5 day work week. How about other matters on Saturdays?
-
Wow, gone for a few days, and you certainly have not let up, and have even superceded yourself and perhaps your alter-ego even ?
PART ONEOriginally posted by TidalWave333:
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.”
Atobe writes
Your tenacity to find fault in my post truly amazes me
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:
If acknowledging a remark is insufficient "admission" or representative of an "expressed recognition" to your position, what are you looking for ?
A clear apology, accompanied by 3 "kowtows", and perhaps compensation to redress an offense to your sensibilities ?
Wow, you have certainly picked up more then a fair bit from your beloved mentors whom you are protecting so diligently.continuing post by TidalWave333:
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?
Atobe writes
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.
Why is there an obssession with "conspiracy theory" and "hidden agenda" - whenever there are opposing or alternate views towards your preferred points of views ?
Perhaps the directions in which we are arguing may be hitting the same topic but at different tangents.
You are protecting the status of the event, claiming that it is a popular policy change by LHL.
I am saying that it is no big deal, as it is merely changing the work arrangements from a 6 day work week to a 5 day work week, and in so doing have not improved the available time for family as intended - due to the shorter hours available to the most important person in the family - the working "housewife".
How did you manage to infer from all my replies 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".
"Horrendous" and "conspiracy" ?
Amazing level of intelligence in being able to discern such sense from my post.continuing post by TidalWave333:
It is not so much the changes in the "working hours or the working days" that form the core issues in the direction of post - as you do not seem able to discern the efforts of my posts.
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.
To be more specific, what is all the fanfare about that is given to LHL ?
All the fanfare and hullabaloo for merely changing the working arrangement of a Government that remained stubbornly to a 6-day week since independence ?
Does this change reflect a super-human effort on LHL's part to lift such a heavy stone and have it turned over ?
If at all, this is merely a "mud-brick" of an issue, not a heavy weight stone of any current and more urgent issues affecting the Political Life of Singapore.
This is "Fantasy" - not "Reality"; if you can discern the differences, sonny.
It would have been a more credible effort on the part of LHL if he had shattered the manner in which the Ruling Party utilise their legal position to legislate laws to monopolises the Center Stage, and prevent Opposition Parties from any room to grow amongst the Singapore Community.
Until he is able to make such an effort to break the stubborn 'kiasu' mentality of the Ruling Party - he will hardly be a "Man of his own making".
This will be "Reality" - and no longer fantasy.continuing post by TidalWave333:
So what your point of contention - whether this statement is made by me, or by yourself ?
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.
This was brought up to merely reinforce my point that LHL's announcement of a 6-day week to a 5-day week, without any change to the total work hours for the week, is typical of the Government's methods:
"Give a little, and take back some, if not MORE" - then make a big hullabaloo about the change, as if it is some fantasy come true; when all along, the Private Sector has been practising 5-day week and with some working even shorter hours, as well as being more progressive in work policies by allowing flexi-hours.
For someone who try to project himself as a super-mover, out to reset and rethink all old work methods that are "set in stone", this new change in Government work period is not exactly a "super move" nor a "super speed move" into the future.
What is all the hullabaloo about ? Merely to boost LHL political image further.continuing post by TidalWave333:
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”.
Atobe writes
Excuse me, what formal setting did you mention earlier ?
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?
Having quoted those "haloed words" - concerning his work "carried out in a formal setting" - as spoken by LHL, you will now make it to be "again in the formal setting I MENTIONED EARLIER " ?
For someone who demand high standards of specific accuracy, you will now assume yourself to be LHL ? -
Part One - continuation
continuing post by TidalWave333:
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 writes
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 fail to see the effects to working "Housewives" and prefer to hide behind the defence of accurate usage and choice of terms, is this not an exercise in a "game of semantics".continuing post by TidalWave333:
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.
Atobe writes
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 ?
So you are now part of a 'wayang kulit' - make a move in the shadow play, and thinking that the action in the shadow will simply fade away ?
My detailed explanations in response to your demand for details are considered digressions, while your similar efforts are focus ?
Again, you have learnt well the methods of your mentors in the Ruling Party in debating with those who hold opposing views. Take the moral high ground first, regardless of the clear water being muddied, and in the process of the battle when the clear water is muddied, blame it on the other side for even daring to start the battle.continuing post by TidalWave333:
You insist on speculating on my marital status which really serves no function other than contribute more irrelevant words to this space.
Atobe writes
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.
Hardly so, for the reasons that I have already stated before.
How can you be able to understand the difficulties of a working "HOUSEWIFE" - if you are not married ?
Even if you are married but is able to afford the luxury of a higher standard of living, will your working "HOUSEWIFE" need to perform any household chores similar to that of a working "HOUSEWIFE" from a Lower Income Group.continuing post by TidalWave333:
The English Language will allow greater tolerance and flexibility in the manner it is used.
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
Dogma has its place and time.
If I prefer the choice of using the term "working HOUSEWIFE" - it carries the meaning more accurately then the simplistic term of a "working mother" or a mere "working woman".
The term "working HOUSEWIFE" will conjure up the typical work of a woman at the office, as well as the housework performed by your version and narrow preference of a 'housewife'.
The versatility of the English Language is perhaps beyond the specific and narrow dogmatic view that your mind is capable of.continuing post by TidalWave333:
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:
Atobe writes
Did 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 ?
“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
Very professional in quoting the limited sentence from my full text, and using the same one sentence out of context, make some comedy from this and end up with sarcarsm ?
Is there no counter from you to what was posted, except a weak analysis to all that have been posted in my response ?
Is that all a highly trained mind is capable of when faced with a reply that punctured your original stand ? Hahaha - the One who laugh last, will laugh the best.continuing post by TidalWave333:
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.
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.
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 being a realist with such a trained mind ?
If the population size of India or China is ten times bigger then Singapore, will not the percentage of unemployment become even more significantly larger, without necessarily to be in the same proportion.
Yes, restructuring is affecting the entire world economies, but countries with a larger industrial base that has access to a larger natural and captive market of consumers formed by their larger population numbers – will eventually offer themselves a better than even chance of success, when compared to the acknowledged natural limitations that are quite unique to smaller countries like Singapore.
While Switzerland is similar in size to Singapore, it is able to hold its head above water, as it has access to the large populated market place of the European Community, and its high value added industrial base has a longer history than SingaporeÂ’s. -
PART TWO
Originally posted by TidalWave333:
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.
Atobe writes
GermanyÂ’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 ?
Kudos for the comprehensive knowledge that you have been able to display on the points posted that generally summarises the problems that I have been too simplistic in thinking that it is too much for you to cope.
I was probably wrong in assessing your ability too soon.
Did I make out myself to be an "economic czar" or was it your over enthusiasm in pinning too much status to my personna ?continuing paragraph by TidalWave333:
While the values of currencies maybe measured against Trade Weighted Index, it nevertheless showed up the weakness of Singapore's position in our own Singapore Dollar weakening so rapidly, when the Australia's Dollar managed to climb in value during the same period from 2002-2003.
As for Australia, its currency has indeed increased its value by 30% from 2002-2003, and regardless if it is measured against the Trade Weighted Index or not. Currency value can also be manipulated through pegging or the 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!
Leaving aside those countries who do not wish to have their currencies exposed to the volatality of market forces, and prefer to pegged it at a fixed rate to other stronger currencies, it already is available and serves as a good indicator of economic performance.
With regards to your comments concerning the Chinese yuan - I am surprised with your position stated, and wonder if you are being deliberately ignorant (which cannot possibly be) or deliberately misleading (which is truer) to suit your own argument.
While China's export has quadrupled over the years - since the Government changed its heart towards Capitalism, its currency exchange rate vis-a-vis the US Dollar (and with most other hard currencies accepted in International Trade) has been fixed by the Chinese Government.
This was done for the purpose of cheaper exports, as already acknowledged by your own statement.
The US Government, European Community, and even as of yesterday (Wednesday 15 September 2004), the IMF have all pushed China to unpegged the Chinese yuan from a fixed rate; and at the same time to exercise judicious policies to maintain the stability of the international currency system, and its own economy.continuing post by TidalWave333:
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 writes
Certainly the Government has done a few horrific jobs that you may not have mature enough to notice in your haste to grow up.
If you care to read again my replies to your post, perhaps you may wish to reconsider your position.
My sarcasm was more in response to your arrogance and pomposity, and your childishness in your attempts to copy the methods of your mentors from the ruling party in your vain attempt to deride my personna.
Even your language used is a clear sign of plagiarism of the language used by your political mentors in describing some of the luminaires from the Opposition side - whom your mentors despised with unbelievable passion.continuing post by TidalWave333:
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).
Atobe writes
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 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.
If this is not deceit on your part, what else can we infer ?
Kudos for your effort to whitewash your own weakness by attempting to make such a light weight claim of my errors - that is seen largely from your own point of views ?
Are you expecting readers to say "Yes, we see the same ghosts" - simply on the basis of your claim that "there are ghosts".
You think you have enough disctatorial influence similar to the events that the Catholic Activists were branded as "Communists" simply on the say-so of your beloved 'mentor' ?
Such is the danger of arrogance of one man's opinionated views that are imposed on others, simply because he cannot agree with the differing opinions from others.
I wonder if you have found my critique and expose of your beloved Ruling Party to be too irritating that you cannot resist but make an attempt to practise the style of your beloved mentors in trying to denounce my opinions ?
Try harder at your imitative efforts - you are just only a few hundred steps away, but will always not be in any position to catch up, if you only can imitate and not innovate your own style. -
Part Two - Continuation 1
continuing paragraph by TidalWave333:
Swagger ? Were the words of my statements moving too much, or are you drunk with irritation at the caustic and honest personal remarks that I have dared to make - that are at least original from my own thinking ?
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!
With all your high brow opinions, it certainly reveal a shallow understanding of the events that had passed.
How do you think the global economic downturn came about ?
Even before the Asian Financial Meltdown had occurred, the US, Japan and some major economies that propped up the EU were already experiencing difficulties in their respective economies - all of which were acknowledged to be sputtering along, and with Japan being urged to re-ignite its engines.
If anything at all, the Asian Financial debacle hastened the global economic crisis, and although Singapore had withstood the pressures of the currency crisis in this Asian Financial debacle, it had to suffer the after-shocks that had to come with a slow down of the neighboring economies that it is tied to, and to the global plug that is already weak, and further weakened when the major 'Asian Tigers' were knocked down by the financial crisis that swamped them - one after the other, in rapid succession.
[quote]continuing paragraph by TidalWave333:
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?
Providing facts that are based on your own interpretation, and expect everyone to believe that your interpretation is the right one ?
Try harder to be at least the shadow of your 'mentor' before appearing in the spotlight of this forum with your haughty and insolent attitude towards other opinions that are more honest and orignal.continuing paragraph by TidalWave333:
"refrain from contributing" or simply having nothing to offer ?
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!
There is a difference between the two.
Is it wrong for me to adopt a modest position, than to be a show-off with the arrogant pomposity that you display - in thinking that you are qualified to knock me out with misleading interpretation of events that you claim to be facts - just because of your say so. (I will prefer not to indulge in expletives, in order not to be more offensive then necessary ) .
You certainly have learnt well from your mentor:
"A LIE repeated often enough, will become the TRUTH" - unfortunately, for you there are people like myself, who are willing to cry out with honesty and expose the lies that exist.continuing paragraph by TidalWave333:
Ouch! Hahahaha!
Atobe writes
Do you think our Government is stupid to the level of your argument ?
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)
Bruised ego ? Is yours bruised, and trying to make a vain attempt to turn the table on me, just to have a laugh ?
Do you seriously think that an ego can be so easily bruised just because you want to make it happen, or simply by saying so ?
If anyone who has an ego, or one that can be easily bruised, one should never exposed one's honest opinions in this public sgForum.
About time you grow up a little more.
Wrong on all counts, just because you say so, should you not be trying harder ? Perhaps you would like to re-visit your own posting on 10 September 2004 – 11:01A.M.:
Tidalwave333 writes:[i] atobe writes
Now I wonder who is deft at being prevaricating, and self-righteously condescending ?
Singapore's economy performed below 1% in 2003
Wrong again. To be really picky (since you prefer precision), 2003's growth rate was 1.1% (above official forecasts of 0.8%). I do concede that growth from a low base does make the figure appear more spectacular. However, this does not in anyway diminish the importance of the fact that economic recovery has been made in the space of 12 months, SARS, Iraq war and all thrown in. -
Part Two - continuing 2
[/color]continuing paragraph by TidalWave333:
Atobe writes
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, if not simply to satisfy your own childish ego to show yourself in a better light then others ?[/quote]
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?
Derogatory remarks ?
Surely, you speak in jest, when I am merely returning the same complimentary efforts that your posts have been attempting without too much disguise ?
Should I be replying to someone whose only agenda is not to have a debate but is only interested in competing for the imaginary spotlight of public glory ?
Are my views too jarring for your senses that seems only able to hear the directions of your mentors only ?
Surely, you are not serious in wanting to know more of my views about this subject about "liberal globalisation " ?
Surely, the next few volumes of exchanges will not be tiresome for you, as you have already stated your preference in avoiding such matters in recent preceding replies ?
Perhaps, you should ask your "mentors" the same questions, as they seem to be ardent supporters of a more liberal trade environment based on a global grid.
You will probably find their reasons more agreeable, and you will be more willing to lap up every drop and crumbs that they are prepared to give you with their attention when it so pleases them.continuing paragraph by TidalWave333:
Ahhh! Another economic question from you! Growth is happening now, and it happened at 12% last quarter. Effects felt across all sectors?
Atobe writes
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 ?
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?
You had recently asked where your deceit lie, and this is one clear example of your deceitful style with making incomplete extraction of my statements , and twisting the same point to suit your argumentative approach on the same issue.
If you can be a little bit more honest with yourself, perhaps you will do more justice to your self-perceived ability.
At the risk of further accusation from you about filling space in this thread - which you seem to NOT to make use of, in order to be dishonest with your efforts in trying to prove me wrong; here is the full text of events that led to the question being asked:Extracted from 13 September 2004 - 08:19A.M. on PAGE 2 of this Thread:
Part Two - continuation 1
[quote]continuing post by TidalWave333:
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.
"Singapore's position is not bad vis-a-vis the situation with the other countries" - this statement did not indicate any given numbers or percentages, if you can discern.
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.
Now perhaps my reply to your original question can be seen in its proper perspective without your dishonest attempt to short change my views. -
PART THREE
Originally posted by TidalWave333:
How very clever of you to digress into a tirade of veiled personal attack, while at the same time attempting to gain the moral high ground of claiming my "INability to conduct a logical, informed, rational argument without resorting to insults" ?
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.
Now, what does it say of your own character ?
Am I not practising the same style as your preferred way of twisting logic on its own head, by insisting to avoid the issues raised and prefer to interpret statistics to suit your own manner of interpreting those data ?
It is no use to hide behind simple accusations of a single word 'DRIVEL' - and use it as a cover to be concise but inaccurate in extracting statements and points of facts, which only allow you to mislead and twist the issues to your own point of argument.
Am I being sneaky or have you shown your own expert deftness in this art form in your expert display of twisting issues to suit your own point of argument ?
Does it not speak volumes of your own integrity, to show off your own debased methods of libellously insulting the character of another forum participant, simply for the views held that are different from yours ?
My "prevarication, avoidance, resolve to evade truth " ?
If I am resolved to evade the truth, will I be continuing to participate in this very interesting and entertaining exchanges with you ?
At least I have the resolve to be accurate in addressing the full extract of both our postings in all my replies - an exercise which you prefer to dismiss as being "DRIVEL".
My "prevarication " is merely in response to your manner of twisting logic on its own head, and preferring to digress into your own preferred manner of interpreting data and historical events to suit your own points of view.
So much for your attempt to gain the moral high ground at being evidently condescendingly superior, while merely practicing the same debasing methods that you accuse others of performing.
Have you ever looked at yourself in the mirror and see any shadow behind you ?continuing post by TidalWave333:
Inconsistency on your part again? Forgetfulness on your part again? I did not say congestion will worsen on Saturdays.
Atobe writes
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 ?
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)
Ah so, now you are saying that : “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).”
Did you say anything at all - or were you simply practising the art of "DRIVEL" too, while accusing me of this fine art form ?
On that matter, I do not recall you addressing the questions that I raised on 10 September 2004 - 04:43A.M. - and which I am repeat it again. -
Part Three - Continuation 2
Tidalwave333 writes:
Yes, I still maintain that position of mine - "that traffic flow will get heavier" - and my question to you remain the same "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 ?"
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 replies:
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 Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays ?
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 ? )continuing post by TidalWave333:
I am amazed at your deftness in the art of prevarication, which you have so highly complimented me of having, when your own posts seems to reflect similar characteristics.
Did you try to convey your point of view that “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).” ?continuing post by TidalWave333:
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 writes
A psychological condition in desparately being right ?
Now I wonder if the condescending and superiority complex of yours, is now not on display despite your pitiful modest denial.
Me ? Ignorant of economic fact, simply on your say so ?
What a laugh for me that for someone who will make such a statement, when he is no better then a chamelion attempting to act different roles of an economist and a specialist in the English Language; and playing at this art form amateurishly, being nothing more then a mere copy of those who are more superior in this art form of character assassination towards opponents - who have the ability and daring to articulate private thoughts into prints.
Honestly - if one can trust you with it - what are you good at ?
If any attempts were made to disorientate others, it is yourself with the consistent dishonesty in partial and selected extractions of statements drawn out of context to suit your own private agenda of shamelessly denouncing others with open and honest views.continuing post by TidalWave333:
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 writes
Again 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 ?
Laugh by all means about the seriousness of household chores, it simply shows that you have UNLIKELY matured into the responsibility of having a wife, and the ability to help her with the heavy load of house hold chores.
You are the type who will prefer to enjoy the 'fruits' but not the 'labor' - what more can be said of you ?
Little wonder that you are so defensive of your ruling mentors, who will tolerate the obscenity of giving themselves the 10% raise amidst the debilation of 4.5% of the population still being unemployed (those who have been registered), and the economy not exactly 'zippiing' along.continuing post by TidalWave333:
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 writes
he 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.
Now, I wonder, has my influence been so overwhelming that you have now been caught up in this tautology fever ?
Tsk tsk tsk tsk !!! Shame on you for not practicing what you preach to others.
If this is not condescending superiority, what else is ?
Despite your arrogance with your limited vocabulary and inflexibility with the English Language, somehow this language remains relevant - having survived centuries of use, and with the daily expansion and flexibility of the language expanding to allow one to express oneself more effectively.
Try harder to be narrow minded, you may just be able to squeeze your grey matter in between the lines of these passages. -
Part 3 - continuation 3
continuing post by TidalWave333:
Ouch (again)! More insultsÂ…Â…Hahaha!
Atobe writes
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. 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!
Yes, ha ha ha and ha ha ha! One good turn deserves another.
At least I was more willing to give the over acclaimed e-Gov on-line service a try, unlike some who claims the ease of government on-line services but contradict himself by admitting his presence at the passport counter to renew his own passport.
What is the use of telling everyone that the Singapore Government's computerisation effort has won the accolade of international audit, when it is proven that it is not idiot-proof; and the irony of it all, is that an ardent government supporter will shy away from supporting the Government's call to use the e-Gov on-line service that has been put up at such a high expense ?
Now, I wonder who is exercising in the art of "prevarication, avoidance, resolve to evade truth" ?continuing post by TidalWave333:
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 writes
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 ?
Ho ho ho - so finally the 'ivory league' personna appear from the 'ivory tower'.
For a while I thought you were from the 'ivy league' community, who are at least more socially responsible NOT to be ignorant of the types of people appearing before the government counters.
Where have you been all these while ?
Since you claimed that the MRT is so convenient - and instead of merely taking my prevaricating words that try to avoid and evade the truth - why not zip across town by yourself, in any given weekday, and at least one Saturday, to visit the various Government and GLC counters (no longer Statutory Boards) just to see the average Singaporeans stuck in queus ?
For a start, try the counters at CPF, Post Office, Singapore Telecoms, PUB, URA, HDB, Inland Revenue, PWD, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Law, Supreme Court, Registrar of Companies, Prison Department - will this be enough for a start ? -
PART FOUROriginally posted by TidalWave333:
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.
and finally, PART FOUR
Atobe writes
you are into this exercise for the sake of producing 'verbage'Â…Â… This is the manner to teach autistic minds.
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 )
Even if you derive no joy with this bruising and insulting exchanges, it had filled my time over the last few days, which would have been an otherwise boring exchanges with the "slap on and glued stiff paper mache" types that believe themselves to be "sophisticated origami art forms".
Glad to know that you can imagine yourself getting any satisfaction in believing that you have been able to convince me with the twisted economic data, or self-espoused theories.
Some of the poorly constructed sentences are NOT made intentionally, but got mixed up when preparing my replies to your posts, while juggling with my email replies from across the globe in the wee hours of the morning.
If you believe that no substance has been said and no earnest attempt to produce concrete evidence had been demonstrated, you are quite right - as much has been said by me from memory of what I have read from different sources, and with the limited time span to stay relevant in my reply to you - and working on it between reply and work - I must admit that the quality has dropped.
Singapore Windows may not be the 'holy grail' but it at least is the best source of archived materials concerning events in Singapore - economics, politics, social - that I have been able to obtain freely.
To the best of my knowledge, it is apolitical in its agenda, as it stores all Singapore related information that include articles in support or critical of the Government.
Its sources are from all over the world, and offers some of the most insightful commentaries and news reports available concerning Singapore.
It is free and open to anyone - nobody is complaining.
With regards to its accuracy, you are at liberty to verify its articles from any other sources - as it does not claim responsibility or accuracy of the articles posted. -
For Atobe
PART ONE
It is interesting to note that for once, your NINE consecutive posts contained no new economic assertions, but focused almost entirely on insults and hostility. Is that a sign that you are finally learning itÂ’s best to remain silent unless one is familiar with oneÂ’s subject? Is that also a symptom of your growing enmity that someone actually dared challenge your economic ignorance with substantiated fact- instead of engaging in more offensive drivel?
ItÂ’s even more telling that you spent so much time writing nine consecutive posts that DO NOT address the inconsistencies and factual points I pointed out. Instead even more agitated denunciation, and distasteful name-calling is produced.
Your animosity is puzzling at some levels. What could have hit at your nerves to such an extent when I have hardly retaliated by sinking to your level and handling you with kid gloves? What caused you to blow your top that you resorted to nine long pompous posts of haranguing? Did it hurt that much? Did producing facts puncture your spleen so much so that your hatred, anger, sarcasm exploded without control?
One can only surmise that unable to stem the tide of facts that exposed your self-serving agenda of inaccurate/ignorant economic figures and hateful anti-government propaganda, you resorted to the basest of all human instincts: if you canÂ’t attack factual economic statistics, attack the messenger instead!
Condemn the messengerÂ’s integrity (!), set on him with derision (!). That way, other readers will hopefully forget your previous wrong statistics, poor understanding of economic issues, and inadequate vocabulary.
And maybe if you are lucky, you might even arouse some scornful pity for being the self-deluded, mentally deficient character that you are!
I cannot possibly be all things to you. First, you implicitly suggested I am a government agent, subsequently I became a bootlicker. In this series of long posts, I have been promoted- I am now a mentee of the government (mentored by some high-ranking, all-powerful cabinet minister in your crazy deluded fantasies perhaps.) How many times have you used the label?
You should ask yourself why it has become more urgent to you that I be portrayed as such. Or question yourself why itÂ’s intolerable to you for anyone who dares hold an opposing view. To salvage your shredded reputation on economics? Lest others treat you with skepticism and contempt when you post another Temasek/GLC entry with your pseudo-intellectual assertions? Makes interesting contemplation doesnÂ’t it?
As usual I wonÂ’t bother responding to your juvenile and petty insults (which will of course shorten the number of my posts considerably) but look at other things you said instead:
Atobe writesIf acknowledging a remark is insufficient "admission" or representative of an "expressed recognition" to your position, what are you looking for ?
Acknowledging a remark is different from admitting you are wrong. If one murders another, it means different things
A clear apology, accompanied by 3 "kowtows", and perhaps compensation to redress an offense to your sensibilities ?
(1) when the murderer says “I hear what you are saying” (acknowledging the remark), than
(2) when the murderer says “I killed the person” (admitting one’s wrong-doing).
Similarly, I no longer expect you to admit you are wrong when you equated getting Saturdays off as working fewer hours for the same or more same money.
But intellectually, (since I now suspect you are genuinely unable to comprehend the difference), you may wish to know that acknowledging what I have said is different from admitting you are wrong.
Atobe writesAmazing level of intelligence in being able to discern such sense from my post.
Insult. Ignore.
Atobe writesTo be more specific, what is all the fanfare about that is given to LHL ?
I do not know what fanfare you are referring to. Merely that civil servants welcome the fact that they no longer have to work on Saturdays like many in the private sector.
All the fanfare and hullabaloo for merely changing the working arrangement of a Government that remained stubbornly to a 6-day week since independence ?
Atobe writesIt would have been a more credible effort on the part of LHL if he had shattered the manner in which the Ruling Party utilise their legal position to legislate laws to monopolises the Center Stage, and prevent Opposition Parties from any room to grow amongst the Singapore Community.
Again, digressing from the topic at hand and taking up space with irrelevant remarks. What has this got to do with a discussion on civil service working hours? I have no wish to comment on, or console you on your personal frustrations. Perhaps you should speak to your MP or join an opposition party.
Atobe writesThis was brought up to merely reinforce my point that LHL's announcement of a 6-day week to a 5-day week, without any change to the total work hours for the week, is typical of the Government's methods:
I have already addressed why shortening work hours is NOT the way to go in previous posts. I have also quoted examples from the West, esp. the EU where extending working hours is crucial to maintaining competitiveness. They are learning too late that the economy is losing out- badly. These are not offhand remarks on my part, but reality. Under European Union rules, 48 working hours is the maximum legal limit, and controversy over a new act to change this is NOT because workers want to work shorter hours, but because they are PREVENTED FROM WORKING LONGER if they wish to. (See http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=19&aid=17276). Your attempt to portray the government as being out-of-sync with labour reforms elsewhere is ignorant to say the least.
"Give a little, and take back some, if not MORE" - then make a big hullabaloo about the change, as if it is some fantasy come true; when all along, the Private Sector has been practising 5-day week and with some working even shorter hours, as well as being more progressive in work policies by allowing flexi-hours.
More importantly, the move is not even about shortening work hours, it is about giving families more weekend time without sacrificing national competitiveness. This is NOT simply government propaganda (you wouldnÂ’t want hundred of thousands of jobs to be lost from Singapore to others, would you?), but striking a balance between family and career? Unless you are obtuse, which person wouldnÂ’t welcome having an entire Saturday off, by working 30-60 mins more per weekday? 9 hours Mon-Fri (45 hours) OR 8 hours Mon-Fri (40 hours) and 5 hours on Sat? No doubt workaholics may despair, but the majority will not. -
PART TWO
Atobe writesFor someone who demand high standards of specific accuracy, you will now assume yourself to be LHL ?
I don’t understand why you insist I am LHL, or why I aspire to become LHL. Is this my next “promotion” after being labeled a “government mentee” in this post? (Hahaha! )
To refresh your failing memory, this is what I said in my previous post (12 September 2004):
“Again, a similar question should be posed to you: When did you reach the conclusion I was aspiring to fill LHL’s shoes, or anyone’s shoes for that matter?”
No further comment.
Atobe writesIf you fail to see the effects to working "Housewives" and prefer to hide behind the defence of accurate usage and choice of terms, is this not an exercise in a "game of semantics".
I provided dictionary meanings of the common noun ‘housewife’ to you. There is NO such label as a “working housewife”. If you can even quarrel with formal lexical meanings that correct the wrong usage of a word on your part, there really is very little one can do to correct your self-delusions and invention of new meanings. If you insist the main occupation of a housewife is a fulltime career out of the home, and NOT household chores, I suggest you check the dictionary yourself, or speak to a knowledgeable friend. Or better still, ask a child, or your neighbour! I suspect they will be able to tell you immediately the meaning of ‘housewife’ (hahaha!)
Atobe writesHow can you be able to understand the difficulties of a working "HOUSEWIFE" - if you are not married ?
Married ladies who work out of the home are by definition not ‘housewives’ regardless of their economic situation. See above response or refer to dictionary meanings provided in my posts on 12 September 2004.
Even if you are married but is able to afford the luxury of a higher standard of living, will your working "HOUSEWIFE" need to perform any household chores similar to that of a working "HOUSEWIFE" from a Lower Income Group.
The English Language will allow greater tolerance and flexibility in the manner it is used.
Dogma has its place and time.
If I prefer the choice of using the term working "HOUSEWIFE - it carries the meaning more accurately then the simplistic term of a "working mother" or a mere "working woman".
Using words correctly is not dogma. (Do you know the lexical meaning of ‘dogma’ by the way? Check the dictionary yourself.) Unfortunately, you are no poet or literary figure and hence cannot claim poetic licence. I suggest you stick to using words as they are meant to be used, instead of being ‘creative’ and trying to scam your way into making others accept your new invention. As it is, the only person who has been deceived by your tedious argument is you.
By the way, I have yet to hear from you how one distinguishes ‘serious house chores’ from the non-serious, or what a ‘serious house chore’ IS to begin with. Or do you hope that others will forget another of your new and original vocabulary invention?
Atobe writesVery professional in quoting the limited sentence from my full text, and using the same one sentence out of context, make some comedy from this and end up with sarcarsm ?
You brought up three factors explaining how other countries have a head start in resolving unemployment. I responded using the same factors. But as usual, you were unable to respond directly with fact or statistics. Instead you preferred to engage in another round of insults. What is clear to me is not what has been said, but what HASNÂ’T. Why else would one refrain from responding maturely with concrete facts, preferring juvenile instincts? Instead of targeting the CONTENT of my reply, why do you choose to target the person who provided the economic statistics and figures? Says a lot about you again.
Is there no counter to what was posted, except a weak explanation to all that have been posted in my response ? Is that all a trained mind is capable of when faced with a reply that punctured your original stand ?
Atobe writesIf the population size of India or China is ten times bigger then Singapore, will not the percentage of unemployment become even more significantly larger, without necessarily to be in the same proportion.
As with all other economic questions you ask me, the answer is NO. It doesn’t mean the larger the population, the percentage will become ‘significantly larger’. (Think USA or UK). What percentages tell us is the ratio of the unemployed compared to the employed in a country.
‘without necessarily to be in the same proportion’ is another one of those meaningless and vague qualifiers that you use to mislead. Same old tactic will not work twice old boy.
YOU are the one who said territorial and population size are advantages in ‘flexibility of policy’. YOU are the one who brought up the examples of China and India. Unfortunately, we have neither seen examples of how territorial and population sizes have demonstrated this ‘flexibility’ from concrete evidence, nor have your economic cliches of China and India said anything more about them curbing high unemployment rates.
Atobe writesÂ…Â…..when compared to the acknowledged natural limited characteristics that is quite unique to small countries like Singapore.
Did you read the article from the Economist I provided for you. What has the past 39 years proven about Singapore? LetÂ’s see historical evidence, and current economic realities, instead of your endless speculations.
While Switzerland is similar in size to Singapore, it is able to hold its head above water, as it has access to the European CommunityÂ…Â…Â…
I am glad you did not state in words that Switzerland is part of the EU, otherwise that would be providing me with another entry in your list of ignorant statements. You canÂ’t be referring to the territorial size of Switzerland of course, and the population size of Switzerland is almost twice that of SingaporeÂ’s at 7.4 million. But your ignorance still shows in many ways.
(a)Switzerland has few natural resources like Singapore (unless one counts timber). It is also landlocked with no natural harbour or a strategic geographical position unlike Singapore. Referring to Singapore’s ‘natural limited characteristics’ and then using Switzerland as a basis of contrast is telling. Like Singapore, Switzerland did not allow itself to be ‘limited’ by its lack of ‘natural characteristics’ (Your choice of words is amusing!) – instead it sought to leverage on its financial and manufacturing capabilities. Similarly, Singapore has not allowed itself to be limited by its lack of natural resources, or land size, but has developed its capacities in other areas. Its success over three decades is evident.
(b)Switerland’s ‘access’ to the European community is underpinned by the FTA of 1972, and another seven agreements in 1980. Following your logic that success is guaranteed by market access and FTAs, we must then conclude that Singapore with its many FTAs with US, Japan , Australia, NZ, Chile etc etc, EFTA (wtih Switzerland Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein) and its membership in the ASEAN Free Trade Area with 500 million people will perform the same miracle for us. How does that make Singapore and Switzerland different from your simplistic logic then?
Atobe writesKudos for the comprehensive knowledge that you have been able to display on the points posted that generally summarises the problems that I have been too simplistic in thinking that it is too much for you to cope.
Oh, I am temporarily disarmed! A complimentÂ…..and an acknowledgement of error on your part!
I was probably wrong in assessing your ability too soon. -
PART THREE
Atobe writesWhile the values of currencies maybe measured against Trade Weighted Index, it nevertheless showed up the weakness of Singapore's position in our own Singapore Dollar weakening so rapidly, when the Australia's Dollar managed to climb in value during the same period from 2002-2003.
Ahhh! Back to your old ways! No explicit admission of error that you were wrong in stating that the AUD currency rose 30% against the SGD. Just ‘acknowledgement’ again? (hahaha!
Leaving aside those countries who do not wish to have their currencies exposed to the volatality of market forces, and prefer to pegged it at a fixed rate to other stronger currencies, it already is available and serves as a good indicator of economic performance. )
The SGD is traded between a narrow undisclosed band and managed against a basket of other currencies. It will not appreciate to its true market value (since internationally it is considered undervalued like the Chinese yuan or Malaysian ringgit- see EIC reports for e.g) because that will make our exports too expensive. So the SGD did not “weaken so rapidly” (unlike the Thai baht or Indonesian ruppiah) in the past, neither will it strengthen rapidly in the future. Currency values are of course affected by forex speculations, which is why central banks of various countries spend millions (in the case of Japan’s Central Bank) to keep it within their desired range. Many countries, especially in Asia prefer their currencies remain ‘competitive’ compared to the USD in fact. It is NOT a real or true indicator of economic performance. Get it?
Atobe writesKudos for your effort to whitewash your own weakness by attempting to make such a light weight claim of my errors - that is seen largely from your own point of views ?
For someone who has difficulty understanding economics and writing in proper English, your attempts to accuse me of ‘whitewash’ing (the origins of Singapore’s economic downturn) is laughable. If you disagree with my statement that……
Such is the danger of arrogance of one man's opinionated views that are imposed on others, simply because he cannot agree with the differing opinions from others.
Try harder at your imitative efforts - you are just only a few hundred steps away, but will always not be in any position to catch up, if you only can imitate and not innovate your own style.
With all your high brow opinions, it certainly reveal a shallow understanding of the events that had passed.
“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.”
....why don’t you challenge those figures or state the origins of economic slump from ‘your perspective’? Why do you ignore statistics? And more importantly, why do you spend the NEXT SIX PARAGRAPHS in more meaningless drivel and insults? Again, no other comment on the real issues at hand, besides personal attacks (hahaaha! )
It’s ironical- you insist that official statistics are merely ‘my own point of view’ but you do not present counter arguments and statistics to disprove them. Merely more insults.
Atobe writesIf anything at all, the Asian Financial debacle hastened the global economic crisis, and although Singapore had withstood the pressures of the currency crisis in this Asian Financial debacle, it had to suffer the after-shocks that had to come with a slow down of the neighboring economies that it is tied to, and to the global plug that is already weak, and further weakened when the major 'Asian Tigers' were knocked down by the financial crisis that swamped them - one after the other, in rapid succession
AhhÂ…finally something sensible and reasonable. But this position you take is far different from your decidedly strident position much earlier:
“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.” (13 September 2004)
Woah!!!! You had the great foresight to predict the Asian financial crisis TEN TEARS BEFORE it actually happened…all without any statistics too! Just making links from one proposal to another and finally drawing “logical” conclusions. Do us a favour, join the MAS or become a temple medium. (hehe ) You really have no shame portraying yourself as an economic czar (despite your evident limitations), better than the economists, analysts and government officials from around the world put together, don't you?
So, on 13 September, the "Financial Crisis of 1997 crashed onto us" but hold on(!) today (16 September) you say “Singapore had withstood the pressures of the currency crisis in this Asian Financial debacle”???
Another example of your well-documented mode of inconsistency?? Shifting subtle but important perspectives from post-to-post?
Make up your mind as to whether the crisis affected Singapore directly or not!!
Otherwise, itÂ’s very difficult to conduct a rational and logical discussion.
Atobe writesProviding facts that are based on your own interpretation, and expect everyone to believe that your interpretation is the right one ?
A fact is not based on ‘interpretation’. It is reality, actuality, truth.
An interpretation is ultimately one’s opinion. It is one’s conceptualization. I expect everyone to believe facts, but they have a choice of whether to accept my ‘interpretation’.
Again, refer to the dictionary if you canÂ’t use words clearly, and refrain from accusing me of semantic games as you typically do when presented with errors in language use.
Atobe writesIs it wrong for me to adopt a modest position, than to be a show-off with the arrogant pomposity that you display - in thinking that you are qualified to knock me out with misleading interpretation of events that you claim to be facts - just because of your say so.
See above reply. And perhaps point out a few concrete examples when you make accusations.
Atobe writesBruised ego ? Is yours bruised, and trying to make a vain attempt to turn the table on me, just to have a laugh ?
Cheap insult. Ignore.
Atobe writesAbout time you grow up a little more.
Cheap insult. Ignore.
Atobe writesShould I be replying to someone whose only agenda is not to have a debate but is only interested in competing for the imaginary spotlight of public glory ?
Correcting you is unfortunately not an Olympic sport. -
PART FOUR
Atobe writesSurely, you are not serious in wanting to know more of my views about this subject about "liberal globalization”
There is no such label as ‘liberal globalization’. Anyone who is versed in the discipline of globalization, Third Wave politics or S. Huntington will tell you that. Ignorant as usual.
Atobe writesThen again, with the Singapore educational foundation of "rote learning" and "spoon feeding", can anyone be blamed if they need to be constantly guided along.
These clichés about Singaporean education seem to pop up periodically, as does the cliché about achieving the Swiss standard of living. Pray tell, are you NOT a product of the Singaporean education system? Which esteemed foreign institution did you graduate from? Will you kindly enlighten us? Which esteemed foreign institution taught you economics? I won’t bother listing all the mistakes in economics and illogical/tautological statements you made. If you ARE a product of Singapore’s education system, I wonder where you place yourself with your vehement, spiteful denunciations and blanket condemnation of Singapore’s educational system. It’s so convenient ignoring ALL educational reforms, or changes that have been made isn’t it?
As for your lapping up on labels such as ‘spoon feeding’ and ‘rote learning’….they are merely convenient and easy weapons used by Western critics. Of course, it’s easy to understand why someone like you take them up so readily – they suit your agenda perfectly. I wonder if the equally competitive education systems in Japan and South Korea which are also regularly noted for ‘rote-learning’ and ‘spoon feeding’, and endless cram classes and long hours earned your contempt and are equally despised too…despite the success stories from those countries.
Similarly, it would be quite pointless to point out the international results of the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS). For other readers of this thread, you may wish to look at http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/96/1213/nat8.html and http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/rvp/pubaf/chronicle/v5/N27/timss.html
Atobe writesMy "prevarication" is merely in response to your manner of twisting logic on its own head, and preferring to digress into your own preferred manner of interpreting data and historical events to suit your own points of view.
Excerpts of more personal attacks. WowÂ…..outdoing yourself in the insult department here! TWELVE paragraphs of pure spite and hostility (lol!)
So much for your attempt to gain the moral high ground at being evidently condescendingly superior, while merely practicing the same debasing methods that you accuse others of performing. , and not a single example to demonstrate where I have wronged you when I called you IGNORANT.
Atobe writesYes, I still maintain that position of mine - "that traffic flow will get heavier" - and my question to you remain the same "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 didnÂ’t say traffic will worsen (or improve) with Saturdays off. I maintain that traffic has always been bad on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. Perhaps if you want to insist on a position, you should be the one to substantiate it. Show us your rigorous and methodological studies. Otherwise refrain from forcing your speculative assumptions down the throats of others.
Atobe writesMe ? Ignorant of economic fact, simply on your say so ?
No, proven repeatedly- again and again. Not just based on statistics, but also technical terms, and economic understanding. Again, too many to list, scroll back to previous posts.
Atobe writesWhat a laugh for me that for someone who will make such a statement, when he is no better then a chamelion attempting to act different roles of an economist and a specialist in the English Language; and playing at this art form amateurishly, being nothing more then a mere copy of those who are more superior in this art form of character assassination towards opponents - who have the ability and daring to articulate private thoughts into prints.
LOL.
Honestly - if one can trust you with it - what are you good at ? More spiteful personal attacks. But I have to resist sinking to your contemptible level.
What am I good at? How about I get statistics right, and you donÂ’t? Let me search for one example:
Atobe says “Singapore's economy performed below 1% in 2003”
Tidalwave says “Wrong again. To be really picky (since you prefer precision), 2003's growth rate was 1.1% (above official forecasts of 0.8%)”
Atobe writesLaugh by all means about the seriousness of household chores, it simply shows that you have UNLIKELY matured into the responsibility of having a wife, and the ability to help her with the heavy load of house hold chores.
So you finally say something about ‘serious household chores’ But again, what chores are serious, and what are not serious? Pray tell.
Atobe writesDespite your arrogance with your limited vocabulary and inflexibility with the English Language, somehow this language remains relevant - having survived centuries of use, and with the daily expansion and flexibility of the language expanding to allow one to express oneself more effectively.
Drivel…drivel…insult…insult….where is the ‘real stuff’ anyway? When are you going to address inconsistencies and errors on your part besides more spite and hate? Tsk tsk!
Try harder to be narrow minded, you may just be able to squeeze your grey matter in between the lines of these passages.
Atobe writesWhat is the use of telling everyone that the Singapore Government's computerisation effort has won the accolade of international audit, when it is proven that it is not idiot-proof; and the irony of it all, is that an ardent government supporter will shy away from supporting the Government's call to use the e-Gov on-line service that has been put up at such a high expense ?
I am sure you will find fault regardless of what has been done/is being done. Not even highly regarded international surveys by EIC/IBM will convince you. Your vengeful agenda against all things government cannot be possibly be distracted by rigorous surveys, fact and calm. -
PART FIVE
Atobe writesSince you claimed that the MRT is so convenient - and instead of merely taking my prevaricating words that try to avoid and evade the truth - why not zip across town by yourself, in any given weekday, and at least one Saturday, to visit the various Government and GLC counters (no longer Statutory Boards) just to see the average Singaporeans stuck in queus ?
I have ‘zipped across town’, but I have not foolishly spent 6 hours and $24 in parking to renew my passport unlike someone here. Unfortunately, my kind advice to you to save time and money is unappreciated. (heh)
For a start, try the counters at CPF, Post Office, Singapore Telecoms, PUB, URA, HDB, Ministry of Inland Revenue, PWD, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Law, Supreme Court, Registrar of Companies, Prison Department - will this be enough for a start ? . And these places you mentioned…you visit them weekly? You apply for flats with HDB regularly? You pay taxes weekly at IRA (there is no ‘Ministry of Inland Revenue' (haha!), only Ministry of Finance)? You attend court cases regularly at the Supreme Court? Or you have some friend or relative in prison? Are these places ordinary people go to WEEKLY or on a regular basis, especially on Saturdays?? So far, I don’t think anyone would agree with you?
Atobe writesGlad to know that you can imagine yourself getting any satisfaction in believing that you have been able to convince me with the twisted economic data, or self-espoused theories.
Which data of mine is ‘twisted’? Actually they are not MY data, but figures and statistics from government websites, economic agency reports and the likes. I do not make them up. All of these facts have their sources acknowledged, and some even have url links provided for your convenience. Easy for you to brush them off dismissively, but I am sure more astute readers of this thread have referred to them, and read up for themselves.
Atobe writesSingapore Windows may not be the 'holy grail' but it at least is the best source of archived materials concerning events in Singapore - economics, politics, social - that I have been able to obtain freely.
Your knowledge is obviously flawed. Common sense will tell you that there are MANY sources of information. Reading from ONE source gives you ONE- sided perspectives. Enough said.
To the best of my knowledge, it is apolitical in its agenda, as it stores all Singapore related information that include articles in support or critical of the Government.
It is interesting why you are unable to focus on content in your arguments, preferring to launch long, verbose personal attacks instead over nine long posts. I pity you- lacking in real substance, you only have insults to soothe your bruised ego and exposed ignorance.
That should not be surprising however. You are well-known around here for your lack of decorum as evidenced from many threads on different subjects. Anyone who differs from your views are immediately labelled negatively and abused. It would be just as easy for me to think of a few choice words to describe you (but I refrain from doing so of course). If you want to label me 'ignorant', show me a few factual errors, either in policy detail or statistical detail. If you can't do that, it's merely an opinion you disagree with. Sweeping generalisations (Singapore doomed, Singapore's education all bad, younger Singaporeans all brainwashed, everyone has been indoctrinated while Atobe is the only one thinking etc) merely reflect your lack of maturity and your inability to persuade with calm logic, rationale and consistency. Afterall, aren't you the one intending to migrate? For all we know...you may be in the pockets of foreign organizations already..out to stir things up here for some fun. Who knows?
I am portrayed as pro-government, simply because my views converge more with the government's than yours? Your spiteful rhetoric and name-calling shows you are certainly affected by it. If you are so capable and self-righteous, why don't you focus on what I have said, instead of engaging in juvenile personal attacks? Do you fancy yourself as some leading opposition figure, even though no one has labelled you as such yet? Or do you imagine yourself to be the guardian of truth, and others who dissent from your views as traitors to your 'true cause'?
Unfortunately you are neither. Venting your personal frustrations in such a manner merely invites further ridicule and contempt.
(Wow, I completed my response in just 5 posts!) -
Readers of this thread will be aware of the exchange between Atobe and I. Short on rationale, consistency and calm (I won't call him a F**L yet), he has persevered in his personal attacks. One particular theme- accusing me of being a mentee is my favourite. Here presented for your laughs, amusement (and contempt) are my top nine favourites presented in the David Letterman style! Enjoy!!! LOL
TOP NINE ‘MENTOR’ INSULTS FROM ATOBE
NINE!
Perhaps, you should ask your "mentors" the same questions, as they seem to be ardent supporters of a more liberal trade environment based on a global grid.
EIGHT!
Are my views too jarring for your senses that seems only able to hear the directions of your mentors only ?
SEVEN!
Again, you have learnt well the methods of your mentors in the Ruling Party in debating with those who hold opposing views.
SIX!
Wow, you have certainly picked up more then a fair bit from your beloved mentors whom you are protecting so diligently.
FIVE!
wonder if you have found my critique and expose of your beloved Ruling Party to be too irritating that you cannot resist but make an attempt to practise the style of your beloved mentors in trying to denounce my opinions ?
FOUR!
Even your language used is a clear sign of plagiarism of the language used by your political mentors in describing some of the luminaires from the Opposition side
THREE!
You certainly have learnt well from your mentor:
"A LIE repeated often enough, will become the TRUTH" - unfortunately, for you there are people like myself, who are willing to cry out with honesty and expose the lies that exist.
TWO!
Try harder to be at least the shadow of your 'mentor' before appearing in the spotlight of this forum with your haughty and insolent attitude towards other opinions that are more honest and original
AND MY ALL-TIME FAVOURITE ‘MENTOR’ INSULT FROM ATOBE…….ONE!
My sarcasm was more in response to your arrogance and pomposity, and your childishness in your attempts to copy the methods of your mentors from the ruling party in your vain attempt to deride my personna!.
I think Atobe has secret aspirations to become a mentor of some new political party one day. LOL! Have a good weekend! -
Originally posted by TidalWave333:
i remember i was arguing with atobe on something in another thread when i had to stay away for a while, when i cam back i was about to start it up again when i remember something ,
[b]PART FIVE
That should not be surprising however. You are well-known around here for your lack of decorum as evidenced from many threads on different subjects. Anyone who differs from your views are immediately labelled negatively and abused. It would be just as easy for me to think of a few choice words to describe you (but I refrain from doing so of course).
[/b]
"if you have nothing good to say, don't say anything"
and since all i'm doing is trading insults with him(more for hm actually) i decided to keep my trap shut, no point trying to talk sense into someone barking like a mad dog, one that would only bite if disturbed -
Originally posted by TidalWave333:
Quite a mouthful of retorts that stretched across NINE paragraphs, but only to fizzle out without even a bang, and merely attempt to salvage your wounded pride with anger and hypocritical statements that contradict all that you have so eloquently tried to display:
For Atobe
It is interesting to note that for once, your NINE consecutive posts contained no new economic assertions, but focused almost entirely on insults and hostility. Is that a sign that you are finally learning itÂ’s best to remain silent unless one is familiar with oneÂ’s subject? Is that also a symptom of your growing enmity that someone actually dared challenge your economic ignorance with substantiated fact- instead of engaging in more offensive drivel?
ItÂ’s even more telling that you spent so much time writing nine consecutive posts that DO NOT address the inconsistencies and factual points I pointed out. Instead even more agitated denunciation, and distasteful name-calling is produced.
Your animosity is puzzling at some levels. What could have hit at your nerves to such an extent when I have hardly retaliated by sinking to your level and handling you with kid gloves? What caused you to blow your top that you resorted to nine long pompous posts of haranguing? Did it hurt that much? Did producing facts puncture your spleen so much so that your hatred, anger, sarcasm exploded without control?
One can only surmise that unable to stem the tide of facts that exposed your self-serving agenda of inaccurate/ignorant economic figures and hateful anti-government propaganda, you resorted to the basest of all human instincts: if you canÂ’t attack factual economic statistics, attack the messenger instead!
Condemn the messengerÂ’s integrity (!), set on him with derision (!). That way, other readers will hopefully forget your previous wrong statistics, poor understanding of economic issues, and inadequate vocabulary.
And maybe if you are lucky, you might even arouse some scornful pity for being the self-deluded, mentally deficient character that you are!
I cannot possibly be all things to you. First, you implicitly suggested I am a government agent, subsequently I became a bootlicker. In this series of long posts, I have been promoted- I am now a mentee of the government (mentored by some high-ranking, all-powerful cabinet minister in your crazy deluded fantasies perhaps.) How many times have you used the label?
You should ask yourself why it has become more urgent to you that I be portrayed as such. Or question yourself why itÂ’s intolerable to you for anyone who dares hold an opposing view. To salvage your shredded reputation on economics? Lest others treat you with skepticism and contempt when you post another Temasek/GLC entry with your pseudo-intellectual assertions? Makes interesting contemplation doesnÂ’t it?
As usual I wonÂ’t bother responding to your juvenile and petty insults (which will of course shorten the number of my posts considerably) but look at other things you said instead:Extract from the last paragraph of post by Tidalwave333:
Somewhere in my nine consecutive posts, somethings must have hurt your pride so much for you to react with such intense venom; or is this your avarice for grand public recognition - even in this ‘little sgForum' - to your unacknowledged ability that would otherwise remain unappreciated in your own private environment ?
“As usual I won’t bother responding to your juvenile and petty insults (which will of course shorten the number of my posts considerably) …. “
Tsk, tsk, tsk, so much pent up vitriolic energy finally released to expose the true persona that have been hiding behind a thin veil of supposed decency, while adept in the expert use of deceit to soften the arrogant and pompous insults laced with acidic sarcasm.
Who are you trying to con by passing yourself off as a gentleman of words and economic knowledge, while suppressing your vitriolic frustrations with measured release of spite and ridicule ?
Is there is any decorum left to hide your true nature with this nakedly blatant display of sheer condescending arrogance to impress others with your circumscribed knowledge in economic theories that are hardly sought by anyone for any practical use ?
This probably explains for your need to have a grand standing display in this sgForum in your attempt to build a grand stage in a small corner of economic issues.
Fortunately, political leaders with grander visions are not locked in by such a fixated mentality, and have the opportunity of utilizing specially bred economic technocrats to labor and diligently attend to all the assigned biddings.
Economists hardly make good politicians, as seen from the inflexibility and preferences to handicap yourself to act only on collated statistics and raw data that are processed and presented to suit the required output, a mind that is bred to handle only orderly input-output, set dogmas, concepts and academic principles that prevent you even from challenging what has been determined by Others before your pitiful arrival.
Have you made any impact as a trained economist, other then being a mere technocrat to do the biddings of your political masters ?
Do you qualify to pass judgment to my understanding of economic concepts, when your economic experience is constrained to the closeted environment of your work area ?
Other then a good command of the English Language – which you have a pervers narrow insistence of its use that prevent the Language from blossoming to its fuller glory – is there any basis that qualify you to pass pompous judgment on the correctness of the use of the language ?
It is pure childishness to walk away from this exchange by simply hiding behind limp insults and hollow accusations.
Was the truth of my “NINE consecutive posts so hurtful that exposes your own errors resulting in your preference to shy away form further cuts to your pride ?
How clever to simply sweep the other FOUR posts – out of the NINE consecutive postings – which you claimed to be irrelevant, and will yet respond with ridicule and scorn on minor issues in your remaining FIVE posts ?
Were the other missing FOUR posts too truthful for your liking, or you simply wish to dictate the pace and agenda of our exchange ?
I am truly amazed that an educated mind can take so much pride – in making acclamation of grand achievement in reducing the replies to only FIVE Posts, while expertly sweeping the remaining Four “under the carpet”.
Was there any need for any decorum on my part, when you resort deceitfully to arrogant insults and pompous ridicule – all disguised in a seemingly high browed presentation of supposed facts and statistics that you prefer to bend to suit your own interpretations ?
At least, I was more honest to call “a spade as what I see it is – A Spade”.
As for the display in your ability to count backwards the number of reference to the word “Mentor” – it certainly confirmed your infantile and juvenile approach with your attempts at not engaging on the issues, but more keen to knock my persona while pretending to sit on your “high horse ” of overwhelming self-acclaimed qualification.
Now I begin to wonder if your vitriolic and persistent tenacity in your approach is not due to your being directly affected and bruised by all my posting in this sgForums? Or are your actions being directed ?
The TRUTH certainly HURTS when spoken clearly by a ‘small fry’ like an ordinary Singapore Citizen such as myself.
At least I do not need to use “ QUALIFIED Men to repeat a LIE often enough to make the LIE appear to become the TRUTH “ - I simply present my honest views as I see the events before me.
You certainly have been well bred, and is a clear example of a 'full stomach dulling the mind' - can you stand up and even know who have actually brought you up to where you are today ?
Will you claim that it was the effort of 'PAPa' or your own birth-parents ? -
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
How cowardly can you be - letting someone more capable than you to do your dirty job ?
i remember i was arguing with atobe on something in another thread when i had to stay away for a while, when i cam back i was about to start it up again when i remember something ,
"if you have nothing good to say, don't say anything"
and since all i'm doing is trading insults with him(more for hm actually) i decided to keep my trap shut, no point trying to talk sense into someone barking like a mad dog, one that would only bite if disturbed
Some friendship you try to tickle out of him ?
Looks like you still have not learnt the lesson that you have stated above:-
'Let sleeping dogs lie'. -
i see your manner of posting have not change one bit, you start with an insult and you end with a taunt,Originally posted by Atobe:How cowardly can you be - letting someone more capable than you to do your dirty job ?
Some friendship you try to tickle out of him ?
Looks like you still have not learnt the lesson that you have stated above:-
'Let sleeping dogs lie'.
you make me thankful that my parents at least gave me a proper upbringing in human relationships
as for being cowardly , i do not get what you mean about letting someone more capable than me to do my dirty job ?
i do not see any dirty jobs that need to be done, nor do i see how i have shown any cowardly behaviour
as for friendship, i do not even know anything about tidalwave to amount to even speak of an ounce of friendship between us
as for the above lesson, i don't see how i have forgotten it, since my post was directed towards tidalwave and not to you, but you're welcome to state your comments on it since this is a forum and all views are open to discussion -
PART ONE
My Dearest Atobe,
You made so many mistaken and hostile assumptions about me that I was momentarily caught off-guard. Really, is there a need to endure so much pent-up anger, and animosity just because I corrected you on a list of economic facts, and vocabulary?
After all, it’s not like I made anything up. Everything I pointed out can be easily confirmed in newspapers, academic texts and journals, or your primary school assessment books. If you find it difficult to accept economic statistics and numbers, check them yourself. If you are unable to grasp the lexical meaning of ‘housewife’, use the dictionary. If you do not understand what ‘tautology’ is, ask an educated friend.
In fact, you are quite free to disregard all my corrections. No one can be forced to learn, especially if one thinks admitting wrong and learning from oneÂ’s mistakes is to suffer the ignominy and humiliation of being labeled an ignoramus.
So has it come to this? Is this the disappointing conclusion to your valiant attempts to write intellectually, albeit with thinly-disguised antagonism? Have you finally discarded all semblance of propriety, only to replace it with a barrage of indulgent and self-righteous doggrel?
Is this your implicit declaration of defeat- you can no longer meet a challenge based on fact and logic, and your only weapon left is a full and unreserved tirade of insult, abuse and contemptuous rudeness? Is it worth your time and integrity to make such a sacrifice, even though the end-result ultimately demeans you?
Your big and worthless load of verbal garbage does you ill-well. Your harangue was becoming addictive for me, but I suppose all good things must come to an end. The realization you are poorly-read must come as a shock, especially when you hold such faith in your inherent superiority as to pay no attention to the opinions and sensitivities of others. -
PART TWO
....continuation of post to Dearest Atobe....
Atobe writesTsk, tsk, tsk, so much pent up vitriolic energy finally released to expose the true persona that have been hiding behind a thin veil of supposed decency, while adept in the expert use of deceit to soften the arrogant and pompous insults laced with acidic sarcasm.
I am not worthy of such praise from one who holds himself up in such esteem as a master of abuse and sarcasm. I remember the malicious pleasure you felt when YOU DECLARED to everyone here on 21 August 2004, 4:04pm:
"Sarcasm, insults and abuses are nothing new in debate; and depends very much in the art of delivery that is important - whether it is done artfully and delivered with a certain degree of finesse, style and sophistication; or in simple crude and gutter language, which should be rejected."
How can I possibly match your arrogance when I have only spoken in measured tones, and consciously refrained from pompous insults? I tolerated your abusive remarks and personal frustrations in good humour. Even this post is bereft of hostility.
Atobe writesWho are you trying to con by passing yourself off as a gentleman of words and economic knowledge, while suppressing your vitriolic frustrations with measured release of spite and ridicule ? Have you made any impact as a trained economist, other then being a mere technocrat to do the biddings of your political masters?
I do not profess to be a gentleman of words. I do not aspire to fill LHLÂ’s (or anyone elseÂ’s) shoes. In no sentence have I declared myself to be a (trained) economist, a technocrat, a civil servant or a politician. Those are your silly delusions. In your rage, you were unconsciously influenced by the questions of others, and allowed what little sanity you possessed to be clouded by ridiculous thoughts. Why do you presume I am so many things simultaneously? (hahaha! )
Atobe writesOther then a good command of the English Language – which you have a pervers narrow insistence of its use that prevent the Language from blossoming to its fuller glory – is there any basis that qualify you to pass pompous judgment on the correctness of the use of the language ?
My response is an unqualified YES! You make two contradictory statements- you note that I have a ‘good command of the English Language’ and then proceed to ask how I am qualified to pass judgment on the correct use of the language. It’s simple- you have difficulty differentiating lexemes (‘than’ NOT ‘then’), spelling correctly (‘perverse’ NOT ‘pervers’), using grammar (‘qualifies’ NOT ‘qualify’), and writing fluently (‘correct use of the language’ NOT ‘correctNESS OF THE use of the language’). Four errors in one sentence! Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! I guess I AM qualified, and answered your question. I won't bother to correct the rest of your statements.
Atobe writesIt is pure childishness to walk away from this exchange by simply hiding behind limp insults and hollow accusations.
It’s sheer ingenuity you accuse me of a crime you commit yourself! You chose to respond to the first nine paragraphs of my first post, while IGNORING the remaining four posts that had more pertinent questions! Astute readers following this thread are waiting for you to acknowledge your errors in statistics and vocabulary- the suitability of using Switzerland, unemployment rates in China and India, per capita trade dependency, exchange rates, use of the words ‘housewife’, ‘dogma’, Singapore’s educational system (and your education record), and ‘liberal globalization’ etc. What happened to those comments? No clarifications or even ‘acknowledgement’
you are wrong? Who is hiding behind insults and hollow accusations? Who is avoiding the ‘real issues’? No response from you on those issues. Just one post filled with frustrated insults. (hahahaha! ) Took the easy way out again huh?
Atobe writesWere the other missing FOUR posts too truthful for your liking, or you simply wish to dictate the pace and agenda of our exchange ? I am truly amazed that an educated mind can take so much pride – in making acclamation of grand achievement in reducing the replies to only FIVE Posts, while expertly sweeping the remaining Four “under the carpet
I responded to ALL issues you brought up. ThatÂ’s 9 out of 9 posts. Most of the content is just inferior, juvenile and abusive garbage and warrants no attention. And so, I only required five posts. Get it? In this instance, you ignored my remaining FOUR posts, preferring to respond to just nine paragraphs in my first post. As far as I can see, the agenda has been set by you. Your agenda now is to be abusive and demeaning to yourself.
Bet Atobe is thinking “Damn! I ain’t informed enough to talk about government policies, economic statistics and language use! I’ll do what I do best instead- insult, insult and more insults! That’ll avenge my bruised ego!”
Atobe writesAs for the display in your ability to count backwards the number of reference to the word “Mentor” – it certainly confirmed your infantile and juvenile approach with your attempts at not engaging on the issues…
Did you enjoy my countdown? I received 5 private messages just on that alone. Wow! You are certainly held in contempt here!
I can hardly be accused of not ‘engaging issues’. You are the one dodging them not-too-brilliantly. All you have demonstrated so far is abusive language, debasing your own dignity and perpetuating your own silly vendetta.
Atobe writesYou certainly have been well bred, and is a clear example of a 'full stomach dulling the mind' - can you stand up and even know who have actually brought you up to where you are today ? Will you claim that it was the effort of 'PAPa' or your own birth-parents ?
Wow! A desperate man certainly knows no limits. Isn’t your cliché about mentors getting dreary and tired by now? My ‘birth-parents’ are in this too?
DonÂ’t sink too low there just yet. You only have a tiny shred of dignity and intelligence left. (hehe )
Atobe writesThe TRUTH certainly HURTS when spoken clearly by a ‘small fry’ like an ordinary Singapore Citizen such as myself.
I donÂ’t know who your words are supposed to have hurt- I am certainly looking forward to your next response. Are you sure you are still a citizen? You certainly donÂ’t talk like one, displaying neither attachment nor bonds to this country or its people. Your strident posts in all threads demonstrate this. (Ahh! I knowÂ…. donÂ’t try to put on a poor victim act ('ordinary Singapore citizen') to gain sympathy or pity!
) HavenÂ’t you already emigrated as you so proudly informed everyone here? Are you sure you arenÂ’t being paid off by foreign organizations to demean Singapore and Singaporeans?
p.s. so now I am no longer a mentee of the 'ruling party' eh? I have become an employee of oldbreadstinks to do the 'dirty work'. Try not to be too pathetic. hahahaha! -
Talking to Atobe is dirty work?
-
Hello Qitai,
According to Atobe, it is. He accused Oldbreadstinks of making me do the 'dirty job' here i.e. talking to him (Atobe). -
depends on the topic and whether everyone is on the same sideOriginally posted by Qitai:Talking to Atobe is dirty work? 
-
TO tidalwave333 (Sorry spell you name wrongly last time)
wow..this atobe getting quite fierce hor? now scolding people from beginning to end. LoL!
no no more stats to correct, so u start correcting his english!
but i log onli once every few days....reading this damn shiok!!
damn funny oso the way u keep pushing him hard.
hey u havent answer my question from last time leh. econs major? gp get wat har? tell me lehh