333:
Read ‘NOT DIRECTLY dependent’. You really do not think collecting revenue from citizens is a significant component , esp. when Singapore has the world’s highest per capita international trade dependency do you? (or more than 2.5 times the country’s GDP) I leave you to correct your other misconceptions. Enough said.
atobe writes
AWS/13th month bonuses - not directly dependent on revenue collected but are dependent on economic growth annually" ?
Is this not contradictory, and typical of the 'fork tongue' manner of talking by this Government, which you seem to follow with eagerness, and the style also picked up by you ?
From linking AWS and Bonuses NOT being dependent on revenue collection but totally on annual economic growth - which itself is related to international trade - this has certainly pointed to the "forked tongue" approach that the Government has taken when leading in the wage negotiations between the Government, Employers and the Unions. -
Part Three - continuation
continuing post by TidalWave333:
From some of the response given by you, it can only be seen that either you prefer to deny yourself the opportunity to understand the simple statements, or that you are into this exercise for the sake of producing 'verbage'.
Atobe writes
If collecting revenue from the citizens is critical to the revenue collectionÂ….[/quote]
Another tautological statement?
If you wish to see it as such.continuing post by TidalWave333:
The debate was not originally on revenue and tax collection, but an example used by me to (1) show that exports and trade are an important component of economic growth, and (2) bonuses and AWS are not directly dependent on revenue collection, but economic growth in general.
Atobe writes
So you want to enlarge this debate from revenue collection - personal tax (income or consumption tax) - to that of international trade as well ?
Is this not similar to a situation of "the Chicken and Egg, which comes first" ?
Without economic growth in general, will there be any revenue collected to pay for any bonuses and AWS - especially so for the Governments ?
continuing post by TidalWave333:
ItÂ’s not gullibility. This is an economic fact acknowledged by academics, economists, and international institutions and governments. It is also used in international economic reseach, and is the subject of many academic articles and texts. High trade dependency can be a good or bad thing (and is not necessarily a good thing as you suggest). One negative aspect: one is more influenced/affected by global economic cycles and swings than other less foreign trade dependent countries. See for example this description from the American Association for Advancement of Science, a non-profit organization:
Atobe writes
Are you gullible enough to believe that Singapore has "the world's highest per capita international trade dependency" - making it 2.5 times the country's GDP ?
Trade dependency
The extent to which countries are dependent on international trade depends on many factors, including population and natural resources. Small, rich countries with few natural resources....are generally the most dependent on trade. Thus the top ten countries for whom trade represents the highest proportion of GDP include Singapore (top at 93 percent)Â…Â…..
Governments will take advantage of Academia whenever it suits their political agenda. Can the academic concepts influence the political outcome of any trade data ? They only open themselves to manipulation to attain certain political goals, especially in a society in which the Government monopolises all avenues of public communications.
The principle behind "Trade Dependency" is but stating of the obvious - (as in most academic works) -
continuing post by TidalWave333:
I used the term per capita trade dependency in my previous post. Overall trade volume numbers are not higher than Japan for example. But divide it by population (hence the term ‘per capita’) and it is the world’s highest.
Atobe writes
Is our industrial output anywhere near that of Hongkong, Taiwan or Korea (forget Japan) ?
Is there any economic value to this "discussion" ?
Is it not obvious that the trade figures divided by the population size can only achieve the result that you are not glowingly proud for Singapore ?
As an intelligent person, should you not be asking the question:
"... if Singapore has such a high trade dependency per capita, or as an alternavite measure a very high GDP per capita, why is the larger population living in HDB heartlands still feeling the abrasiveness of continued struggle even in a supposedly much improve Singapore economy ? "
continuing post by TidalWave333: [quote]
Clarity, precision, refraining from meaningless drivel to fill up space, and factual evidence will aid and substantiate your responses. Tautological, long, rambling, digressive replies will not.
When simple statements cannot be understood, the alternative is to break one sentence into multiple simpler paragraphs.
Unfortunately, laborious as it may seem, this is the best way to teach autistic minds. -
PART ONE
Atobe writesYour tenacity to find fault in my post truly amazes me
It’s a very simple situation. (1) You made an error of suggesting that getting Saturdays off is equivalent to working fewer hours for more money. (2) You direct it to LHL and use it as a fulcrum to serve up more sarcasm suggesting it was ‘cleverness’ on his part. (3) You certainly responded to my remarks, BUT nowhere in all the posts did you explicitly acknowledge you made an error, by admitting and expressing recognition that getting Saturday off is NOT “giving themselves a 5-Day work week to enjoy the extra 10% wages.”
Now I wonder who is on an ego trip, in making "meaningless drivel to fill up space" for each issue that you have not read with objectivity, and in your haphazard haste to prove me wrong on each and every mundane matter ?Â….. already responded to your correction of my earlier statement, which obviously you did not read as an acknowledgement:
Atobe writesIn your continued haste to dribble up all that is emitted from LHL, will you be so gullible to take in every single word from him with mindless efficiency ?
You serve up another conspiracy theory- the government is up to no good in tweaking working hours, even though this has been welcomed anecdotally. If it had been working longer for lesser pay, or working more hours with no extra pay, there may have been cause for complaint. I am amazed you think the government acceding to the requests of new civil service recruits IS NOT a thing to be applauded, but a thing to find fault with. You appear obstinately ready to press on with the belief that civil servants, and the encouraging of private companies to implement a five-day work week is horrendous, and indeed, a conspiracy by the government. What is your agenda here?
Western Government and societies and companies worked far less hours than the 44 hour week practised by the Singapore Government.
Even in the Private Sector in Singapore, some Companies that follow a 5-day week do not insist on a 44 hour week, and even go a step further by allowing their Employees flexi-working hours.
Notice I used ‘working days’, not ‘working hours’. I am well aware that Singapore, and indeed, the rest of Asia as well as the US clock in more hours than Europe , with Denmark holding the record for lowest hours per worker at 34. This has (1) caused many companies to threaten to move abroad (with some already having done so, and not just to China and India) to take advantage of more competitive conditions (2) prompted reviews by the EU to overhaul its labour conditions so as to be able to stay in the game against its competitors like the US. Reality boy, not fantasy.
Nowhere in the post have I suggested that the private sector all clock in 44 hours or more. That is your assertion, not mine. While stay-at home-work, or flexi-hours is indeed laudable, it is ultimately the prerogative of the private company or civil service where implementation is concerned.
Atobe writesExcuse me, what formal setting did you mention earlier ?
This is the formal setting I referred to in the very same words…. “my research/work carried out in a formal setting over the last three years”.
Or are you referring to the 'formal setting' that LHL had conducted his "research" ?
When did you decide that you can fit his shoes ?
Will Civil Servants dare to complain ?
Again, a similar question should be posed to you: When did you reach the conclusion I was aspiring to fill LHLÂ’s shoes, or anyoneÂ’s shoes for that matter?
What do civil servants have to complain about? Getting the Saturday off? Having the entire weekend to themselves? Why is it so difficult for you to accept that many welcome a 5-day week, and not having to work on Saturdays?
Atobe writesThe housewives are those who are married to close friends, associates, social contacts, whom I have had the privileged of communicating and listening to some of their views on social, economic and political affairs that affect their domestic life.
How are housewives personally affected since they are homemakers and do not work? Why would they complain that their family time with husbands and kids on weekends has increased? Are the aghast their husbands will no longer have their mornings at the office? What grouses did they ‘communicate’ to you?
Atobe writesNow you are digressing with your exaggeration in your preffered direction of argument that do not address the points that I have made.
All emotive issues were brought up by you, not me. If anyone should be accused of muddying the waters, digressing with other issues, making irrelevant statements to take the focus away with the original subject, itÂ’s certainly not me.
Were "kids" the issue of my last post, or did I mention the fact that the Housewife will finish off 30 to 60 minutes later each day, that will affect her household chores of preparing meals and doing the laundry ?
Atobe writesIn either case, it will be near impossible for you to appreciate the problems experienced by the average working housewife, who is from the HDB heartland.
You insist on speculating on my marital status which really serves no function other than contribute more irrelevant words to this space.
Again, it is digressing from the subject at hand. What do the demands and problems of a ‘working housewife’ have to do with the civil service tweaking working days? Again, it shows a lot of your inability to acknowledge errors by insisting on ‘working housewife.’ Despite the evident oxymoron (a ‘housewife’ does not work in a fulltime career) you are unable to accept erroneous remarks on your part, even though these have been pointed out to you repeatedly. Says a lot about you, doesn’t it? Your prevarication, avoidance, resolve to evade truth.
Two dictionary meanings on ‘houswife’ for your reference: (if you even quarrel with dictionary meanings, you will understand why you have the contempt of many here.)
house·wife
n. pl. house·wives (-w vz )
1. A woman who manages her own household as her main occupation.
Main Entry: house·wife
Pronunciation: 'haus-"wIf; esp 2 and in early poetry 'h&-z&f or -s&f
1 : a married woman in charge of a household
Atobe writesDid I insist that "Population and / or territorial size" are the only determinants, or is this your inference of what was stated in passing and which you have taken out of context to tailor it to fit your own agenda ?
You know very well what you did. This is what you said when you talked about the factors which give countries a headstart in resolving unemployment:
“Unfortunately, Singapore do not have the attributes that will help those mentioned countries - such as population and territorial size, industrial strength - which will give these countries a headstart in flexiblity of polici”
I responded accordingly using the three factors you gave. Or did you highlight the less important points and left out the main ones instead? Hahaha
Atobe writesChina and India is already stirring from their many years of deep slumber, and even your beloved mentors from the Ruling Party is already telling Singaporeans to wake up to the challenges from these countries.
Yes, yes, yes to all that digressive drivel. But what are the unemployment rates in those countries? What is the point of rehashing economic clichés about India and China when no one is disagreeing about the size of their foreign reserves. The pertinent subject here is unemployment rates.(Answer: latest annual 2003 figures China 10% urban unemployment where ironically most jobs are; India:9.1%) Is Singapore not, and indeed the rest of the world, restructuring and taking note of the challenges posed by the two countries? For example the American government highlighting the outsourcing problem, the Japanese government fretting over its domestic industries moving to China etc.
In the short span of the last 20 years, since China opened its doors, we have seen China's foreign reserves and trade surplusses increased in geometric proportions - that even outstripped Singapore's reserves by three times. -
PART TWO
Atobe writesGermanyÂ’s present problem with a relative high unemployment percentage is due very much to the financial burden of absorbing the Communist half in East Germany, that brought with it a huge and inefficient economic and industrial structure, despite a well educated work force with good basic skills. Is Australia having any problems in resolving her unemployment issue, or is its economy performing so well that the Australian Currency has increased in value over the Singapore Currency by more then 30 Percent from 2002 to 2004 ?
GermanyÂ’s problems are not solely due to reunification. Your ignorance, simplicity and naivety in pinning German economic malaise to primarily one factor is amusing to say the least. Problems include low private investment, inability to balance the budget, the reluctance of Germans to spend, high welfare payments, ageing population, restrictive labour conditions that inhibits productivity, high taxation practices that discourage business among others. ItÂ’s very weary pointing out such naivety and ignorance, and especially when you make yourself out to be an economic czar finding fault with fact.
As for Australia, its currency has indeed increased its value by 30% from 2002-2003 measured against the Trade Weighted Index, not against the Singaporean or US dollar. Currency value can also be manipulated through pegging or central bank interventions (think China, Japan, Malaysia, Hong Kong). Some countries want their currencies to remain pegged to maintain exports (China), some do not want currency volatility (Malaysia). The Chinese yuan would have increased its value over the last 10 years with double digit growth according to your laughable logic, but it hasnÂ’t.
You really should stop talking about economics altogether or dishing out remarks you have no real understanding. Economics is obviously not your forte, and I am getting tired of correcting your ignorance. Bleh!
Atobe writesCertainly the Government has done a few horrific jobs that you may not have mature enough to notice in your haste to grow up.
When I make deserving swipes at you, they are accompanied by evidence. See above remarks on economics for example. But when you resort to sarcasm, it is a sign of your desperation you have run out of logic. Why didnÂ’t you address obvious errors and inconsistency I pointed out in previous posts- e.g. your inconsistency in changing the state of SingaporeÂ’s economy within the space of one minute? Or at least acknowledge (again!) your inconsistency?
Atobe writesIt ignored all the symptoms of an economy grinding to a halt prior to the economic melt down of 1987. Its arrogance is similar to your present state of condescending superiority in all matters, and absolute impatience with alternative views that opposes their sacred standsÂ…Â…..Again, if I display ignorance to the term 'unemployment', perhaps you have shown your absolute arrogance in your preferred slant of viewing my post, quoting sentences incompletely to prove your own position.
Addressing in detail your simplistic conclusions and mere description about the Asian financial crisis, and government responses would take an entire essay. Too many errors, too many clichés, too much naivety. (But of course I have already pointed out your economic ignorance in my remarks about the strength of the Australian currency).
If this is not deceit on your part, what else can we infer ?
I can only say that while the Asian financial crisis did affect Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and indeed other parts of the word, they did NOT suffer a meltdown, unlike the four most directly involved- Thailand, Malaysia, South Korea, Indonesia. Indeed Singapore clocked in 5.4% in 1999, and 9.9% in 2000. It was the global (from the US, Japan and EU) economic downturn that hit the economy, not the Asian crisis per se that put economic growth at minus 2.1% in 2001. Ignorance again. Bleh!
Accusing me of deceit and arrogance is easy and convenient enough to disguise your ignorance, but it is a glaring fact, you made no attempt to point out directly and explicity, WHAT exactly the deceit is. I donÂ’t see how correcting you and providing right facts is arrogance.
Should I just let you continue swaggering away with your ignorance with economics as you have adequately demonstrated in other posts like Temasek and GLC, but which I refrained from contributing?
If anyone is arrogant, itÂ’s not me. I do NOT pretend to talk about things I am unfamiliar with. May I digress a little and remind you of your memorable quotes:
07 September 2004 · 10:29 AM on Temasek and GLCs
"No need to be "well versed with corporate businesses", but just using logic to assess a normal business situation."
08 September 2004 · 05:34 AM on Temasek and GLCs
"As much as these COULD POSSIBLY be the objectives of Temasek Holding, it is unfortunate that my cynical nose smell something deeper in the manner that Temasek has thrusted its investment overseas."
So there is no need to be versed in ‘corporate business’….just logic and a ‘cynical nose’ will do for you eh? Hahahha!
Atobe writesDo you think our Government is stupid to the level of your argument ?
Ouch! Hahahaha!
Give them more credit then what you deserve for yourself. Another personal attack after your bruised ego, and too many corrections of economic fact? (Let me think casually of your errorsÂ….Singapore performed below 1% last year? Wrong. Singapore does not have the worldÂ’s highest trade dependency? Wrong. Australian dollar rose by 30% against Singapore dollar? Wrong. Etc etc)
Atobe writesJust as the proverb said that a 'bad worker blames his tools' - it is applicable in your case too.
No change in your preference for personal attacks heheÂ…Â…but I ask again, what is so liberal about globalization? What do you know about the concept of liberalism? Why are you so reluctant (or are you really incapable) to answer my questions directly, choosing to launch derogatory remarks?
If all you see in the points raised are "drivel" - why are you indulging yourself with the long efforts to respond, if not simply to satisfy your own childish ego to show yourself in a better light then others ?
Atobe writesBy your method of argument, if annual growth is EXPECTED at 8-9% this year, should we expect it to happen now, and with the full effects to be felt ACROSS ALL SECTORS of the Singapore Economy ?
Ahhh! Another economic question from you! Growth is happening now, and it happened at 12% last quarter. Effects felt across all sectors?
This is what I said in previous post (7 September 2004):
“Of course, it will take time for these improvements to flow down and be felt by the general populace: better wages, increased consumer confidence, more job security etc.”
This is what you acknowledged on 10 September 2004:
“Certainly it will take time for the benefits to filter out to every Singaporean, who have lost their jobs.”
I believe you already answered your own question, letÂ’s seeÂ…3 days ago? Engaging in repetitive questions to fill up space again? -
EMPTY. PART TWO IN NEXT POST.
signed, Tidalwave333 -
PART THREE
Tidalwave writes on 12 september 2004:
"I might also add that that we already established in previous posts (10 Sept 2004) as well as this post that the economy is improving with annual growth expected at 8-9% this year, and last quarterly growth at 11.9%. You acknowledged yourself (on 12 Sept 2004 2:33pm) that "Singapore's position is not to bad vis-a-vis the situation with the other countries. " In your continuing post just 1 MINUTE LATER (2:34pm on the same day), Singapore has suddenly developed a 'sluggish economy'?!?!? Consistency would be good and much appreciated here! It'll be wise not to change facts, and viewpoints so quickly (in one minute too!) just to suit your own argument."
Atobe responds to this by saying on 13 September 2004:
"Not only should 'consistency' be necessary and appreciate, but a good dose of common sense and less condescending superiority of one's position will be help oneself in a fuller understanding."
I seeÂ…you prefer to engage in more drivel. You see no need to remain consistent with economic fact, or even your viewpoints. Changing viewpoints and perspective in the space of 1 minute is alright to you, so long as it fits the argument you want to espouse in that paragraph?
Again, what does that say about your character, besides the INability to conduct a logical, informed, rational argument without resorting to insults and name-calling? I do not see any condescending superiority on my part, only your sneaky readiness to change words to win an argument at all costs. Your economic ignorance is evident, but it is also clear you are willing to sacrifice your integrity (for the sake of scoring a few cheap points) and logical coherence, even when this is demonstrated to you explicitly by quoting you.
Atobe writesIn your remarkable brilliance you will want to quarrel over a factual event - (that having Saturdays off will result in a worsening of the traffic congestion), and you can unrealistically suggest solutions that are impractical - e-Gov service and visiting "Govt counters" during Lunch Hours ?
Inconsistency on your part again? Forgetfulness on your part again? I did not say congestion will worsen on Saturdays. This is what I said on 12 September 2004:
“I suggested that traffic congestion has always been bad on Saturdays (and Sundays and public holidays too!). I didn’t say it will not get any worse (or any better for that matter).”
YOU are the one insisting congestion will worsen on Saturdays on TWO PREVIOUS OCCASIONS:
“You will be lucky if those will not be further increased, and meanwhile they must stay due to the fact that some Government Over-the-Counter Services will stay open on Saturdays - leading to heavier traffic flow when nearly everyone will adopt a 5-Day workweek.” (7 September 2004 3:30pm) and
“….how did you come to a conclusion that traffic will not get any worse, when there already exist a traffic problem even during a 6-day workweek ?” (12 September 2004 12:34pm)
Atobe writesA psychological condition in desparately being right ?
No, just consistency, and delighting in showing to all readers following these posts closely your ignorance over economic fact and your attempts to disorientate others with your illogical rambling.
Atobe writesAgain you do not wish to give any reasons for such an assumptionÂ…..If you have not perform any "SERIOUS" household chores, how can you be in any position to pass judgmental statements that allow you to understand how the demands that the working housewives have to face daily ?
Again I ask you: What are ‘serious household chores’? Hahahaha…laundry? Cooking? How does one differentiate the serious, from the non-serious? Why do you insist on saying’working housewives’ when I pointed out your error and suggested 'working mother', or 'working woman' A housewife by conventional lexical understanding does not work, she is a ‘stay-at-home’ homemaker. (see dictionary meanings provided for your reference in the above post).
Atobe writesThe term "working housewives" is not an outdated term, that is now less heard - with modern preference to 'working mother' or 'working woman' - which do not necessarily give a fuller meaning to the tasks that a 'housewife' does at home, and still having to work as an employee to some enterprise.
You need to get over corrections to your vocabulary and learn the correct usage of words. See two dictionary meanings provided for your reference.
Atobe writesIf you only consider your worthless self without any need of Government's service, at least have the consideration that there is a larger number in a population of 4.5 million Singaporeans, who will need to perform a variety of tasks at the various Government and Statutory Boards Counters.
Ouch (again)! More insultsÂ…Â…Hahaha!
Since your limited capacity only can view Passport service, let us keep it simple to overcome your inadequacies. I donÂ’t know which is more tragic-comic to describe youÂ….you needing 6 hours and paying $24 to park in order to renew a passport, or you refusing to acknowledge easy solutions, and cheaper alternatives after I pointed them out.
I didnÂ’t mention this in all my previous posts, you can get instant photos at a booth the next timeÂ…no need to go to Kodak counters TWICE and pay MORE THAN $11. Hahahaha!
Atobe writesWhat if you still have the capacity to take a holistic view of all services that are provided by the Government, Statutory Boards, and Essential Services Units, that will need different Singaporeans to travel to different destinations, and with some significant percentage moving cross-Island to be served at the Service Counter, will this also not cause a heavier traffic congestion ?
What exactly are the personal face-to-face services that an ordinary individual needs so frequently? What are these chaotic tasks which will cause massive traffic congestion when a five-day week is implemented? LetÂ’s start with you raising a few examples from your personal experiences the last 1-2 months.
Atobe writesThe economic viability of taking the MRT versus driving oneself with a car will require the better part of a separate thread.
4 disadvantages were pointed out to you in my post on 12 September 2004:
"ThatÂ’s why taking the MRT reduces (1) traffic congestion besides (2) environmental pollution. Your (3) parking woes reinforce thisÂ…Â…. Take the MRT then (since (4)cheaper for you, especially when you claim you need 6 hours to renew passport!!)"
You didnÂ’t address why you chose to drive when a cheaper and more convenient alternative is available. Merely suggesting a separate thread is required is really avoiding a simple question posed to you.
Atobe writesIs this not similar to a situation of "the Chicken and Egg, which comes first" ?
My reply on 12 September 2004 was
“the debate was not originally on revenue and tax collection, but an example used by me to (1) show that exports and trade are an important component of economic growth, and (2) bonuses and AWS are not directly dependent on revenue collection, but economic growth in general.”
No, it merely clarifies things for you since you require help in so many areas : not just familiarity with economic facts, but also vocabulary (think ‘housewife’), and semantics (think tautology from you like “collecting revenue from the citizens is critical to the revenue collection.”)
Atobe writesThe principle behind "Trade Dependency" is but stating of the obvious - (as in most academic works) Â….. Is there any economic value to this discussion?
Yes, there is. It serves to correct you (yet again) on the economic concept of ‘per capita international trade dependency’, and educate you on the difference between overall industrial output numbers and ‘per capita international trade dependency.’ -
and finally, PART FOUR
Atobe writesyou are into this exercise for the sake of producing 'verbage'Â…Â… This is the manner to teach autistic minds.
I admit I derive a certain satisfaction correcting you on points of economic fact, and technicalities. When I say you are ignorant, it is always accompanied by substantive evidenceÂ…..academic reports, dictionary meanings, url links to complement a coherent argument.
I derive no joy in throwing insults which is more than I can say of you hehe , and so will refrain from doing so. If you prefer a logical, coherent discussion, you may like to respond to the points I raised, instead of engaging in meaningless drivel.
I wonder if your poorly constructed sentences are intentionally made to (1)mislead, (2)frustrate those readers here by making it appear that you have said something, and made an effort to rebut my remarks, when in reality, (a)nothing substantive has been said, and (b) no earnest attempt to produce concrete evidence is demonstrated. (singaporewindow is not the holy grail as you keep referring to readers in this and other threads.Read widely atobe, and stop depending on just one source. hehe ) -
TO tidlewave333
enjoyed reading your postings and hope to read morefirst before creating topics of my own later. i feel that while you are logcal and know wat u say most of the time, no need to push atobe too hard. not every1 as educated as u or know many fact or type good english lik u everytime. -
Hmmm. Yeah other matters. I think 5 day work week will make life more stress/hectic. Coz working people will have to find extra time in the week to attend to government business, e.g. banking, posting, immigrations etc etc, Productivity will fall.
I guess SG wants lower productivity in a pathetic attempt to increase family togetherness to increase birth rate, so as to increase productivity in the LR. Or sg wants to be more western with 5 day weeks -
The world should really move towards flexi-hours and flexi-weekchoice - i.e. you can choose to work nth hours and which day of the week you want to work.
This way, everyone gets to decide how he/she wants to balance between work and living. Also, flex-weekchoice will allow services to be available 7 days a week and possibly early in the morning or late into the night if enough people wants to work those hours.
And then you get paid according to your output.
Just my ideal world where everyone has a choice to live the way he/she likes. -
SilverKris- I am merely responding to atobe's comments. I do not push anyone 'hard'.
men_@_arms- You obviously haven't thought much about what you typed, but I will try to be as nice to you as possible.
men@arms writesHmmm. Yeah other matters. I think 5 day work week will make life more stress/hectic. Coz working people will have to find extra time in the week to attend to government business, e.g. banking, posting, immigrations etc etc, Productivity will fall.
Going to the bank to attend to your own financial matters is NOT government business.
I guess SG wants lower productivity in a pathetic attempt to increase family togetherness to increase birth rate, so as to increase productivity in the LR. Or sg wants to be more western with 5 day weeks
Going to the post office to send a few letters or collect parcels is NOT government business.
Going to the immigration department may be considered 'government business' but what do u do there on a regular basis? You change IC every week? You renew passport everyweek? Even if you are a PR, you only renew your employment pass once every five years.
The government wants to 'lower productivity'? It aspires to become less productive and less competitive?!?!
From your bizzare logic, it wants to lower productivity now....to increase productivity in the long run (LR)?
Family 'togetherness' increases birth rates?? Even if you are anti-govt, you must distinguish between baby perks, and the drive to achieve a balance between career and family. The government dangles carrots in front of you, but ultimately, it is up to the individual if he/she wants to have babies, or lead a more family-oriented life.
Sg aspires to become more 'Western'?!?!? Is this why Sex and the City is shown on cable too? Hahahaha!
I see your brains tried really hard to post intelligent comments here.
Why do I even bother!? I give up.
-
TidalWave333,
Stay cool. At least you have one supporter here. Control your temper. -
Senseless flaming from Atobe again.I admire the way he writes but he can be too abrasive at times.
-
TO tidlwave333
NO lah, its clear atobe not very interested in logic and fact but "winning." u say so much (give 100% correct stats oso no use).
even my a-maths tuition teacher also cannot stop laughing after i show him this postings. he is an econs grad ok. say dont waste time reading atobe otherwise become like him if take econs in jc. (say i stupid lah!) but he oso agree u know a lot. u take econs in uni? masters? -
I wish this could be so too. But reality check, this might only be more commonly accepted in 'family-friendlier' countries such as the States or European countries.Originally posted by Qitai:The world should really move towards flexi-hours and flexi-weekchoice - i.e. you can choose to work nth hours and which day of the week you want to work.
This way, everyone gets to decide how he/she wants to balance between work and living. Also, flex-weekchoice will allow services to be available 7 days a week and possibly early in the morning or late into the night if enough people wants to work those hours.
And then you get paid according to your output.
Just my ideal world where everyone has a choice to live the way he/she likes.
Singapore or even any of our surrounding SEA neighbours?
Quite hard to see it coming on in large scale. -
Originally posted by fishing7:
Typical, typical, what to do? Must guarantee the baby is a boy some more...sigh
The government has implemented 5 days work week. How about other matters that is still happening on Saturdays but not on Sundays? Should all these matters be considered as well?
Below are some issues i am concern about on [b]SATURDAYS
Current Situation
1. Off-Peak Cars(OPC) is only allowed after 3pm on Saturdays
- Sunday, OPC is allowed to be driven the whole day
2. Taxi Peak Period Subcharge
- $1.00 extra for taxi cabs
- for timing 7.30am to 9.30am. And 5.00pm to 8.00pm
- On Sunday, no such charges
3. Taxi City Area Subcharge
- $1.00 extra for taxi cabs
- for timing 5.00pm to 12 midnight
- On Sunday, no such charges
Proposed to Change To:
1. OPC cars is allowed to be driven the whole day on Saturdays
2. No Taxi Peak Period Subcharge on Saturdays
3. No Taxi City Area Subcharge on Saturdays
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone out there got any matters to bring out with regards to saturday and sunday issues, please post it here to benefit the rest. I thank you for that.
Please feel free to comment.[/b] -
Sigh... yes, that is true. But you have to have a dream to make things happen. First question to ask is why is it so difficult to implement? I already know some answers actually since I work in IT related industry which is more or less a pioneer in this areaOriginally posted by [ Neo ]:I wish this could be so too. But reality check, this might only be more commonly accepted in 'family-friendlier' countries such as the States or European countries.
Singapore or even any of our surrounding SEA neighbours?
Quite hard to see it coming on in large scale.
But of course, does the government has this dream at all? Or cooperate inertia is already at work there?