Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 573

Thread: Significant Singapore News

  1. #121
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    Still waiting for the Law Minister to do his job as a Law Minister to punish people like those involved in AHPETC that are HE said are "clearly unlawful"..............

    If the Law Minister said somebody who did something that is "clearly unlawful" cannot be sued in court, then why did he say that the act is "clearly unlawful"? I am really puzzled man! If the Law Minister clearly knows that somebody did something that is "clearly unlawful" and DIDN'T ENSURE to bring them to court means that he is NOT DOING HIS JOB as a LAW MINISTER??

    minority,
    You are the pro-PAP spokesman here, can you explain why people who did actions that are "clearly unlawful" cannot be sued and brought to court?
    If cannot sue and bring to court means they DIDN'T DO ANYTHING THAT IS "clearly unlawful" right? Why so contradicting????????????


    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    Ok, interesting to read that Shanmugam reiterates AHPETC actions 'clearly unlawful' at this URL........

    BUT then, why he as the Law Minister, didn't take any action already if he is so sure that what AHPETC did was 'clearly unlawful'?
    I am afraid that if he didn't take any concrete ACTION, he is sending us the wrong message and signal that despite being the Law Minister and knowing clearly that what AHPETC did was 'clearly unlawful', he is not going to do anything to right the wrong and bring justice to the AHPETC residents whom he said their money has been given to AHPETC management's friends?


    TITLE: Shanmugam reiterates AHPETC actions 'clearly unlawful'

    By Nur Afifah bte Ariffin, Channel NewsAsia
    POSTED: 15 Feb 2015 21:06
    URL:

    He said there are still big questions left unanswered, even after the debates in Parliament following the Auditor-General's discovery of lapses in the town council's financial and accounting systems.
    SINGAPORE: Law Minister K Shanmugam has reiterated that the actions of the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) are "clearly unlawful".

    He said there are still big questions left unanswered, even after the debates in Parliament following the Auditor-General's discovery of lapses in the town council's financial and accounting systems.

    Speaking on the sidelines of a community event at his constituency on Sunday (Feb 15), Mr Shanmugam said the Town Council Act will have to be amended. He added that the government will have to see what the town council does before deciding what the other consequences should be.

    Mr Shanmugam said: "First and most important, Parliament agreed to the motion, noting with concern the Auditor-General’s report on the Aljunied Town Council. All the MPs accepted it, including the Workers' Party MPs, the NMPs and NCMPs. So they accept, everyone accepts, that this is serious...

    "What concerns me is that the (AHPETC) actions are clearly unlawful. But in Parliament, having accepted in theory the Auditor–General’s report, we were inundated with minutiae about how the safekeeping is going to be made better, how there’s going to be two locks and so on.

    "The big questions remain unanswered. Why did you hide information from your own auditors, Foo Kon and Tan? What are you going to do to recover monies that have been lost? Those are questions, because these are people’s monies. There will have to be consequences; we have to see what they do to recover lost money."

    Mr Shanmugam said that one clear consequence would be that the Town Council Act will have to be amended. He said: "While there is self-regulation, there has got to be, I think, more oversight. At the same time, there will have to be other consequences.

    "As Minister Khaw has said, we’ll have to see. Actions were unlawful, monies have been lost, what are they going to do? There have been breaches in fiduciary duties by the town councillors themselves. Now, if we apply these standards to any other company or any other town council. You know what Singaporeans will expect? They will expect things to be set right. We want to see what actions are going to be taken to set things right."

    Mr Shanmugam also said that the AHPETC actions are against not only the Town Council Act, but other legislation as well. "There are many laws...and the actions are, and I choose my words carefully, I have said that they are unlawful. That’s based on my knowledge and legal advice that we have received."

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    Attached Images Attached Images

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    4,739

    Default

    i am not a lawyer. Have you ever wondered why the minister used the specific phrase "clearly unlawful" instead of saying breach, infraction of the law, etc ?
    What we laymen usually think the meaning of "unlawful" may not mean the same thing in the legal language.
    For example, the words "overbilling" and "overcharging".
    To common folks like me, both of them sounds the same. But to the exact technical language of the law, overbilling and overcharging is not the same.
    It is common folks like me who mixed up the 2 definitions, perhaps due to wrong everyday usage.

  4. #124
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    hopeful,

    Since I am not lawyer, I don't know!
    I have no doubt many people (including you and me) also don't know right?

    Precisely because we are not lawyers, and when we hear the phrase "clearly unlawful", to us layman, "clearly" together with "unlawful" means those people have CLEARLY committed something UNLAWFUL, and the Law Minister is so concerned, which to us means either law broken or something serious, isn't it?

    So we would expect that as the Law Minister, it is his job to ensure that people who broke the law is brought to justice, and not just re-iterating somebody did something "clearly unlawful" (as though they have broken the laws) many times and yet he did nothing to ensure that legal enforcements have been taken to toe the law!

    If our interpretation is wrong, then it is up to the Law Minister who re-iterated the phrase "clearly unlawful" actions about AHPETC actions to explain to us to clear up the doubts and explain to us why he CANNOT be considered to HAVE NOT DONE HIS JOB PROPERLY when he didn't ensure that these people are brought to court to face these "clearly unlawful" actions (these people whom he so seriously re-iterated as having carried out "clearly unlawful" actions)?

    I don't suppose you are telling us something else as to why he said these people committed "clearly unlawful" actions and yet refuse to take legal actions against them? Could you help to clarify?


    Quote Originally Posted by hopeful View Post
    i am not a lawyer. Have you ever wondered why the minister used the specific phrase "clearly unlawful" instead of saying breach, infraction of the law, etc ?
    What we laymen usually think the meaning of "unlawful" may not mean the same thing in the legal language.
    For example, the words "overbilling" and "overcharging".
    To common folks like me, both of them sounds the same. But to the exact technical language of the law, overbilling and overcharging is not the same.
    It is common folks like me who mixed up the 2 definitions, perhaps due to wrong everyday usage.
    Last edited by teddybear; 20-03-15 at 14:35.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    4,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    hopeful,
    ...
    So we would expect that as the Law Minister, it is his job to ensure that people who broke the law is brought to justice, and not just re-iterating somebody did something "clearly unlawful" (as though they have broken the laws) many times and yet he did nothing to ensure that legal enforcements have been taken to toe the law!

    If our interpretation is wrong, then it is up to the Law Minister who re-iterated the phrase "clearly unlawful" actions about AHPETC actions to explain to us to clear up the doubts and explain to us why he CANNOT be considered to HAVE NOT DONE HIS JOB PROPERLY when he didn't ensure that these people are brought to court to face these "clearly unlawful" actions (these people whom he so seriously re-iterated as having carried out "clearly unlawful" actions)?
    ...
    I dont think is the minister's task to educate us on the fine aspects of the law if our interpretation of the law are wrong.
    Why? People may have 101 interpretation, it is not the minister job to rebut each of the 101 interpretation, compare and contrast how, where and why the law and the 101 mis-interpretation are the same and different.

    However, we will suffer the consequences if our interpretation of the law are wrong and we act on our mis-interpretation

    For example, an untruth and a lie. To call a person "a speaker of untruth" or to call a person a "liar". One is liable to be sued for libel. The other is not liable. Of course, to be safe, I dont act on my interpretation and try very hard not to use either terms

    Perhaps if one is interested in legalese, one has a few option options, invest 4 years in a law degree or to ask a lawyer.

  6. #126
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    However, isn't it the Law Minister's job to ensure that people who broke the law is brought to court? If he didn't do so, that means he is not doing his job well right? Unless there are other reasons? If so, then it would do him good to explain why he can't bring these people whom he labelled as having committed "clearly unlawful" actions to court - because many people are now saying that because the Law Minister said that AHPETC actions are "clearly unlawful" (and they understood it, just like me and you, in layman terms), they have interpreted it that these AHPETC people have "clearly" done something "unlawful" (or against the law) and hence they really deserved to bring to brough to justice!

    I checked the dictionary and it says:
    unlawful
    adjective - not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules.
    synonyms: illegal, illicit, lawbreaking, illegitimate, against the law; More


    So, we are not wrong to equate "unlawful" to "illegal", "lawbreaking", "against the law" etc based on the Dictionary's provided definitions right?

    Thus, We await the Law Minister to do his job to bring these people whom have broken the laws to task and sue them in court to rectify all the problems associated with AHPETC (like what they said "clearly unlawful" actions, overpaid AHPETC MA by how many Millions $$$ etc, conflict of interests etc etc),
    or
    alternatively his clarification that that his term "clearly unlawful" really he does not mean that these people have "clearly" done anything against the law and hence he can't bring them to court to face the law (and thus we are DEAD WRONG to say that he did not do his job properly as a Law Minister). Which is which?

    We do not need all those education on fine aspects of laws etc. We just need pure layman explanations (don't confuse us with the fine aspects of laws definitions because too complicated for us laymen to understand and we will definite get mislead due to misunderstanding)..........
    We do not welcome situations where people ask the law enforcers about enforcing some law and they tell you to consult your lawyer NOR do we welcome situations where people tell us something is "unlawful" but really that something DID NOT BREAK ANY LAW!

    Quote Originally Posted by hopeful View Post
    I dont think is the minister's task to educate us on the fine aspects of the law if our interpretation of the law are wrong.
    Why? People may have 101 interpretation, it is not the minister job to rebut each of the 101 interpretation, compare and contrast how, where and why the law and the 101 mis-interpretation are the same and different.

    However, we will suffer the consequences if our interpretation of the law are wrong and we act on our mis-interpretation

    For example, an untruth and a lie. To call a person "a speaker of untruth" or to call a person a "liar". One is liable to be sued for libel. The other is not liable. Of course, to be safe, I dont act on my interpretation and try very hard not to use either terms

    Perhaps if one is interested in legalese, one has a few option options, invest 4 years in a law degree or to ask a lawyer.

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    hopeful,

    Since I am not lawyer, I don't know!
    I have no doubt many people (including you and me) also don't know right?

    Precisely because we are not lawyers, and when we hear the phrase "clearly unlawful", to us layman, "clearly" together with "unlawful" means those people have CLEARLY committed something UNLAWFUL, and the Law Minister is so concerned, which to us means either law broken or something serious, isn't it?

    So we would expect that as the Law Minister, it is his job to ensure that people who broke the law is brought to justice, and not just re-iterating somebody did something "clearly unlawful" (as though they have broken the laws) many times and yet he did nothing to ensure that legal enforcements have been taken to toe the law!

    If our interpretation is wrong, then it is up to the Law Minister who re-iterated the phrase "clearly unlawful" actions about AHPETC actions to explain to us to clear up the doubts and explain to us why he CANNOT be considered to HAVE NOT DONE HIS JOB PROPERLY when he didn't ensure that these people are brought to court to face these "clearly unlawful" actions (these people whom he so seriously re-iterated as having carried out "clearly unlawful" actions)?

    I don't suppose you are telling us something else as to why he said these people committed "clearly unlawful" actions and yet refuse to take legal actions against them? Could you help to clarify?
    Last edited by teddybear; 20-03-15 at 15:45.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    4,739

    Default

    There are 2 sides.
    WP is being 'accused' by minister of "clearly unlawful". What they do? nothing.
    minister is 'accusing' WP of "clearly unlawful". What he do? nothing.

    Since I supposed WP also understand the parliamentary language / legalese, I am not surprised by the WP's inaction.
    Those who don't understand parliamentary language / legalese, perhaps they maybe scratching their head why WP is not taking any action against the minister.
    obviously, alot of us need to read up on parliamentary language/dictionary and legalese.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    4,739

    Default

    Just to add to the above, WP has a few lawyers, Sylvia Lim and Chen Shao Mao. I am pretty sure they understand parliamentary language / legalese.
    Hey, being accused of "clearly unlawful", yet they do nothing.

    Obviously, the law is not what you and i think.
    Once again, alot of us need to read up on parliamentary language/dictionary and legalese.

  9. #129
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    Response to what you said:

    1) "WP is being 'accused' by minister of "clearly unlawful". What they do? nothing."

    Any layman like me could not be faulted to think it is a case of David and Goliath, hence the weaker one only dare to make lots of "noise" but don't dare to take concrete actions.... As far as we can see, they are furnishing lots of clarifications.

    2) "minister is 'accusing' WP of "clearly unlawful". What he do? nothing."

    On the other hand, the Minister who is accusing WP of "clearly unlawful" actions is a Law Minister, and that phrase "clearly unlawful" becomes very significant because it give us laymen the impressions that he means WP has "clearly" "unlawful" (according to Dictionary - "illegal", "against the law") actions!
    Given that, we would expect the Law Minister to do his job to bring those people who did something against the law to face the court!
    But he did not (so far), which gives people the impression that he is not doing his job as a Law Minister.
    So, can clarify and tell us the truth in layman terms whether WP has indeed clearly broken the law?
    If they really did break the law, why he is not doing his job?
    Or like you say the term "clearly unlawful" is misleading because it is legal legalese that confuses and misleads us only? If so, the Law Minister can clarify that as well to avoid confusing and misleading laymen like us.
    That is the most important question we are asking..............

    Quote Originally Posted by hopeful View Post
    There are 2 sides.
    WP is being 'accused' by minister of "clearly unlawful". What they do? nothing.
    minister is 'accusing' WP of "clearly unlawful". What he do? nothing.

    Since I supposed WP also understand the parliamentary language / legalese, I am not surprised by the WP's inaction.
    Those who don't understand parliamentary language / legalese, perhaps they maybe scratching their head why WP is not taking any action against the minister.
    obviously, alot of us need to read up on parliamentary language/dictionary and legalese.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    4,739

    Default

    teddy, i guess you miss the 2nd part where i mention wp has lawyers like sylvia and chen show mao. lead lawyer in multi-billion dollar deal. who can forget that?
    you think the lead lawyer in multi-billion dollar deal don't understand the phrase "clearly unlawful". Does he need layman to teach him that?

    In case, a layman want to teach him what "clearly unlawful" means, this is his email: [email protected]
    http://app.sgdi.gov.sg/listing.asp?a...#CHEN_Show_Mao
    Perhaps you email him the definition you posted just now
    "unlawful
    adjective - not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules.
    synonyms: illegal, illicit, lawbreaking, illegitimate, against the law; More"

    The thing is:
    both parties didnt do anything. what does this tell us about the phrase "clearly unlawful"?
    Yes, i do agree we are laymen. And lets not pretend we know legalese.

    If you are ignorant about legalese/parliamentary language, it is not the onus on the minister to explain.
    you are a big boy already, with multimillion dollars properties. does it really pains you that much to spend a few hundred dollars to seek legal counsel/advice on the term? Not that, you can bring the Oxford, Cambridge dictionary to show to the lawyer.
    after you spend the money and find out, please share with us what the technical definition of "clearly unlawful" is.

  11. #131
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    hopeful,

    You made a very good point, that is both parties didn't take any actions!

    May be you are right that WP with lawyers amidst them as well know that "clearly unlawful" legally DO NOT MEAN "clearly" against the law.
    If so, then I do find that the Minister who started using "clearly unlawful" term against WP, when addressing a whole group of MPs who mostly are not lawyers, and allowing the media to propagate to laymen like us who have no idea of the real legalese (because our Dictionary says "unlawful" = "illegal", "against the law") WITHOUT explicitly explaining clearly to all of them, would have confused and misled all of us, including the other MPs (who are not lawyers)! Is this the case? If not, then we would be expecting him as the Law Minister to take action against WP in court for committing "clearly" "illegal" and "against the law" actions!................

    To the Goliath, I am "small boy" lah!
    And as a matter of fact, I won't waste my money lah!
    If such small thing we need to waste money to consult lawyer, then every time some of these things pop up, like AIM, AHPETC, Michael Palmer's adultery case, Yaw's adultery case, saying "servicing the country is NEVER about Dollars and Cents" (when referring to suggestion about increasing National Servicemen's allowances - And some people retorted online about what about Your Ministers' salaries why must be so calculative to peg to top 1000 earners? etc), wah, we will sooner or later go broke!

    Quote Originally Posted by hopeful View Post
    teddy, i guess you miss the 2nd part where i mention wp has lawyers like sylvia and chen show mao. lead lawyer in multi-billion dollar deal. who can forget that?
    you think the lead lawyer in multi-billion dollar deal don't understand the phrase "clearly unlawful". Does he need layman to teach him that?

    In case, a layman want to teach him what "clearly unlawful" means, this is his email: [email protected]
    http://app.sgdi.gov.sg/listing.asp?a...#CHEN_Show_Mao
    Perhaps you email him the definition you posted just now
    "unlawful
    adjective - not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules.
    synonyms: illegal, illicit, lawbreaking, illegitimate, against the law; More"

    The thing is:
    both parties didnt do anything. what does this tell us about the phrase "clearly unlawful"?
    Yes, i do agree we are laymen. And lets not pretend we know legalese.

    If you are ignorant about legalese/parliamentary language, it is not the onus on the minister to explain.
    you are a big boy already, with multimillion dollars properties. does it really pains you that much to spend a few hundred dollars to seek legal counsel/advice on the term? Not that, you can bring the Oxford, Cambridge dictionary to show to the lawyer.
    after you spend the money and find out, please share with us what the technical definition of "clearly unlawful" is.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    As usual, the lying minority will go around telling lies and trying to mislead us!

    Did this WP MP give out fliers that are "anti-PAP" in content?

    Did he go around in a group of 5 or more that constitutes illegal assembly?

    Now we compare that to PAP activists going around in a group of 7 distributing fliers that are "anti-WP"!

    Wasn't the content distributed by the opposition activists in 2010 "anti-PAP" and there are 5 or more hence they are jailed and charged for "Sedition" and "illegal assembly"? So, what is the difference between the 2010 opposition activists case and the current 2015 PAP activists case?

    I really FEAR for PAP, because they have supporters like minority going around telling lies and propagating misleading information (or rather rumours and lies) and avoiding the hard questions, and thus giving a bad reputation for PAP, as though many PAP supporters are just like minority, a liar with NO MORAL CHARACTER and NO INTEGRITY and HONESTY value! Then, people would also wonder why PAP are surrounded by so many such people and they can condone such people??? If there more more of such cases, I am afraid it will be very bad for the votes for PAP in the coming General Election!
    Prata Man. Can you kane up your mind is it content or flyer? Coz you say giving flyer is illegal not u say content is the one that is illegal not the flyer after I show you a WP sticking fly paper on someones door. WOW!!! DONT PRATA LEH! What is your stand?
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    minority,

    As usual, want us to blindly believe your LIES and can't provide evidence to back up what you said!
    DONT BE LAZY I SHOW YOU MANY TIMES tHE LINK TO GST REBATES AND POLY CLINIC NO GST!. SO GO GOOGLE YOUR SELF !! LAZY IS NO EXCUSE!
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    Jail is for "ILLEGAL PROCESSION"? Wow!
    Now then I know?!

    In 2010, opposition activists case got jailed for "illegal assembly" or "illegal procession" for 5 people or more for distributing "anti-PAP" fliers!

    In 2014, the Funan food court debt collectors case got charged for "illegal assembly" for 5 people or more!

    Now, in 2015, we were told that PAP activists in a group of 7 DID NOT BREAK ANY LAW for distributing "anti-WP" fliers!!! Wow! I really don't understand the logic applied!

    minority, could please kindly explain to us the differences between the above few cases that give rise to different treatment?

    A clear and satisfactory explanation is VERY IMPORTANT so that there will be no more misunderstanding ok?

    I am not anti-PAP and I am not pro-WP, I only believe applying laws and rules universally and equally to all people! I would like to understand more about such cases so that I can explain to others who may also be mislead by others in the internet (like for example, by you who had time again shown that you lied and misled us here!)


    AS USUAL BULLSHIT!

    EAT THIS !!! FLY PAPER MY ASS.

    http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/law...r-2011-sghc-40

    You, [name of appellant] are charged that you, on the 10th day of September 2006 at about 12.15 pm, in the vicinity of Raffles City Shopping Centre, North Bridge Road, Singapore, which is a public place, together with the [two other appellants and three other people, ie Tan Teck Wee (“Tan”), Jeffrey George (“Jeffrey”) and Harkirat Kaur d/o Harmit Singh (“Harkirat”)], did participate in an assembly intended to demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government, which assembly you ought reasonably to have known was held without a permit under the MOR, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Rule 5 of the said Rules.
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  15. #135
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    Those people are telling us that PAP activists giving out "anti-WP" flyers in a group of 5 and more are not breaking laws,
    but those opposition activists giving out "anti-PAP" flyers in a group of 5 and more are breaking laws, what is your opinion?

    In 1 of the link you attached, it said about Ministers getting MILLIONs $$$ while asking people to sacrifice, the statement itself is NOT WRONG right?
    As we know, recently, a Minister told us that "servicing the country cannot be measured in DOLLARS and CENTS" when people requested to increase the allowance to National Servicemen for their important contribution to Singapore! In turn, the people are asking the Minister to reconsider their MILLIONS $$$ salary because "servicing the country cannot be measured in DOLLARS and CENTS" (as they said), so don't need so much SALARY to have comfortable living in Singapore right?

    And we hope the need to be paid MILLIONS $$$ salary is NOT to show that if our Ministers get paid less than the corporate CEOs, they have no dignity when talking to them on policies (Here I quote what was said by PAP MP Lim Wee Kiak and reported in the Newspapers previously):

    "If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communication and Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discuss policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars because they need not listen to the minister's ideas and proposals. Hence, a reasonable payout will help to maintain a bit of dignity."

    Oh, I am very happy that US President Barack Obama will have almost ZERO DIGNITY when he negotiate issues with our Prime Minister and have to say yes to everything our PM said because Obama's pay is like <20% of our PM pay right?

    At the end of the day, minority, we know you are full of LIES, and twisting of FACTs, and only convenient answer QUESTIONS which you can twist and turn and ignore the HARD questions, what can we expect from YOU? only FULL OF SHIT!!!

    Luckily many PAP supporters will still voice displeasure and complain loudly as well when policies implemented are bad AND NOT LIKE you (who will keep singing phrases that everything PAP did is good for Singaporeans). PAP supporters who are LIARS like YOU put PAP in very bad light indeed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    Prata Man. Can you kane up your mind is it content or flyer? Coz you say giving flyer is illegal not u say content is the one that is illegal not the flyer after I show you a WP sticking fly paper on someones door. WOW!!! DONT PRATA LEH! What is your stand?
    Last edited by teddybear; 21-03-15 at 17:01.

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    Those people are telling us that PAP activists giving out "anti-WP" flyers in a group of 5 and more are not breaking laws,
    but those opposition activists giving out "anti-PAP" flyers in a group of 5 and more are breaking laws, what is your opinion?

    In 1 of the link you attached, it said about Ministers getting MILLIONs $$$ while asking people to sacrifice, the statement itself is NOT WRONG right?
    As we know, recently, a Minister told us that "servicing the country cannot be measured in DOLLARS and CENTS" when people requested to increase the allowance to National Servicemen for their important contribution to Singapore! In turn, the people are asking the Minister to reconsider their MILLIONS $$$ salary because "servicing the country cannot be measured in DOLLARS and CENTS" (as they said), so don't need so much SALARY to have comfortable living in Singapore right?

    And we hope the need to be paid MILLIONS $$$ salary is NOT to show that if our Ministers get paid less than the corporate CEOs, they have no dignity when talking to them on policies (Here I quote what was said by PAP MP Lim Wee Kiak and reported in the Newspapers previously):

    "If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communication and Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discuss policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars because they need not listen to the minister's ideas and proposals. Hence, a reasonable payout will help to maintain a bit of dignity."

    Oh, I am very happy that US President Barack Obama will have almost ZERO DIGNITY when he negotiate issues with our Prime Minister and have to say yes to everything our PM said because Obama's pay is like <20% of our PM pay right?

    At the end of the day, minority, we know you are full of LIES, and twisting of FACTs, and only convenient answer QUESTIONS which you can twist and turn and ignore the HARD questions, what can we expect from YOU? only FULL OF SHIT!!!

    Luckily many PAP supporters will still voice displeasure and complain loudly as well when policies implemented are bad AND NOT LIKE you (who will keep singing phrases that everything PAP did is good for Singaporeans). PAP supporters who are LIARS like YOU put PAP in very bad light indeed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    YAWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN MORE BULLL SHITT AND TCSS


    TCSS you mean u cannot read ? dont be lazy click on the link and read the court mins. Cannot accept facts? Wow!!! you are PRATAing ard. So is flyer the issue or content? now become content? So the content on ATHEPC is policital? The the AGC report is also ? WOW!!!! so WP own auditors too are political against them?

    THEY **** UP. PRonto. Flyers are FAct sheets. Giving out Flyers are not illegal. Attempt to for a illegal protest and political assembly which is what Chee trying to do is. SDP can give all the FLY paper all they can who cares! WP can give you their FLY paper for $2 $5 $10 a copy who cares. So don prata and try to lie through the teeth and prata ard. HAVE THE BALL TO HAVE A STAND!!!!
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  17. #137
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    To me, my opinion is that all the big HOO-HA about AHPETC is political, as is all the hammering inside and outside of Parliament.
    It is getting clearer NOW that AHPETC actions is NOT AGAINST THE LAW, because we misunderstood the "clearly unlawful" statement made by the Law Minister, otherwise why as the Law Minister who is supposed to ensure that people who break the law will be brought to court didn't bring them to court to sue them right?

    Ok minority, may be let me ask again here:
    "clearly unlawful" also means "clearly" NOT AGAINST THE LAW in legal term is it?


    Without AIM saga, we would think may be NOT political reason for AHPETC hoo-ha,
    but with AIM saga made known, it became obviously political!!!!!!!!!!

    Otherwise, why we don't see them make a big hoo-ha and go after those people who lost MULTI-MILLIONS $$$ of PAP Town Councils money? These PAP appointed Town Council Management act as though they are FUND MANAGERS, very smart, can make LOTS OF MONEY investing Town Councils money?! Is that their job? If they can accumulate so much money in Town Councils' funds, isn't it obvious that they have been over-collecting from the residents on conservation fees? Don't they think it fit to reduce the conservation fees rather than keep collecting and the ACT LIKE FUND MANAGERS to invest these MONEY and then lost MULTI-MILLIONS $$$? Why they didn't make a BIG Hoo-Ha and have a debate in parliament for a whole day? AHPETC a few Millions in question that was NOT LOST is SMALL CHANGE compared to those PAP Town Councils' cumulative REAL LOSSES in those investment!

    You don't have to come lying to us that all those about AIM and AHPETC is not political, you might as well start an anonymous vote here and see how many believe you that AIM and AHPETC is not political?

    And I am referring to "illegal assembly" as well, please address that, don't try beat around the bush, as usual, the LIAR minority who tried to lie, mislead, and con people here! Don't try as though you are PAP bearer, because you are giving them a really bad name with your NO INTEGRITY, NO HONESTY, NO MORAL CHARACTER!


    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    YAWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN MORE BULLL SHITT AND TCSS


    TCSS you mean u cannot read ? dont be lazy click on the link and read the court mins. Cannot accept facts? Wow!!! you are PRATAing ard. So is flyer the issue or content? now become content? So the content on ATHEPC is policital? The the AGC report is also ? WOW!!!! so WP own auditors too are political against them?

    THEY **** UP. PRonto. Flyers are FAct sheets. Giving out Flyers are not illegal. Attempt to for a illegal protest and political assembly which is what Chee trying to do is. SDP can give all the FLY paper all they can who cares! WP can give you their FLY paper for $2 $5 $10 a copy who cares. So don prata and try to lie through the teeth and prata ard. HAVE THE BALL TO HAVE A STAND!!!!
    Last edited by teddybear; 21-03-15 at 22:45.

  18. #138
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default Govt to offer Singapore Savings Bonds to retail investors

    Seem like good news to retail investors, but what is the implication of this Singapore Savings Bonds on bank's deposit rates and SIBOR? Will it suck up SGD liquidity away from banks and resulted in banks Fixed Deposit rates to increase (to compete for funds) and also cause SIBOR to surge???



    Govt to offer Singapore Savings Bonds to retail investors

    Friday, March 27, 2015
    Mok Fei Fei
    The Straits Times
    Small investors here looking for a safe place to park their money to earn regular healthy returns will soon have a new option - fully guaranteed by the Government.

    A new type of government bond is to make its debut as part of a push to ensure low-cost investments are more widely available to retail investors.

    They will be called Singapore Savings Bonds (SSB), Senior Minister of State for Finance and Transport Josephine Teo announced at an investment industry event yesterday. She said the SSB will be safe investments that are principal-guaranteed by the Government, which means the investor's original outlay is protected fully.

    Bonds are sold to investors by governments and companies to raise money. Investors get regular payments known as "coupons".

    Most bonds are issued for certain terms, such as one year, two years, 10 years or longer.

    Bonds here are usually listed on the Singapore Exchange.

    A key feature of the new product is that a bondholder will be able to get his money back in any given month, without incurring a penalty.

    This is unlike conventional bonds where an investor who sells the bond before its term ends is exposed to the fluctuating market price and may get less than the principal amount.

    Mrs Teo said the feature means investors do not have to decide upfront the investment duration.

    SSB will pay higher coupons if the bonds are held longer, unlike conventional bonds that pay the same coupon rate each year.

    "The Singapore Savings Bonds will offer the higher returns of a long-term bond and give what investors call a 'term premium', while retaining the flexibility of a shorter-term deposit, and the safety of an instrument guaranteed by the Government," said Mrs Teo at the Investment Management Association of Singapore's (Imas) 16th annual conference at Raffles City Convention Centre.

    "As the name suggests, we hope that the Singapore Savings Bond programme will encourage individuals to save and invest to meet their long-term financial goals and retirement needs."

    Details are still being worked out between the Government and the Monetary Authority of Singapore, which issues bonds or Singapore Government Securities (SGS) on behalf of the Government.

    SGS, with maturities from two to 30 years and coupon rates of between 1.625 per cent and 3.375 per cent, are a major form of investment for big investors here.

    They have been available to retail investors but have not been popular, owing to a lack of awareness or interest, said analysts. The minimum sum needed to buy these bonds is about $1,000.

    "It may be safe but the average investor sees what is available in terms of yields and that's not very attractive, so the stepped-up coupon is a clever way of addressing that," said Mr Nicholas Hadow, Imas' chairman and also director of business development at Aberdeen Asset Management Asia.

    Markets and investors are set to benefit. Ms Madeline Ho, the head of wholesale fund distribution for Asia-Pacific at Natixis Global Asset Management, said: "The Singapore Savings Bond offers a good, simple and flexible investment option for individuals as well as another alternative to existing available investment options."

    Retail investor G.H. Goh, 54, a vice-president of sales in a multinational corporation, welcomed the plan though he wanted to know how the returns compare with alternative assets.

    "Anything that can provide decent returns in the current low interest rate environment is good. It is long overdue and we are still waiting to see if there will be inflation-linked government bonds."

    A minute's silence in honour of Singapore's first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was observed at the conference.

  19. #139
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    So minority unable to answer my simple questions after so many days?

    minority, what a CHEAP SKATE LIAR you are!

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    To me, my opinion is that all the big HOO-HA about AHPETC is political, as is all the hammering inside and outside of Parliament.
    It is getting clearer NOW that AHPETC actions is NOT AGAINST THE LAW, because we misunderstood the "clearly unlawful" statement made by the Law Minister, otherwise why as the Law Minister who is supposed to ensure that people who break the law will be brought to court didn't bring them to court to sue them right?

    Ok minority, may be let me ask again here:
    "clearly unlawful" also means "clearly" NOT AGAINST THE LAW in legal term is it?


    Without AIM saga, we would think may be NOT political reason for AHPETC hoo-ha,
    but with AIM saga made known, it became obviously political!!!!!!!!!!

    Otherwise, why we don't see them make a big hoo-ha and go after those people who lost MULTI-MILLIONS $$$ of PAP Town Councils money? These PAP appointed Town Council Management act as though they are FUND MANAGERS, very smart, can make LOTS OF MONEY investing Town Councils money?! Is that their job? If they can accumulate so much money in Town Councils' funds, isn't it obvious that they have been over-collecting from the residents on conservation fees? Don't they think it fit to reduce the conservation fees rather than keep collecting and the ACT LIKE FUND MANAGERS to invest these MONEY and then lost MULTI-MILLIONS $$$? Why they didn't make a BIG Hoo-Ha and have a debate in parliament for a whole day? AHPETC a few Millions in question that was NOT LOST is SMALL CHANGE compared to those PAP Town Councils' cumulative REAL LOSSES in those investment!

    You don't have to come lying to us that all those about AIM and AHPETC is not political, you might as well start an anonymous vote here and see how many believe you that AIM and AHPETC is not political?

    And I am referring to "illegal assembly" as well, please address that, don't try beat around the bush, as usual, the LIAR minority who tried to lie, mislead, and con people here! Don't try as though you are PAP bearer, because you are giving them a really bad name with your NO INTEGRITY, NO HONESTY, NO MORAL CHARACTER!
    Quote Originally Posted by minority
    YAWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN MORE BULLL SHITT AND TCSS


    TCSS you mean u cannot read ? dont be lazy click on the link and read the court mins. Cannot accept facts? Wow!!! you are PRATAing ard. So is flyer the issue or content? now become content? So the content on ATHEPC is policital? The the AGC report is also ? WOW!!!! so WP own auditors too are political against them?

    THEY **** UP. PRonto. Flyers are FAct sheets. Giving out Flyers are not illegal. Attempt to for a illegal protest and political assembly which is what Chee trying to do is. SDP can give all the FLY paper all they can who cares! WP can give you their FLY paper for $2 $5 $10 a copy who cares. So don prata and try to lie through the teeth and prata ard. HAVE THE BALL TO HAVE A STAND!!!!

  20. #140
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default Low Thia Khiang: S'pore's progress has come at a price

    Could Mr Low Thia Khiang specify kind of "price" that Singaporeans have to sacrifice????




    Low: S'pore's progress has come at a price

    Friday, March 27, 2015
    Janice Heng
    The Straits Times

    The late Mr Lee Kuan Yew was an extraordinary leader who guided Singapore's progress from its tumultuous beginnings, said opposition leader Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied GRC).

    He praised Mr Lee's contributions to Singapore's economic progress and his success in uniting and building a multicultural Singapore.

    "This is an achievement that is not possible without Mr Lee. My deepest respect goes to founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew," said Mr Low, who went on to add that, in the process of nation-building, "many Singaporeans were sacrificed".

    At a special Parliament sitting in memory of Singapore's first Prime Minister, Mr Low commended the late Mr Lee's fighting spirit, tenacity and sincerity, which took Singapore from Third World to First.

    But the People's Action Party's one-party rule was not key to this transformation, he said.

    Many Singaporeans were sacrificed in the process of development, he added. "Society has paid the price for it."


    Mr Lee was thus a controversial figure in some people's eyes, said Mr Low, who is Workers' Party secretary-general and the longest-serving opposition member in Parliament today.

    Mr Lee crafted policies based on the situation at the time, making rational choices in the interests of the country.

    Yet policymaking should not just be rational, but also humane and compassionate, said Mr Low.

    "Only in this way can policymaking avoid harming people and creating resentment."

    If resentment builds over time, it could hurt national unity and cause citizens to feel estranged, he added.


    But Mr Low also gave credit to Mr Lee for being reasonable and open-minded, saying: "From my dealings with Mr Lee in Parliament, I don't think he was an autocrat who didn't listen.

    "If you had strong reasons and a tight argument and could win him over through debate, I think he would consider your views."

    But the sitting's final speaker, Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar GRC), seemed to object to Mr Low's mention of sacrifice.

    Without referring directly to Mr Low, she said: "It was not people who were sacrificed but the things which would have made us a lesser people, a lesser country than we are today."

    "(Mr Lee) called upon us to make sacrifices in accordance with some very basic principles: humanity, integrity, thrift, welfare of the people."

    Singapore gave up "laziness, corruption, division, hatred of other races".

    "The other kind of sacrifice we were asked to make, was to set aside divisions and animosity in the interest of national unity," she said, adding that it was the late Mr Lee who made the biggest sacrifice of all.

    She quoted Mr Lee's own words about his sacrifice: "At the end of the day, what have I got? A successful Singapore. What have I given up? My life."

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    4,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    Could Mr Low Thia Khiang specify kind of "price" that Singaporeans have to sacrifice????
    ...
    Well, some landowners have to force "sell" their land for cents on the dollar in the name of national progress. however it turns out the lands lay fallow for a long time, and then govt sold the land to be developed for private condos, not HDB.
    The above scenario should be familiar to you
    Don't know why you have to put in your post.

  22. #142
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    I am wondering why Low Thia Khiang didn't spell out the "sacrifices" clearly, like e.g. what you did?

    He should be very familiar with this issue because many of his voters (his "vote bank") in Hougang falls into this category of being "sacrificed" and hence have been grieving until today................. All these people would have become MULTI-MILLIONAIRES and even BILLIONAIRES by now if their land had not been acquired under compulsory land acquisition in the name of "national development" from 1960s to 1980s, but the irony is that "national development" still didn't happen for significant amount of the land until even today?

    After these people have been sacrificed once for their land, they have been sacrificed twice again for paying higher taxes (33% income tax and 30% corporate tax then), and then sacrificed a 3rd time for having to paying GST until they die (with corresponding reduction in income tax to 20% and corporate tax to 17% but which they don't enjoy any more and they had already prepaid their higher taxes earlier in their lives and now they have to pay more GST taxes all their lives)?

    Is this the reason why places like Hougang has the highest number of die-hard anti-PAP voters?

    All the above shows serious policies' failure resulting in significant sacrifices made to the people isn't it? Are these what Low Thia Khiang is talking about??? He should know his constituency's residents situations BEST isn't it????


    Quote Originally Posted by hopeful View Post
    Well, some landowners have to force "sell" their land for cents on the dollar in the name of national progress. however it turns out the lands lay fallow for a long time, and then govt sold the land to be developed for private condos, not HDB.
    The above scenario should be familiar to you
    Don't know why you have to put in your post.

  23. #143
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,035

    Default

    Please stop stirring. Let us stay United just during this period. I hope it is not too much to ask.

    FYI, my ancestral lands was acquired then. That was when all kinds of housing prices were low but my relatives were happy with HDBs.

    If the land can be put to greater use and churn more for Singapore, why not?


    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    I am wondering why Low Thia Khiang didn't spell out the "sacrifices" clearly, like e.g. what you did?

    He should be very familiar with this issue because many of his voters (his "vote bank") in Hougang falls into this category of being "sacrificed" and hence have been grieving until today................. All these people would have become MULTI-MILLIONAIRES and even BILLIONAIRES by now if their land had not been acquired under compulsory land acquisition in the name of "national development" from 1960s to 1980s, but the irony is that "national development" still didn't happen for significant amount of the land until even today?

    After these people have been sacrificed once for their land, they have been sacrificed twice again for paying higher taxes (33% income tax and 30% corporate tax then), and then sacrificed a 3rd time for having to paying GST until they die (with corresponding reduction in income tax to 20% and corporate tax to 17% but which they don't enjoy any more and they had already prepaid their higher taxes earlier in their lives and now they have to pay more GST taxes all their lives)?

    Is this the reason why places like Hougang has the highest number of die-hard anti-PAP voters?

    All the above shows serious policies' failure resulting in significant sacrifices made to the people isn't it? Are these what Low Thia Khiang is talking about??? He should know his constituency's residents situations BEST isn't it????
    The three laws of Kelonguni:

    Where there is kelong, there is guni.
    No kelong no guni.
    More kelong = more guni.

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    I am wondering why Low Thia Khiang didn't spell out the "sacrifices" clearly, like e.g. what you did?

    He should be very familiar with this issue because many of his voters (his "vote bank") in Hougang falls into this category of being "sacrificed" and hence have been grieving until today................. All these people would have become MULTI-MILLIONAIRES and even BILLIONAIRES by now if their land had not been acquired under compulsory land acquisition in the name of "national development" from 1960s to 1980s, but the irony is that "national development" still didn't happen for significant amount of the land until even today?

    After these people have been sacrificed once for their land, they have been sacrificed twice again for paying higher taxes (33% income tax and 30% corporate tax then), and then sacrificed a 3rd time for having to paying GST until they die (with corresponding reduction in income tax to 20% and corporate tax to 17% but which they don't enjoy any more and they had already prepaid their higher taxes earlier in their lives and now they have to pay more GST taxes all their lives)?

    Is this the reason why places like Hougang has the highest number of die-hard anti-PAP voters?

    All the above shows serious policies' failure resulting in significant sacrifices made to the people isn't it? Are these what Low Thia Khiang is talking about??? He should know his constituency's residents situations BEST isn't it????
    Yes please stop stirring and give it a break. A gentleman will know when is the right time to open his mouth.

  25. #145
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    What is the definition of a REAL gentleman?

    May be A REAL gentleman will do as he say, not say one thing and do another thing?

    May be a REAL gentleman will face up to the TRUTH, and tell the truth as it really is, and not try to hide the ugly truth while singing praises about all the good?

    May be a REAL gentleman will work for the benefit of the country at reasonable pay, since servicing the country should NOT be measured in dollars and cents?

    May be a REAL gentleman should treat ALL people fairly and justly, and NOT give excuses for NOT DOING so?

    Quote Originally Posted by invigorated View Post
    Yes please stop stirring and give it a break. A gentleman will know when is the right time to open his mouth.
    Last edited by teddybear; 27-03-15 at 20:39.

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    4,739

    Default

    death of lky really significant property news !!!

    when people queue to pay respect, they are not queueing to buy properties.
    so when sales of properties are down in March, it will be blamed on mourning period
    so when sales of properties are up in April, it will be due to pent-up demand left-over from March.

    But most of all, i wonder whether the effect of death of lky on Singapore's GDP
    if mourning period decreases GDP, i wonder why it is so long at 7 days.
    if mourning period increases GDP, i wonder why it is so short at 7 days.

    There must be GDP growth at all cost.
    Last edited by hopeful; 28-03-15 at 10:28.

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    521

    Default

    After reading the posts in this thread and those in the "little red dot", I am sure that teadbear has an agenda in mind.

    My advice is if any anti-pap party want to win, they'd better propose something really constructive to the country, instead of always pointing fingers to anything pap have done. Sooner or later, people will realize that saying is always easier than doing.

  28. #148
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    Pointing out mistakes and wrong policies is to help any party in power to improve themselves, and these are CONSTRUCTIVE by themselves! Why are people instead criticising these people instead of welcoming them? These people don't want the government to know and identify the problems and solved them to improve Singapore???!

    These people who POINTING OUT FAULTS / PROBLEMS of policies etc are already doing GREAT SERVICE to Singapore after careful and detail thinking! What more do you want? After all, they are NOT PAID MILLIONS $$$ SALARY to solve the problem!

    For example, the COMPULSORY LAND ACQUISITION introduced into LAW by Lee Kuan Yew in 196x has UNFAIRLY treated many early Singaporean landlords! On the other hand, those poor at that time will rejoice for the "robin hood strategy" by Mr Lee Kuan Yew because the government is then able to build cheap housing on these land being compulsorily acquired for many "national development", such as HDB flats, selling for a thousand dollars!
    However, the irony is that, the current DPM Tharman (see his comments below) said that "being Robin Hood not Singapore Government's strategy"! Wasn't this the strategy in early days through "compulsory land acquisition"?

    So, how???

    To increase social spending, obviously somebody has to pay for it! So, where are these additional tax revenues to come given that Singapore's GDP growth has slowed tremendously to current 2-3% per year???
    Will we see additional taxes being implemented, such as increase in GST, or other form of wealth taxes after coming General Election? Would the government ensure that "wealth taxes" are really raised from the rich, and not the general middle-income families and the lower-income families, which make up of >90% of Singapore's population? Will "no robin hood" strategy means that the additional taxes will be raised from most of the Singaporeans instead of just the truly rich????

    TITLE: Being Robin Hood not Singapore Government's strategy: DPM Tharman

    By Wong Siew Ying
    POSTED: 25 Feb 2015 01:34
    URL: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/.../1678200.html#

    Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam - speaking at MediaCorp's Budget forum, Ask the Finance Minister, on Tuesday evening (Feb 24) - says Singaporeans have to take collective responsibility to build their society.
    SINGAPORE: A day after unveiling Budget 2015 in Parliament, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam urged Singaporeans to get involved and take a collective responsibility in building a strong society.

    Mr Tharman was speaking at MediaCorp's Budget forum, Ask the Finance Minister, on Tuesday evening (Feb 24), and he addressed wide-ranging questions about this year's Budget measures.

    This year's Budget is aimed at providing support for all Singaporeans at different phases of life - cash supplements for needy elderly in the form of the Silver Support Scheme; the SkillsFuture initiative to help Singaporeans, young and old, to continue to learn and deepen their skills; and a range of measures to help businesses innovate and expand beyond Singapore.

    SMES MUST BREAK OUT OF 'VICIOUS CIRCLE'

    Some questions raised during the hour-long forum focused on the training of employees: Whether there can be more flexibility on the range of approved courses, as well as if there are enough service providers to offer training for various industries and revamp training programmes to better suit older workers.

    Mr Tharman said that companies could consider working with trade associations to craft relevant training programmes, which could even be held within the company's premises. Larger firms can also conduct training collectively for the industries, he said.

    But he also pointed out that SMEs have to break out of a "vicious circle" in the area of staff training.

    "I think we have to tackle ageism in Singapore. There is sort of a quiet, unstated discrimination among the mid-careers and those who are in their 50s. Mid-40s and 50s, it's usually not so easy for them to get back in," said the Deputy Prime Minister.

    "They are good people, hardworking, who have accumulated a lot of experience. Sometimes a particular industry has folded, but they have got skills which are relevant to other industries, and I think collectively, employers working with the Government have to make it easy for them to come back in, give them the training required and let them prove their full worth. That's a resource for Singapore and also the right and fair thing to do for those individuals.

    "I think many of our SMEs are today in a vicious circle: No time to train people, no time to invest in the person because you are not sure if the person will be with you two years, or maybe even a year from now. As a result, people leave and turnover is higher because they are not even sure they have a future with the firm.

    "We have got to break out of that vicious circle by investing in people, giving them a sense of ownership in the firm. It is hard for SMEs individually to do it, but SMEs collectively can do it - SMEs working with industry associations, setting up their own training facilities, sharing trainers, joining forces so that each of the SME benefits from being part of that coalition."

    HIKE IN PETROL DUTY RATES

    Another question raised was about the increase in petrol duty rates at a time when global oil prices have been falling, and whether this would have a trickle-down effect.

    Said Mr Tharman: "It is of course better to raise the petrol levy when oil prices have fallen compared to when prices are going up. But the basic point is this: Petrol is used mainly by cars - it's not used by commercial vehicles, it is used mainly by all of us driving around. We have got to make sure that over time in Singapore we move towards a society that is less about driving cars - particularly driving cars during the most congested period - and more about taking public transport, and also sharing cars and basically moving towards a greener environment.

    "From time to time, some of these taxes will change, it cannot stay unchanged permanently. From time to time, we have to make an adjustment and the last adjustment was 12 years ago. The fact that oil prices have come down and pump prices have come down made it opportune to raise the duty. I will be quite frank about that - it is much better than doing it when prices are going up.

    "I am not too worried about this filtering through to the cost of living because commercial vehicles largely use diesel, and this is a cost that basically can be borne in the Budget, when we were in fact lowering costs on many other fronts. Many families who drive a car also hire a maid and they will be saving more on the maid than the additional cost of petrol."

    RAISING THE CPF SALARY CEILING

    Budget 2015 also includes measures to help Singaporeans build up their savings, among them the increase in CPF salary ceiling from S$5,000 to S$6,000. Questions were raised if this would put a squeeze on the middle-income, who will have to set aside a little more of their take-home pay for CPF contributions.

    Mr Tharman said the middle-income group will be a significant beneficiary of the move, noting that CPF is completely tax-free.

    With the salary ceiling raised, "the employers are contributing more, the individual is putting a little more into their Ordinary Account, which is usually taken out to pay for housing mortgage during the working years".

    "So, the net effect of this raise in the salary ceiling isn't very much difference for the individual, because he is putting money into his Ordinary Account and taking it out to pay his mortgage. The net effect is the employers pay more and we've got to do that in the right measure - we can't overdo it. But this increase in employer contribution is affordable in the context of a tight labour market where wages are going up anyway; all we are doing is making sure this is saved for long-term retirement."

    ROBIN HOOD? THAT'S NOT OUR STRATEGY: THARMAN

    To fund the range of measures aimed at strengthening Singapore's social security system and building skills for the future, the Government will tap on increases in revenue from higher personal income tax rates for top earners.

    Mr Tharman said: "We have got to be careful that we don't think we are Robin Hood, where you can simply take money from the rich and give it to someone else. It's in everyone's interest - especially the poor and the middle-class - that we have an economy where jobs are always available and wages can go up. That can happen if we are competitive, and we have entrepreneurs, we have professionals, we have everyone here in world-class teams - that's in everyone's interest.

    "Robin Hood makes a good newspaper commentary, but that's not our strategy. We need to spend more over the next five years in the common interest.

    "We need to have the Silver Support Scheme, we need to strengthen some of our social provisions, that's part of it and I think it is fair that those that are better off pay for it, but most of what we do is in the common interest, not of one particular group alone. If you talk about our transport infrastructure, if you talk about our hospitals, if you talk about some of our new economic infrastructure like T5 at Changi, everyone will benefit from it either because of jobs or because of cohesion.

    "To have a cohesive society you need public good that everyone shares in, and someone has to pay for it. We all pay for it: Most people pay for it by GST, those who are better off also pay for it through the property taxes which are higher than others and also income tax. So everyone pays for this common good that we are all benefiting from, but the rich pay more, and the poor get some benefits out of the system, and that's fair."

    TAKE COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY: THARMAN

    Mr Tharman's message to Singaporeans: To take collective responsibility to build their society for the future.

    Said the Deputy Prime Minister: "It is important for all of us, whenever we talk about taxes, whenever we talk about our obligations, to take a collective approach. This is our society. It is our society. We need to take collective responsibility.

    "If someone needs help, the Government should do its job, I would contribute to the Government so it can do its job, but I should also find other ways in which volunteers, community organisations, everyone gets involved. That keeps us a strong society and it keeps everyone involved in society. It's our society."



    Quote Originally Posted by lionhill View Post
    After reading the posts in this thread and those in the "little red dot", I am sure that teadbear has an agenda in mind.

    My advice is if any anti-pap party want to win, they'd better propose something really constructive to the country, instead of always pointing fingers to anything pap have done. Sooner or later, people will realize that saying is always easier than doing.
    Last edited by teddybear; 29-03-15 at 13:03.

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    650

    Default

    ......

  30. #150
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    minority,
    So you have gone MUTE????

    Obviously you have to be MUTE (may be for now?), because YOUR LIES have been EXPOSED!

    And, gathering of group of 5 or more is considered ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY or not?
    And by the way, NEW EVIDENCE has surfaced that the PAP activists had been pictured distributing their flyers in a group of 6, as shown in this webpage here:
    http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015...e-the-reasons/

    So, what say you? Is the photo doctored? If so, the person would have incredible photoshop ability isn't it?

    So question to you:
    Since Opposition activists distributing flyers in a group of 5 or more is considered "illegal assembly" (and had been fined/jailed), So why is it that PAP activists distributing flyers in a group of 5 or more (with photo evidence NOW (unless it is proven to be fake)) is not considered "illegal assembly"?


    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    To me, my opinion is that all the big HOO-HA about AHPETC is political, as is all the hammering inside and outside of Parliament.
    It is getting clearer NOW that AHPETC actions is NOT AGAINST THE LAW, because we misunderstood the "clearly unlawful" statement made by the Law Minister, otherwise why as the Law Minister who is supposed to ensure that people who break the law will be brought to court didn't bring them to court to sue them right?

    Ok minority, may be let me ask again here:
    "clearly unlawful" also means "clearly" NOT AGAINST THE LAW in legal term is it?


    Without AIM saga, we would think may be NOT political reason for AHPETC hoo-ha,
    but with AIM saga made known, it became obviously political!!!!!!!!!!

    Otherwise, why we don't see them make a big hoo-ha and go after those people who lost MULTI-MILLIONS $$$ of PAP Town Councils money? These PAP appointed Town Council Management act as though they are FUND MANAGERS, very smart, can make LOTS OF MONEY investing Town Councils money?! Is that their job? If they can accumulate so much money in Town Councils' funds, isn't it obvious that they have been over-collecting from the residents on conservation fees? Don't they think it fit to reduce the conservation fees rather than keep collecting and the ACT LIKE FUND MANAGERS to invest these MONEY and then lost MULTI-MILLIONS $$$? Why they didn't make a BIG Hoo-Ha and have a debate in parliament for a whole day? AHPETC a few Millions in question that was NOT LOST is SMALL CHANGE compared to those PAP Town Councils' cumulative REAL LOSSES in those investment!

    You don't have to come lying to us that all those about AIM and AHPETC is not political, you might as well start an anonymous vote here and see how many believe you that AIM and AHPETC is not political?

    And I am referring to "illegal assembly" as well, please address that, don't try beat around the bush, as usual, the LIAR minority who tried to lie, mislead, and con people here! Don't try as though you are PAP bearer, because you are giving them a really bad name with your NO INTEGRITY, NO HONESTY, NO MORAL CHARACTER!
    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    YAWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN MORE BULLL SHITT AND TCSS


    TCSS you mean u cannot read ? dont be lazy click on the link and read the court mins. Cannot accept facts? Wow!!! you are PRATAing ard. So is flyer the issue or content? now become content? So the content on ATHEPC is policital? The the AGC report is also ? WOW!!!! so WP own auditors too are political against them?

    THEY **** UP. PRonto. Flyers are FAct sheets. Giving out Flyers are not illegal. Attempt to for a illegal protest and political assembly which is what Chee trying to do is. SDP can give all the FLY paper all they can who cares! WP can give you their FLY paper for $2 $5 $10 a copy who cares. So don prata and try to lie through the teeth and prata ard. HAVE THE BALL TO HAVE A STAND!!!!

Similar Threads

  1. Bear News - Singapore Total Deposits
    By Arcachon in forum Coffeeshop Talk
    Replies: 2
    -: 16-05-20, 11:55
  2. Significant Property News & Discussions
    By teddybear in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 871
    -: 05-06-17, 01:38
  3. Here’s why Brexit is bad news for Singapore property
    By reporter2 in forum HDB, EC, commercial and industrial property discussion
    Replies: 9
    -: 20-06-16, 23:39
  4. Replies: 0
    -: 19-01-14, 17:44
  5. Straits Times Singapore News flash
    By KTKW in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 34
    -: 21-06-12, 20:27

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •