by Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the Budget Statement 2011 by the Finance Minister .
Wages grew 0.5%
“C.6. Consider what happened to low-income Singaporean workers, at the 20th percentile of incomes. Their wages grew by about 23% in the last decade, or by 5% in real terms. (This is without taking into account theWorkfare payments they have received since 2008.)”
This means that the bottom 20 per cent of workers only had a real increase in income of just 0.5 per cent per annum, over the last decade. Of course, we should not be taking into account the Worfare payments since 2008, because the bulk of Workfare payments is to CPF which cannot be used and only Singaporeans 35 and above earning initially $1,500 and subsequently $1,700 were eligible.
“C.10. For Singaporean households at the 20th percentile of incomes, real incomes went up by about 8% over the decade – as growth in the second half of the decade more than offset the decline in real incomes that took place earlier. Further, this increase in incomes does not take into account the significant increase in net transfers from the Government that low-income households received over the decade”
This means that the bottom 20 per cent of households only had a real increase in income of just 0.8 per cent per annum. As the statistics indicate that the number of working members in households has increased, this rather low real income increase may need to be adjusted downwards to reflect this. And of course the significant increase in net transfers from the Government should not be taken into account, because how can we count the following as income:-
- subsidies for medical bills, GST Credits for offsetting the GST increase, Workfare to your CPF, Edusave Merit Bursary, Awards and Scholarships, post-Secondary Education Accounts, CPF Deferment Bonus, CPF Life Bonus and Voluntary Deferment Bonus, etc.
“C.11. Income growth was stronger for median Singaporean households. Their real incomes grew by 21% over the decade – again with more of this growth taking place in the second half-decade”
This means that half of Singapore households had a real income increase of less than 1.9 per cent per annum, over the last decade
CPF restoration?
“C.38. We will raise the employer contribution rate by another 0.5 percentage points, from 15.5% to 16%, which will restore the total contribution rate to 36%. The additional 0.5% will go into the Special Account”
In effect, it is not a restoration to the previous 36 per cent, because the additional 1.5 per cent are entirely to the Medisave and Special Accounts, and thus does not increase the Ordinary Account of workers.
Increase foreign worker levies good for Singaporeans?
“C.45. We will thus introduce further (foreign workers) levy increases for all sectors this year”
In the past, when foreign workers’ levies were increased, some employers reduced the wages or benefits of foreign workers, which in turn led to lower wages for Singaporeans too. In this connection, employers’ CPF contribution savings will increase to 16 per cent, if they employ foreign workers instead of Singaporeans. It may be an entirely different outcome for lower-income Singaporean workers, if the levies are channeled to them, instead of increasing the Government’s revenue.
Encourage employment of older workers?
“C.58. As a further measure, I will provide employers with a one-off Special Employment Credit for older Singaporean workers who are covered by the Workfare scheme. The Credits will be paid out over three years, and will encourage employers to attract and keep older workers. Employers will receive a Special Employment Credit of up to 50% of employer CPF contributions for workers aged 55 to 59. They will get a higher Credit of up to 80% of employer CPF contributions for workers aged 60 and above”
This may look nice on paper, but since the employer’s CPF contribution for workers over age 55 and 60 are only 8.5 and 6 per cent, respectively, the yearly credit for three years to employers is only 1.4 per cent (age 55 to 59) and 1.6 per cent (age 60 and above) respectively. So, how likely is it that employers will give preference to employing older workers for just a one-plus per cent credit per year? Why not give the credit entirely in one year instead?
Top-up Medisave again?
“D.53. As part of the surplus sharing that this year‟s Budget allows, I will provide a top-up this year to the CPF Medisave Accounts of Singaporeans aged 45 and above. Those aged 45 to 49 will receive up to $300, while those aged 50 to 59 will get a top-up of up to $400. Older Singaporeans will receive more, with those 80 and above getting up to $700”
Once again, we are topping up Medisave accounts, which may never be able to catch up with rising medical costs, like the at least 50 per cent hike in Class C surgery bills at six of the seven public hospitals over the last four years. We should spend this $500 million Medisave top-up or even more on healthcare instead and keep Class C fees from escalating, and not remain as one of the countries with the lowest public healthcare spending at about one per cent of GDP.
Increase HDB housing grants again?
“D.62. The Government will introduce a Special CPF Housing Grant (SHG) to help low-income families making a first-time purchase of a Buildto-Order flat, on top of the existing Additional CPF Housing Grant. The SHG will be provided to families who earn up to $2,250 per month”
Since the Additional CPF Housing Grant Scheme (AHG) started in 2006, and were gradually increased twice, $500 million has been paid to 28,500 houseolds. This works out to an average grant of just $17,500. As HDB flat prices have increased by about 70 per cent over the last five years or so, it would appear that everytime the grant is increased, it may be less than the increase in HDB prices. So, is it really a grant if it is less than the price increase?
Increase U-Save and S & CC rebates again?
“We will provide households with more direct help to cope with rising expenses. Utility costs are going up because of the sharp rise in global oil prices. To help households cope with rising costs, I will provide additional Utilities-Save (U-Save) and Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) rebates this year”
HDB renters worse off?
Rebates may more than offset such cost increases, particularly for HDB 1 and 2-room flats, but the change in HDB rental flats policy from 1 March 2007, to increase rentals to up to 30, 50, 70 and 90 per cent, of market rent, for houshold incomes not more than $800, $1,500, $2,000 and over $2,000, respectively, may be even more than all the Growth Dividends and rebates. In other words, the HDB ental policy change may negate all the Budget benefits to such low-income households.
Average income households get $3,000?
“D.81. These measures will provide significant benefits for Singaporeans this year, and further benefits in the future. The average Singaporean household will receive about $3,000 from this year‟s Budget. This will be equal to about 5% of their annual household incomes. It will also be more than double the increase they could see in their household expenses this year”
I think the problem with this statement may be that not all the average $3,000 benefits are disposable cash that people can use, but the entire increase in the cost of living are cash expenses, with inflation expected to hit 5 to 6 per cent in the fist half of this year, before moderating to a lower rate.
Lower-income vs average-income?
“D.82. Lower-income households will get more, especially in comparison to their household expenses. I will illustrate with the case of a 4-person family, with parents earning a combined monthly income of $2,000. They have two young children, one in primary school and the other in childcare.
“D.83. The couple will receive Growth Dividends of $1,700 and Workfare Special Bonus of $780 in total. In addition, they will benefit from a Child Development Credit of $400, and a further $260 from this year‟s enhanced U-Save and S&CC rebates. In total, they will receive about $3,100 from the „Grow & Share‟ Package”
This example of a typical lower-income family, may be the exception rather than the norm, as both husband and wife would have to be 35 years or older to get Workfare, with each earning an average income of $1,000. Moreover, if a typical lower-income family gets $3,100, how is it that “The average Singaporean household will receive about $3,000 from this year‟s Budget”? So, are we saying that “The average Singaporean household” gets about the same amount as a typical lower-income household? If this is indeed the case, are we not being unfair to lower-income households by giving them about the same amount as average households, in this Budget’s ‘Grow and Share Benefits’?
Typical lower-income vs higher income?
In this connection, in the Annex B2: Benefits For Households Illustrations, the Total Budget 2011 Benefits are $3,513, $3,065 and $4,081, for a 4-person HDB 3-room earning $2,000, 4-person HDB 4-oom earning $5,300, and a 5-person 5-room HDB earning $6,000.
So, the much higher income family gets much higher Budget benefits? Are these typical illustrations? If so, then maybe there is something wrong with the allocation of benefits in the Budget, as surely lower-income families should get much higher benefits than much higher income ones, and not the other way round. It may be better to have a more detailed breakdown of how many and what type of families get how much, instead of just single family illustrations.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Only the Papayas think they deserved the minimum wages not thousand dollars but millions
When a person is prepared to put a price on his heart & mind like lky once said about everyone has a price, he then descents into the very abyss of lky’s being. And in that process thus lose his very humanity inherited. The choice is yours and not lky’s in pap for you!
All these goodies would not worth much when full time jobs are given to foreigners FT which is cheaper but local which is more expensive to be employed. PAP has no idea or maybe simply ignores what’s happening on the ground.
Goodies are totally redundant.
The increase in foreign levy applies only to blue collar foreign workers but not those PMET Employment Pass (EP) holders.
The increase in CPF contribution applies to all Singaporeans especially those Singaporean PMETs earning more than $4500.
These changes make Singaporean PMETs more expensive to hire than foreign PMETs.
These changes can cause the wages of Singaporean PMETs to remain stagnant or fall otherwise cause Singaporean PMETs to be retrenched. Those Singaporean PMETs already unemployed will find harder to get back their careers or they will end up under-employed because the above changes favour hiring of foreign PMETs.
Dear Singapore PMET,
lky in pap always talk about “free market economy”. But in reality as in many areas it is his “managed economy” to solve even problems he created. Because he has yet again shot himself in the head as he forgot that he once said of our democracy as a “guided democracy”.
Who guides it and by what definations for “perfection” he would have all humans on earth to “belief” him if he can? Whose head needs to be examined? “Liars most also have good memories” a Singaporean said to me once when all were discussing lky & pap.They certainly don’t!
Whatever ‘goodies’ they may offer always come with strings attached. Please ask yourself ‘WHY’ (why are they offering- is it really for a social cause or some other cause?) ; ‘WHEN’ ( the timing of their offer); ‘WHOM’ ( are the offers directly beneficial to Singaporeans? Or indirectly for some other people? )
All I want to know is:
HOW MUCH ARE THE (i) PAY HIKES, (ii) JOB PERF BONUSES AND (iii) GDP BONUSES for:
- senior civil servants,
- members of parliament,
- Supreme Court judges,
- ministers (with/without portfolios),
- the Prime Minister?
These will be paid from public funds. So why is the Budget silent when it involves multi-millions?
The Pariah
http://www.singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com
For those who condemn the PAP, they cannot come out with a better solution. The “shadow budget” that SDP came out with is extremely perilous to the nation. Singapore would be very likely to just tumble down if it falls into the hands of SDP. Each and every suggestion the SDP made is very much for the worse and to the great perils of the nation. Particularly, the suggests compromising of national defence – you will end up losing your entire country. Don’t pay us the cash dividend – why rob us of what the govt wanted to give us? Reduce foreign workers, minimum wages – you are just assuming that investors being local or foreign have to invest in Singapore, you listen to SDP, Singapore will end up losing billions and billions of investments to other countries. Reduce of scrap COE – you will have our road flooded with cars. Reduce or scrap GST – foreigners would be spared of these too, at our expense. Increase income tax- do we want this? Give unemployment benefits – PAP is already doing so thru the public assistant scheme, if SDP increse it, that would only encourage laziness of refusing work at our cost. Just think, what our govt did is just right, thinking of the danger of the nation falling into the hands of the opposition parties, especially SDP!
dear CitizenSinga,
first of all i do not endorse SDP’s budget, neither the PAP’s.
just some of my own points to make,
GST is not a blunt instrument, where u can only tweak either up or down, this is a false dilemma fallacy.
GST can be tweaked for luxury goods to have a higher rating, and basic necessities like rice to have a zero rating.
for example
with all goods staying at 7%, rice at 0% and $8000 handbags at 10%
for sure, the foreigners & the rich can benefit at, say, buying cooking oil at lower prices, but that would be insignificant as one simply cannot consume more cooking oil for the sake of it being cheaper.
i personally will not eat 2 bowls of rice instead of 1 for dinner even if rice is free, i am sure ppl like Wee Cho Yaw will not do that either.
if we really want to be so calculative, we can simply tax the foreigners & higher income earners for the benefits they have received from zero rating of basic necessities.
i am sure ppl like Philip Yeo or Jim Rogers will be more than happy to pay whatever small sum of additional taxes deemed payable for what relatively little savings they got through GST re-rating.
support giving out some cash to citizen, but not the way PAP is going to do.
in case u did not read the government’s budget carefully, it intends to give $100 to those of which annual income is $100000 or greater, those r ppl with more than $8300/month salary, why would they need $100?
& it intends to give those living in properties of which annual value is more than $13000, which obviously includes ppl living in good class bungalows, it incredible for me to believe that these ppl need $300.
if my semi-Detached house is worth $4million, i need an additional $300 from the government to do what?
Dear iworkhardsometimes,
1. Regarding GST, the PAP govt is just doing what u suggested, if u look at it, by not charging foreigners more tax, but instead, giving citizens GST rebates or other rebates. I just hope that the govt will continue giving us GST rebates like they used to give.
2. Think of it, if you are a professional, below 40 years, willing to work to contribute to the economy, I would like you to make a list on the number of countries which would welcome you to work and live there. Plenty of countries would want you. You can choose. You would then choose based on many factors like the income tax rates of the country among other factors.
3. Ask the rich, as you say, those earning above $100,000, if they agree with you. They won’t. For whatever it is, they do want to be benefited from the cash dividend also, for they want to feel part of it and appreciated, among other reasons.
Plus, on the GST, if you want various different rates, its going to be very much more headache to implement. You all just suggest, but conveniently forgot to think of the detailed implementation and enforcement. GST audit is going to be very difficult- difficult to verify if the goods are indeed classified correctly, so is the enforcement of it. GST registered entities would have to bear much higher costs of GST filing and auditing.
Dear CitizenSinga,
i have read your other comment on another post, but i am lazy to shift around, so i will answer that here,
i think SDP does have some valid points, but their Budget leaves much to me desired as well.
& i do agree with you on the part where u say Dr Chee tends to end his speeches with God Bless, faith should not be brought into politics.
Dear CitizenSinga,
your efforts at defending the PAP are commendable, but i am afraid the irony is those whom you are trying to defend disagrees with u.
and i would like to point out to you that in PAP’s budget, page 30, C.75,
quote: [I will also expand the scope of GST zero-rating for repair and
maintenance services performed on ship parts and components, so as
to further promote our maritime sector. ]
apparently Mr Tharman does not think that assigning different GST rates to different goods is such a difficult thing after all,
in fact, he can even go right down to the specific components, services n parts.
it is a joke if u say u can do it for scenario A but cannot do it for scenario B when both basically involve the same thing.
lets not kid ourselves, there is no such thing as very difficult when u can do means testing for hospitalization.
there is no such thing as higher auditing & administrative cost when u can spend so much money to review public transport fees & end up with “much more of the same” as a result.
how much did it cost to rename Marina Bay to back to “Marina Bay” ?
from PAP’s Budget
quote [C.77. I will allow GST zero-rating for specified services supplied to overseas
persons, if they are performed on goods kept in qualifying specialised
warehouses and eventually sent overseas. This scheme will help to
promote the use of specialised storage facilities that store high-value
collectibles such as art and antiques. ]
- according to CitizenSinga, isn’t this all VERY difficult and complicated to trace and enforce?
quote [C.76. The biomedical sector continues to grow in importance as a key
contributor to our economy. Singapore is fast developing into a location
for businesses to manage their clinical research and manufacturing. To
support growth in the biomedical sector, I will grant GST relief for
imported clinical trial materials, ..]
- CitizenSinga, did u see the word “relief”? relief rated GST does not mean 0%, neither does it mean 7%, it could be anything in between, isn’t it too costly to implement?
dear CitizenSinga,
on your comments numbered with 1,2,3
1. rebates are a poor solution, becos u have to estimate consumption. the poor do not have the reputation of being the best managers of money, it is likelier that they will misuse lump sums of money (like rebates), so it is better to keep the cost as low as possible for basic necessities rather than to give rebates.
2. u made a generalized statement on globalization, your point has no impact on my previous comments.
3. Argumentum ad misericordiam – in this case an appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy.
;
u r belittling the rich to expect that they will feel appreciated if given a mere $100.
if i have more than enough money, u give me money & expect me to feel appreciated, i feel insulted.
i once change a light bulb for a neighbor out of goodwill, he offered me money, i felt insulted.
every dollar given to the poor represents a higher percentage of their net worth as compared to every dollar given to the rich, with diminishing marginal utility for the rich the higher the income bracket u go,
with resources being finite, the rich is inadvertently competing for public monies with the poor,
$100 would mean nothing to Mr Kwek Leng Beng, if u give him $100 from public funds, i think it’s a misallocation of resources.
All these handouts ($$$/rebates/??) are pre-election campaigning in poetry aka the icing on the cake.
Governance is bound to be prose (aka the real cake)n in other words every dollar/rebate/??? that is handed out is going be taken back tenfold but so very cleverly disguised in other ways n some cooked-up excuses via taxation, price increases and …
The mandate was given by voters to govern responsibly, transparently, be accountable and putting citizens at heart with all policies and what-have-you. Is that happening?
It would have one stand in good stead not to overlook but also remember that the governance in the last decade or so has been dismal n beyond belief and beggars respect!
To assume that it is the case with incumbents is delusional.
Agree or not agree when it tangibly translates into real votes that can oust or unseat these self-serving incumbents, it would be a real victory!
The Orwellian day/nite mare can be ended and it takes each individual to (re)kindle the fire in one’s belly to effect not change but a transformation.
Dear iworkhardsometimes,
For yr info, for import and export, it is easy to verify as there are import and export documents. My biggest concern and biggest nightmare is, if the govt is going to fall to the hands of the opposition parties – if u guys go on to wholeheartedly support them, just in a moment of folly.
I do agree with you that the PAP do have many flaws after all. It is good to constructively criticise them, to push them to improve but what I am afraid of, is many indeed get to heated up in the process, throw the towel and support the opposition. Just think again, politics is not something that anyone on the street can do it. It takes alot of experiences. Lets look at a smaller scale, if I just pass on a medium size company to you, an immediate takeover, the chances would be everything could go haywire. Normally, the old owner would be requested to stay around to assist on the handing over for quite sometime till the new owners are ready to completely takeover.
I do find many flaws within the PAP’s policies but the SDP’s totally does not make sense at all. I only hope that you and all do not rush in to support the other shore, just in the heat of the moment.
And also, from my observations, everyone just like to hang around at coffee shops to keep complaining. But when suggest to u guys to bring it up to the MP or ministers in the meet-the people session, everyone shrinks. From my own experience, fairly speaking, they do take our views into considerations, especially when many people are bring up the same matter. It is especially so when a large number of people make it a point to bring it up to a minister.
Simple and straight, I will support the PAP but would also continue to criticise them on their faults for the purpose of improvements. That’s on my part, for sure!
Dear CitizenSinga,
precisely, we import almost all the goods we consume, n therefore rice is in fact imported, which, fortunately according to you, it is easy to verify as there are import and export documents.
well, for the record, i am not on any side, blind allegiance to any party is not my cup of tea.
n i think your fears are unfounded,i do not foresee the PAP being replaced anytime soon.
in the event of a “freak” result, becos of the President, there are ppl in certain important appointments where even the new government elected by the people cannot remove them.
so whether we like it or not, these ppl will stay around to (like u said)’assist’ the new government.
so please be reassured we are in good hands.
Dr Chee like all politicians are entitled to play politics, i don’t agree with some of the proposals but i would not brush them off totally.
for example, ministers collect high pay and we have to be frugal with appointments, i do not see why we need 2 deputy PMs when UK only needs 1.
on this i think SDP has a valid point.
i welcome pro PAP views as long as they are well argued, lets try to improve the level of informed debate without favor or prejudices;
regardless whether it’s proposals from the government or alternative voices.
nothing from any meet the people session will beat this (here)
if they are truly interested they can come here.
n i would not be surprised some of them are already reading these.
Dear CitizenSinga,
Union Chief Lim Swee Say: We are like a little deaf frog, deaf to all criticisms.
please do tell me what’s your opinion on the above statement.
Dear iworkhardsometimes,
I do not want to argue much about GST. You really need to be hands on on the job before really knowing all the practical problems. Just like we cannot fully understand all the problems the saloon lady face daily until we are in that business. I personally have years of experiences in GST auditing. Just briefly, if rates are varying, NTUC or other megamart like carrefour would need to revamp their entire system to scan and account for different GST for different items and auditors would have a hard time verifying if it is correct.
That’s my point I am trying to get across now. The opposition parties, though they are right in some points, they do not at all have enough understanding to take the country.
Just only one example on one aspect I can foresee a bit. Imagine again you are a boss of a medium size company. You got to bring in clients or customers to give the company business, please your clients and also you got to please and manage your staff. The govt cannot tell us eveything, just as a boss of the company cannot tell their staff everything. Some of the things the boss do is to please his big clients, without the big clients, the company will go bust, cannot feed his employees. But his employees cannot understand and the boss have to keep it confidential and cannot tell them. Just on this one aspect, I seriously doubt any opposition party has the ability now to handle. By the way, is any member of any opposition party bosses of at least a moderately large, profitable and successful business entity? if possible the entity should be at large as Far East Group of not far from that. Having a PHD is just a first step. On top of that, you need practical experiences to get in to the real thing.
I am no only looking at lowering salaries but also increased competencies and quality. If you are a boss of a successful private company earning $1m a year or $2m or $3m a year, send in your application to be a politician, as we can afford your salary, we will take you if you are really the best. Actually there are quite many of these successful entrepreneurs earning around $1m a year, quietly lying around pretending to be just a normal nobody, walking around the market and sitting around the coffeshop all the time. If it were me, I would just rather earn that $1m while pretending to be a normal nobody rather than being a high profile politician having your picture slashing across the newspapers and media all the time.
Dear CitizenSinga,
let me ask u the same question,
how many PAP MPs including ministers have PHD qualifications?
how many PAP MPs including minister helmed a company as large as Far East Organization before they went into politics?
apply the same demands to yourself first before you try to set sky high requirements to exclude others,
our arguments are overly simplified, Kip Thorne has a PHD, there are no reasons to believe that he will govern a country well.
if a boss cannot say something to an employee resulting in unhappiness, it’s a case of poor communication, n they are definitely not top rate material, the best business owners keep their clients & employees happy & well motivated at the same time.
i think you are out of your depth.
no point arguing over GST when u keep citing implementation difficulties
if u agree that variable gst is better than lump sum rebates, there is no reason to say we will not do it just to make the auditor’s job easier.
the poor should lose money to make work easier an auditor working in paid job?
what a good argument.
if thats the case we should not even have GST in the a first place, it would make the auditor’s job most easy.
Dear CitizenSinga,
i quote u: “Simple and straight, I will support the PAP but would also continue to criticise them on their faults for the purpose of improvements. That’s on my part, for sure!”
u said u r going to criticise them(the PAP).
Mr Lim Swee Say said: We are like a little deaf frog, deaf to all criticisms.
so can u tell me what you are going to do now?
if u keep ignoring inconvenient questions i post to you, i’ll take it that you concede your position.
To iworkhardsometimes
I enjoy reading your arguments here. I would like to thank you from my heart.
Dear Thank you,
thank u for your kind words.
perhaps due to my very limited formal education, i actually find it time consuming to read n make comments here,
predictably some of my comments might very well be flawed, and others turn out to be rather patchy, but it’s ok, i am comfortable with that, for, i see no need or reason to impress anybody.
the beauty of relative anonymity on the internet is that, it does not matter who u are, everybody is treated equally, even if u are the King of the Milky way, if u make an argument that does not stand up to robust examination, ppl will bring u down to earth.
i sincerely hope, Singaporeans can truly work towards becoming a thinking, participative, informed and reflective citizenry, that alone would beat 101 constitutional safeguards.
it is an aspiration, personally i can’t do it particularly well, but i try and do my part to participate as a citizen.
i guess that is why i persist to 献丑 here, despite being not too intelligent myself.
i have enjoyed my time here & i hope u enjoyed it too.
Dear iworkhardsometimes,
You may got me wrong and think of me as supporting PAP on the ministerial part. If you see my comments as critical, I indeed mean that they should improve on the quality of the minister.
PAP is not the perfect but based on all the alternatives we have now, they are indeed the best among what we have now. The oppositions consist of many small, small parties all scattered. Even Chiam See Tong get out of SDP and set up his own.
As we have experience working with others in a medium or large organisation, it is not easy always to get your point across no matter how valid your point may be. So how? Just resign? Its a matter of tolerance. As all the opposition parties cannot unite to form just ONE opposition party, it is a question of whether PAP is intolerable or the opposition parties are intolerant. Like you say about GST, your ideal is scrap or reduce GST. For many of the previous years, except this, the govt did not do exactly what you requested for but in a way, did it indirectly by given cash rebates on GST. I would honestly find it tolerable if they would just continue to give such cash rebates. The money went into my bank account anyway.
Why don’t you go and work in an organisation which would do whatever you suggest, exactly the way you wanted it. First of all you got to see if you can find such a work place. As for me, I would compromise if things are tolerable, perhaps they do it indirectly, not exactly the way I wanted it. The fact that so many small small opposition parties and they just cannot unite proves that they are intolerant, not very much of PAP intolerable.
Whatever you say about LIm Swee Say, my experience tells me all. When I bring up a valid point to the govt, I did see some change, not exactly what I requested for, but the change was to that effect, although indirectly.
If you guys just like to simply go and support the opposition, don’t know which one, if the country collapse as a result of your wrong choice, its just very simple for me, I will just pack and go to another country and be their Foreign Talent there. After all, I have done what I have to do.
well, they want to do it one way, i want to do it another way, no problem, they are the decision maker, they can do it their way, it’s their call, for now anyway.
u do it your way, i push my own ideas, perfectly ok, it’s allowed by the system.
in fact there are times i agree with Mr Lee as well, i quote:
“There is nothing to prevent you from pushing your propaganda, to push your programme out to the students or with the public at large…and if you can carry the ground, if you are right, you win. That’s democracy.”
- Lee Kuan Yew telling students to form political parties, Straits Times, Feb 1, 2005
so, in asking me to back down with all this ‘tolerance’ rhetoric, are u saying you disagree with Mr Lee?
‘If you guys just like to simply go and support the opposition, don’t know which one, if the country collapse as a result of your wrong choice, its just very simple for me, I will just pack and go to another country and be their Foreign Talent there. After all, I have done what I have to do.’ By leaving if and when the country collapses, I cannot help but question your patriotism. You are indeed very fortunate to have the luxury of leaving when the boat sinks but I believe many true-bred Singaporeans do not and would not. I wonder how they would speak of you.