Our dear gahmen is exactly plotting this strategy, “milk the cow until it doesn’t even have milk for its own”.

Also, in order to “justify” their super duper high income every month, their performance is pegged with the “revenue” they can bring to the “party” from the Sillyporean who are so helplessly kenna “milked” on every daily expenses …. food, public transport, tax….. etc.

u can”T compare sing to swiss…

becos have not reach..

if u say sing no need car,,u TELL THE GOV MEMBER ALL DON USE CAR,USE MRT OR BUS LO…U dare anot?? don dare don talk such thing to WE.
hahas…lame pp.

13) Jackson ,yr idea can”T accept by GOV,becos they just want to earn yr money..
so no money NO TALK…hahahss,.

Review whose appraisals specifically?

My ‘favorites’ are, in no particular order or ranking :

1. Mah Bow Tan
2. Raymond Lim
3. Ho PengKee
4. Ng Eng Hen
5. Last but sure aint the least, the honorable and high integrity WKS.

Singapreans are so blessed to have them serve us. Not the other way round hor.

Exactly. My penpal from europe says the same.

Switzerland does not have too many cars.
They base on world class train system which leaves exactly on schedule , every time each and every day.

They rely on cycling and trams and some cars.

Swiss standard is truely 1st world and high standard.

Is singapore Swiss Standard already? Based on what? figures on the paper? or Quality of Life? If not , what is it? advise leh. I no no what . I am Clueless, nice to meet you!

What does this achieve?
1) People are unlikely to want to drive into the city because its massively expensive.
2) there’s also no need to drive into the city because taxis are readily available.
3) One can still keep a car to drive to Punggol on the weekend for seafood with the family.

A long time ago , public transport worldwide was somewhat a social welfare provision – the HK MTR somewhat helped changed the model.

Respectfully to suggest studying the Hong Kong transportation system as well in PTW week.

This is a parallel argument and I am ashamed it came from our Prime Minister. Can anyone see the flawed logic in this?

Heh, I think our dearest PM needs to level up his speech-giving skills. I believe what he’s trying to say is that by reducing road taxes, more Singaporeans own cars, and to restrict traffic, ERP is implemented. In short, the idea is to charge people for using cars instead of owning cars, which I tend to agree to a certain extent. For example, it can benefit a family who takes public transport to work/school but drive out on a weekend family outing.

As for carpooling, I do quite agree with you that it’ll ease quite a lot of our traffic problems, but the issue is not so much of raising it, but implementing it and getting it to work. And this is a rather serious challenge given the mentality of Singaporeans with regards to car ownership. You and I, anyone, can suggest carpooling; it takes much much more to get it working (and I’d be the first to admit I won’t be up to the challenge). This is why, perhaps, we’re paying huge salaries to the ministers to get them to “solve” this problem. But then…

for a month.

after that, comment.

after all, it’ll only cost a measely $200 of their $83k they get a month.

KPI ? Performance appraisal?
Done by who?

People’s representatives should be appraised by … ? make a wild guess.

How about give the people 10 million dollar raise?

But I agree with the original article. It always seem to come down to money that’s waved around as a solution.

Something must be set straight. If there is a RIGHT for each household to own a car, then there must be a corresponding OBLIGATION to be held to each household. That is the basis of ANY right asserted. So, if the govt’s asserted this right, then who’s taking on this obligation?