this shows the pap are ruining our country.
making it like a geylang hotel.
a place for tom dick and harry to come in, stay and enjoy.

Never bite the hand that feeds you even if it violates you.
we should cut off the pap cancer asap.

Can someone tell me if NTUC is a GLC? With its chains of transport cos, supermarts, convenience store, pharmacies, and even undertaker. I do not know if these goods and services are monopolized by the private entities?

And about long term investment. Many years ago, I invested in insurance policies, and the insurer kept me informed of its asset portfolios and financial accounts. Are GIC and Temasek disclosing their accounts, and I mean those types filed by listed companies you see on stock exchanges. If I tell you that my portfolio increased by 100% over a period of 6 months, and that this particular portfolio lost its value by 50% 12 months ago during the financial crisis. So, have I made a profit? No prize for making a right guess…

But i digress, focusing on the issue of the 3/4 tank. Those profiteering petrol companies, damn them for building their happiness on our misery! Remember shell’s recent promotion which caused so much disruption and inconvenience that was ultimately billed to the tax payers. Now these oil companies should do the necessary and reduce the excessive profits in which their CEOs and directors get paid huge bonuses. Stop lobbying the government to impose a 3/4 tank rule, so that we can go to JB and pump cheaper petrol.

But on your next point, about GLC not being to survive outside of Singapore, I start to get confused. The reason a GLC is formed is due to an absence of local enterprises, reasons notwithstanding, so as to keep certain strategic goods and services from being monopolized. That being the case, it would mean that it is serving its role and functioning perfectly. Why complain about it? GIC, Temasek, SIA, DBS, SingTel etc had all their forays overseas, and they went in about their business for the realization of their investment in the long term. Now and then they sell certain stakes so as to rebalance their asset portfolio for strategic purposes, and that made a gigantic loss. We are still better off than when we had first started.

Voting is secret, (although there are some critics saying otherwise) it will be foolhardy to inadvertently blurt out that one favors another over the other.

I beg to hammer your statement – “In Singapore, our leaders have always kept their distance from the idea of subsidy, it always will encourage a crutch mentality and force our citizens to depend on the government for everything.”

Unless you have some kinda social service background, your equation is definitely a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don’t want to throw in any statistics, as our MSM and authorities are always doing their part to paint a different picture. But I would want to suggest that, as I’ve always done so here, you get yourself dirty by doing some volunteer services or work for a VWO (Voluntary Welfare Organisation). See with your own eyes the many so-called “crutch mentality” minded ah peks and ah mahs who toil the streets daily to pay for their meals, in our self-proclaimed 1st world nation. Boy, I thought 1st world nations look after their old folks!

There are more juicy stories that you might dig up during your stay in the social service sector. But it will be a real eye-opener for someone who still believe in the accounts drawn up by our very own “Madoff”, “Stanford” or “Sunshine Empire” look-alikes. Well, it just takes big shake up before these worshippers have a wake-up call and start crying like babies.

Wish you a fruitful journey in social service.

Warmest regrets,
Your community worker

We know that the PAP leaders like LKY, Goh CT, PM Lee like to blow trumpet that Singapore believes in free competition, free trade.

Recently coach companies operating between Singapore and Malaysia were fined for price fixing. http://news.coachbroker.co.uk/coach-companies-in-asia-fined-for-price-fixing-scam-123300/

But the biggest price fixing is done by the petrol companies and the PAP government is letting them off because the taxes derived from these companies are pretty good. When one of the petrol companies up their pump price, the rest are sure to follow within the next day.

Further more, there is the 3/4 tank rule to prevent Singaporeans from buying petrol in Malaysia. So much for the lies of free-trade preached by PAP government. The “3/4 tank” rule is obviously to help the petrol companies.

It is the Singaporeans who are subsidising the PAP government, or else where do there get such fat pay for doing so very little or else much harm to Singapore?

It is the government-linked-companies that are heavily subsidised. Almost all GLC can’t compete outside of Singapore.

We should not complain too much about the PAP government, just vote them out.

Glad you agree. It is sad isn’t it, when the government continually attempts to diminish the efforts of our ancestors. I am glad that you are able to put things in its proper perspective for us to understand the deeper meaning of what it was like in those days of struggle – a struggle to create the identity that we can be proud of.

It is true also, that the Singaporean identity was at its strongest when we finally got rid of the British lords. Unfortunately, instead of building further on this strength, we began to wane in our effort and instead started giving in to a life of lazy bliss, trusting what we were told without proper reasoning.

Perhaps the blame cannot entirely be placed on our older generations because they were struggling to survive too, and we must keep in mind that it was a time, when being in tune with the government of the day, was the best way forward.

Singapore is what it is today because of the PAP. Some see beauty and greatness in it. Others see its desperate hold on power (GRC, political assassination of it opponents), with legalized corruption (cannot implicate TOC), and wealth-accumulation (salary). Some believe this is the trade-off for a life of peaceful ignorance, since no news is good news after all, so why fight it?

But whichever way you see it, it is not going to last, for as long as it remains on this chosen path – allowing new aliens to invade the land and dipping their hands into the contributions we had made to the treasure chest – the fruit of our hard-earned effort.

We, the citizens of Singapore, can accommodate the foreign talent – the way other citizens are accommodating those who arrive at their shores. What we cannot accommodate, is for them to come in droves, with not only their talents, but their dogs and cats, sarongs and spittoons.

i could not agree more to your #22 and #23 Comments.

Indeed, before independence, Singapore was liked a free land where people from elsewhere can easily settle down. Before the British took charge of it, the Malay Rulers before them did not have much of a system to control visitors or aliens from settling down.

And all those that came from foreign lands then were here either to escape from wars, poverty or simply just to find a better place to live and thrive. The early settlers worked for the British Ruler, the European, Chinese and Middle Eastern operated businesses or simply set up their simple trades of selling home-made foods, did repair works(shoes, utensil, machines etc), vendoring basic sundries and provisions or became fisherman and farmers.

In the older days, settlers ventured into unoccupied country-sides to set up their homes which resulted in self-sufficient villages which sprouted all over the Island.

After the 50s, visitor control(immigration) became more formalized and less aliens arrived. When the British handed over SIN to the Local Authority in the 60s, immigration was down to just a trickle. AND for the First Time, Singaporeans became formally SINGAPOREANS and not British Subjects. Personally, I define Singaporeans as those that registered themselves as Singaporeans from then on and those given birth by those citizens. Like to say that some then did choose to be British Subjects or prefered to be Malayans.

Most will be familiar with the History of SIN after independence and whatever the problems that SINGAPOREANS face today are due to the Administration of the Local Authority.

Me just like to try to make a distinction between local born(naturalized) citizens and ‘imported citizens’ in order to define the Singaporean Identity, in this comment. Hope it helps.

patriot

But I had instead suggested 3 solutions, 1. Pay them more. 2. Complain about them 3. Pay them more and complain about them. There might be more solutions, but offhand I thought of 3. You can choose to use them or not, that remains your choice.

I cannot agree about your analogy about “paying our leaders millions of dollars so that they can maintain their integrity while doing painfully little is the same as hiring my ah pek to sit at the top and do nothing”

Well simply due to the fact that your ah pek might not even be considered to be top talent, when we bring in questions about the pedigree (no offense intended), qualifications etc. In that possible scenario, the state of governance would be in question. Tell me if that does nothing to make us feel worried that if in the next 5 years, there would be no more Singapore.

Instead we can rest easily knowing that the painfully little that the multi million ministers (hereafter known as MMM)are doing, is a result of effective and efficient policies generated by their talents. And the fact when it comes down to the bitter and hard decisions, our MIW will bite the bullet and make those important decisions that a regular ah pek might not.

Lastly, the ah pek is doing nothing, but the MMM is doing painfully little. That has to account for the difference too.

In Animal Farm, after the Old Farmer was kicked out of the Farm, slowly the pigs supplanted themselves as the ruling elite. That state of affairs again is a whole cyclical shift back to the original instance, that power has left from a dictator back to another who might have the tendency again to revert back to the ways of old.

And truth be told, to compare Singapore as a dictatorial state that would in the end become communist in nature is just nonsense.

Why must there be only 2 solutions? There are many many solutions out there… to think that there are only 2 solutions (in fact the 2nd solution that you suggest is not even a solution) is plain unimaginative… and this further give rise to the shallowness in the next part of your analysis.

From your comment, it occurs to me that you are one of those that blindly believe what the MSM dishes out… Spore has no natural resources… Subsidy is a dirty word… etc…

However, what you have claim above, and in effect what the MSM has been regular chunking out, may not be the whole truth. Every country is unique in its own sense… we might not have natural resources… but we do not have natural disasters to deal with… also, our geographical location is so advantageous, that in itself it is a natural resources. In fact, natural resources might run out, but our geographical advantage wont run away, unless Thailand and Msia cut a channel across them.

The uniqueness in every country suggest that each have its own set of advantages and challenges… to just focus on Spore shortcomings to justify everything that the govt dishes out… is plain naiviety. If it is ever so simplistic, I can also claim that Brunei must bring in foreign talents in droves since they have nothing except oil. Simple isnt it?

I do agree that Spore is what it is today based on prudent measures and good planning. Hence all the more we should continue to practise such habits… instead of just taking it at surface value that we only have one and only one solution available.

You are right to say that things are easier said than done. It is the same for a victim of rape, which we all are. The element of fear, whether others will believe your story; or, the haplessness, whether you can bring the rapist to justice; these are all very emotional and real considerations.

The biggest problem any crime-fighter faces is the readiness of victims to step forward to report the crime. Many of us are doing that right now – thanks to the Internet age. For more than forty years, our bodies are not the only thing that have been raped. Our minds, our hearts, our feelings, our languages, our choices, our freedom, our expressions, our entire being – from our names to our souls – have all been raped, not once, not twice, but over and over again.

Even in this modern age of advance technology, it is still finding ways and means to rape us. If a citizen cannot recognize this, then we are nothing but a society that embraces such a crime by being numb to it.

The question is this: even as we are given in to being raped – can we expect our sons and daughters to be raped too? What kind of parents will we be? What are we leaving behind for posterity?

On any given day, your argument may sound logical with nothing to argue over. However, in the context of my comments, it does sound out of point.

I wasn’t talking about those who have decided for themselves that their lives would be better with adopted citizenship. Certainly they are free to decide to stay or to leave.

Now, the ‘we’ in your comment has two references, which you failed to recognize, when you lumped it as one in your parenthesized remark. Firstly, it is true that the ‘we’ of our ancestors may have came from a foreign land. Secondly, it is not true that the ‘we’, that is us, the children, had came from a foreign land. Like I’ve said, we, the children, were born into citizenship. This is the only land we knew while growing up.

Next, the topic of whether to leave or to stay and the choice we have. You are again correct to point out that we have a choice to leave or to stay. But then again, you failed to argue that those of us who choose to stay do not have a choice to decide who should come in, or whether we want them to come in. We are told to keep our doors wide open and to expect an influx of strangers entering our doorways. We have no choice.

So then, tell me is this a fair way to govern? On the one hand, the one who has decided to leave has a choice. On the other hand, the one who stays, have no choice. Thirdly, why does it even has to come down to this – to decide to stay or to leave?

Of course, the easy way out (not necessarily the best) to this is to decide to leave like some have done and are doing. But we must not forget the one who continues to feel an affiliation for his homeland and who wants to stay. This land will continue to be his home. Is it not right then to ensure that his opinion matters?

Why does the one who forces you to keep your doors wide open be the one to decide how you should live and who your neighbour should be?.

The only decision we should be making as citizens of a land is whether or not we are being taken care of with the dignity that citizenship brings. If we are treated with dignity, then all these talk about deciding to stay or to leave are nothing but – just talk.

But if we are not treated with the dignity of citizenship, then it is our duty to make sure that we regain our dignity before it completely disappears – which is what is happening now. This is the only decision we should be making.

Yes. There is a need to transcend the highly divisive state constructs of “local”-”foreign”, “privileged”-”disadvantaged”, “talent”-”others”, “stayers”-”quitters” etc and to deconstruct ‘pragmatism’ as an ideology – but what other kinds of discourse should we be engendering, without being shot down as ‘high-faluting’?

And so the called new media being monitored and regulated, acting as a tick tag toe for every tricky issue, repeating reasons and excuses in the hope we continue to accept and “move on”.

There is something wrong with Singapore and its policies, everyone feels so but the votes are otherwise, you tell me. Maybe everyone just care about GST credits and upgradings and these reasons are credible according to Kopitiam Apek and his gang.