Forum Index
this forum welcomes all forumers who appreciate decent and well thought out views and discussions. all forumers are encouraged to accept that different forumers have different views and often there is no absolutely right or wrong views.
Menu
 Forum IndexHome
FAQFAQ
MemberlistMemberlist
UsergroupsUsergroups
RegisterRegister
ProfileProfile
Log in to check your private messagesMessages
Log inLogin/Out

Quick Search

Advanced Search

Links
mysingaporenews
Singapore River Tour
Singapore Education
Singapore Orchids
littlespeck
ypapforum
Singapore Hosting
Sample Link 2
Sample Link 2

Who's Online
[ Administrator ]
[ Moderator ]


Google Search
Google

http://www.phpbb.com
The Role and Responsibility of a Government.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13855
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tan Chuan Jin, the man in the mirror
Tan Chuan Jin is the man in the right place and the right time. He could come out a hero or be totally messed up by the shitty situation that has caught up with him. He is in a position that is no different from Boon Wan when he volunteered to clean the housing shit. Unfortunately the problem was too big for his half hearted measures and property prices are still running out of control with more genuine buyers sucked into the property sink hole with all their savings and future incomes. The hole is getting bigger and unplugged still.
The job market that victimizes and discriminates against Singaporeans and favouring foreigners did not happen yesterday. It was allowed to grow in strength for years, and the problem is not going to be solved by a battalion of men. It is an enormous mess of discrimination, victimization, questionable qualifications and experience, fake qualifications, phantom employees, quota bashing or cheating, etc etc. And there is a whole ging gang of players all feasting on a system that has gone haywire. How many hundreds of thousands of foreigners are now employed here and how many should not be here? How many have deprived our own citizens from having decent or good paying jobs through foul or unethical means? How many of our citizens have been cheated? How many vultures are laughing themselves crazy at the stupidity of our system or no system that allows them to do as they pleased at the expense of our own citizens who have lost their jobs?
Tan Chuan Jin has a plate full in his hand. And he needs all the help and resources to clean this mess up, not on alone, but with the support of several ministries and the cabinet. The situation did not reach this level of complexity and enormity for no reasons. Just like the housing problem, it is not easy to step out of this quagmire that was allowed to be there in the first place. How did it happen? How did the housing problem happen? Dunno leh. It just happened.
Can Tan Chuan Jin do anything to change the situation? All the eyes are on him. He is in the spotlight and the chances of him being dragged along by this tsunami are greater than he staying afloat to claim the prize at the end of this rough ride. He not only needs to undo the mess but to restore the job market to support our citizens, to favour our citizens, to strengthen the core of Singaporeans in Singapore. It is a mammoth task awaiting him. His plate is full. All the Singaporeans are looking to him as a savior of jobs and to reclaim our country from the foreigners.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Jan 1970
Posts: 1350

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Govt cannot continue to build more flats
‘For instance, the Govt cannot continue to build more flats to meet new housing demand as this would mean “hurting the many home owners who can now rent out their properties.”’ Khaw Boon Wan.
The above is quoted in the main media. So, can the govt continue to build another few hundred thousand units for the 6.9m population?
What do you think? Controlling the supply? Can continue to bring in more migrants?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13855
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does the Govt respect the people’s elected representatives?
Apparently this is so. It must be, the MPs are elected by the people to represent them and their interests and rightly or wrongly, the Govt has no choice but to work with the MPs, to show some respect to the people. Anyway, this is only an issue when the MPs are from the opposition. An article by Chua Mui Hoong over the weekend raised this relationship between the Govt and the opposition MPs.
The problem is that many Govt initiatives are backed and funded by public money and the Govt cannot deprive the residents of opposition wards of the public funds. Allocating the funds to grassroot advisers smack of impropriety in the sense that the grassroot advisers often are the rejects of the people. The people did not want the grassroot advisers to represent and did not want to work with them. If the Govt is spending party funds, the opposition MPs have nothing to say and the Govt can make love with the grassroot advisers for as long as it wants.
This tricky problem arose again in Parliament when Chan Chun Sing announced that his ministry would be setting up 20 social service offices across the island. These offices are to provide social assistance to the residents and would require the combined effort of social workers, agencies and also the MPs. Chan went on to ask the MPs to work with his officials to identify suitable sites for such offices. Innocently an opposition MP stood up saying she would love to work with the Ministry of Social and Family Development,MSF on this, and Chan’s reply was that he would work with the grassroot leaders. Wasn’t it awkward?
Chua Mui Hoong did not let this matter go away. In her article she posed the question whether it is time that the Govt should put the money where the mouth is, and seriously work with the elected MPs of both sides. The past practice of ostracizing the opposition MPs did not work and was done in bad taste. Should there be a new start to our all inclusive society trumpeted by the Govt, inclusive of opposition MPs when delivering services to the people using public fund?
Does the Govt respect the people and their choice of their MPs and would the Govt show its sincerity to work with them, and be answerable to the people?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
southernglory1



Joined: 26 Apr 2008
Posts: 1130

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:27 pm    Post subject: Tony Tan lost nearly US$42 billion dollars of S'pore's money Reply with quote

Subject: Singapore President Tony Tan lost nearly $42 billion dollars of Singapore's money


*You may have known about this as it happened some years ago.*

* *

MAJULAH SINGAPURA ****
***Singapore*** President Tony Tan lost nearly $42 billion dollars of ***
*Singapore****’s money****

[image: Singapore President Tony
Tan]<http://johnharding.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/TonyTan.jpg>
****


Tony Tan’s track record at Government of Investment Corporation (GIC) has
been a disaster. According to the Wall Street Journal, during his time as
Deputy Chairman, GIC lost approximately $42 billion.****

In January 2008, just when investors were shorting **U.S.** banks, Tony Tan
spent billions of dollars of ****Singapore**** taxpayers’ monies to invest
in Citigroup and UBS.****

To justify his reckless actions, Tony Tan said in an interview with the
Business Times, “In the case of UBS, they have a worldwide global wealth
management business which is something not replicable by any bank.
Citigroup has an international worldwide consumer business which is also
unique.”****

** **

At the time, Jim Rogers, a former partner of George Soros in the famed
Quantum Fund, said he felt “sad” for ****Singapore**** as it would be
losing a lot of money.****

****Rogers**** continued, “They’re making a big mistake; these banks have
many more problems still ahead. They should wait until these companies are *
*rea**lly on the ropes a few years from now . . . and trading at $5 a
share.”****

****Rogers**** also expressed doubts about the capability of GIC’s fund
managers, including Tony Tan, “I know these people, and they have never
given me the impression that they’re smarter than anyone else! They have
gigantic amounts of money, but they’ve made a bad judgment in these cases.”*
***

** **

A few months later, the value of GIC’s shares in Citigroup and UBS crashed
after both got mired in toxic debts during the 2008 global financial crisis.
****

The news was naturally censored by the **Singapore** media, but the Wall
Street Journal reported that GIC suffered a loss around 59 billion ****
Singapore**** dollars (US$41.6 billion) in 2008, making it one of the worst
years for the sovereign wealth fund since it was established in 1981.****

Now, Tony Tan is ****Singapore****’s president. *What an irony!!*****

****

****
[img][/img]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13855
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Robbing the young rich to pay the old poor

The legend of Robin Hood and how he robbed the rich to pay the poor and always fighting against the Sheriff of Nottingham who only knew how to protect the rich, was a favourite and must read comics of our generation. I don’t think the Y generation onwards bother with such wholesome righteousness. But the Govt still does, as many of them were of my generation or close to it. They are brought up with the same righteousness, of robbing the rich to pay the poor, not robbing to pay themselves for sure.

Housing is still a big pain to many Singaporeans, and the right to buy a public flat from the Govt is like striking lottery to some, or a big savings to many. Every Singaporean given the opportunity will want to buy directly from the Govt to save a few hundred thousand bucks of their hard earned money. With a monopolistic public housing scheme, the Govt knows how vital its role is and how they could make life easier or meaner to the Singaporean home buyers. By tweaking the demand and supply, by formulating rules and regulations, some will be cut out from the public housing schemes and be left at the mercy of the free market and the private property developers.

Many groups of Singaporeans have been deprived from the public housing scheme while the ‘Ginny come lately’ new citizens were graciously allowed to buy public housing freely. One of the groups that have been deprived from public housing is the young high income earners, ie those earning above $12,000. To the Govt and to many Singaporeans, this group is very rich and must not be allowed to buy public housing. So the Govt has in place an income ceiling to keep these rich young people from public housing.

What the Govt has done is like what Robin Hood had done in the past, robbing these rich young people to pay the poor. By not allowing them to buy direct from the Govt, these young people have no choice but to buy from the resale market or buy private properties. The effect is a transfer of their savings to those who are selling their public housing in the resale market. The difference in price can be a few hundred thousand dollars. Effectively the Govt is forcing these young people to hand their money to the HDB owners who bought their flats direct from HDB. This must be a well thought out scheme of the Govt, to ensure a fairer distribution of wealth among the average Singaporeans. The young and abler Singaporeans must share their wealth with the less able and older Singaporeans. Who can fault such a benevolent design?

If these young people refuse to share their savings with the HDB dwellers, they can share them with the private property developers and pay even more. In the latter case it will not be robbing the rich to pay the poor. It will be robbing the not so rich young people to pay the rich developers and rich speculators.

Whatever way you look at it, it is a good thing. The young people have the money and it is only right that they should share their hard earned money with those who are less able. Not sure if one agrees that they should share with the rich developers and speculators. The Govt is doing a righteous thing, a moral thing, a good thing, like modern day Robin Hood. We have a very caring Govt that cares for the poor.

The Govt should not remove the ceiling, for by doing so they would not be able to rob the young rich to pay the poor old. The moral of the story is that it is ok to rob the rich and pay the poor. But don’t touch the super rich. Their wealth must be protected at all cost and to grow and grow. Make the young rich buy properties from the super rich, who incidentally, many have bought many properties and waiting for the young rich to hand over their hard earned money for them. We have a good system in place. Don’t rock the boat. Be thankful and be grateful.

PS. I wrote this piece with my eyes wide shut.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13855
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Has the Govt lost its way?
Yes, we are a very rich country with a lot of money in our reserves. We can have anything that money can buy. We can buy anything we want or give away money to whoever we want. This is the privilege of being a rich nation. The question that many citizens are asking is how the money is being spent and they are not really happy about it.
Why are we giving so many scholarships to our schools and universities to foreigners when so many of our students could do with a bit of help?
Why are we giving away so many university places to foreigners while our children have to find university places overseas, and spending a bomb or draining the savings of their parents?
Why are we having a few hundred thousand foreigners gaining employed, in good jobs, earning good money, while our own citizens are jobless, under employed, working part time, working in jobs that they are over qualified?
Why are foreigners taking away so many plum jobs that we have created, in our govt services, govt owned companies, when these jobs could have gone to our own citizens? New citizens and PRs are foreigners who have not really contributed to the fruits that they are enjoying.
Why do we allowed foreigners to set up businesses here and employing their own people with very little benefits to our citizens?
Why are we selling our limited land/properties to foreigners to add to our high property prices, some buying more than they need for speculation or ‘investment’? And Singaporeans have difficulties buying a home and the Govt not selling public housing to its citizens but foreigners turned new citizens can buy?
Why are we giving away citizenships that came with so many subsidies so easily and readily to foreigners?
Have we lost our direction, the meaning of a nation, a country with its own citizens and interests to take care of first and foremost? What happen to nation building, becoming a nation of people of shared values and a shared future for good or for bad? Inclusiveness is about own citizens, not foreigners, not PRs and not so much about new citizens that need to integrate over time.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Jan 1970
Posts: 1350

PostPosted: Wed May 29, 2013 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A level playing field for Singaporeans and foreigners
When the Govt talks about a level playing field for Singaporeans and foreigners, it is saying that Singaporeans and foreigners should compete fairly and equally in employment opportunities, in business opportunities, in education opportunities except for a few exclusive areas like driving taxis, right to serve NS, places in schools and maybe subsidies in housing and medical care.
On face value this is about a more balanced and right thing to do by our Govt in taking care of Singaporeans, PRs and non residents. The Govt has to carefully calibrate its policies to ensure that it is fair to everyone, citizens, PRs and non residents, just like when the Govt is thinking of introducing anti discriminatory employment laws, it has to consider the interests of employers and employees, Singaporeans and foreigners.
Our Govt is about the fairest Govt you can find on earth. Why are Singaporeans still unhappy and complaining that fairness is being unfair, a level playing field is unacceptable, equal opportunities are unequal and unfair to Singaporeans?
Singaporeans must put themselves in the shoes of foreigners and PRs to appreciate what the Govt is doing. Then they can appreciate the fairness of our Govt in treating everyone fairly, citizens, PRs and non residents are all human beans and deserve fair treatment by a fair govt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Jan 1970
Posts: 1350

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The perversion of Nationhood
A state cannot exist without citizens. A state is created by the citizen as a protective umbrella for the common good of a collective citizenry. A state and its citizenry co exist in a symbiotic relationship. One cannot exist without the other. A people without a state become stateless. A country without a citizenry is waiting to be taken over, or a loose or disorganized state will soon be taken over.
The role of a govt is an intermediary between the citizens and the state. A govt in a democratic state is voted by the people as a caretaker of the state and to promote the interests of the citizens. Promoting the interests of residents or non citizens is incidental and can only be pursued by the good grace of the citizens, on the generosity of the citizens. A govt that usurped the power given to it by the people to take care of non citizens and neglect the interests and rights of the citizens has no reason to exist or be supported by the citizens.
Permanent Residents are not citizens and owe no loyalty or responsibility to the state but to themselves. They are fair weather residents and will move to greener pasture when things are not favourable to them. They have no right to vote and be represented in Parliament. They cannot enjoy the same privileges as citizens. Period.
Non residents or transient workers have even lesser rights than PRs. It is pure stupidity to allow non residents and PRs to have the same opportunities in all things, especially in employment opportunities. There could be exceptions for those who are here to contribute extraordinarily to the country and people. Such people, like the tycoons, may even get special privileges in some areas to make their stay worthwhile but not to compromise the well beings of the citizens. One glaring problem is the buying up of properties and high property prices.
Top talents in their respective fields, not joker talents dressed up as talents, can also be welcomed and bestowed with certain privileges. This group is unlikely to be more than 1 or 2% of the foreigners here. The rest are here to benefit themselves more than the state and better enjoy their time here and the hospitality of the state and people, and not to exploit the people.
Discrimination by foreigners against the citizens must be made a crime. It has no place in the country. The govt of the people, by the people must be for the people, must be there to protect the people in its own territory. Neglecting this principle cannot be tolerated. When a govt sees it its responsibility to care more for the foreigners than its citizens, it is a dereliction of duty to the citizens, a perversion of nationhood.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13855
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A betrayal of trust
‘This lens makes you more likely to share the distinct strands of libertarianism that are blossoming in this fragmenting age: the deep suspicion of authority, the strong belief that hierarchies and organizations are suspect, the fervent devotion to transparency, the assumption that individual preference should be supreme….
Another is the rising tide of distrust, the corrosive spread of cynicism, the fraying of the social fabric and the rise of people who are so individualistic in the outlook that they have no real understanding of how to knit others together and look after the common good….For a society to function well, there have to be basic levels of trust and cooperation, a respect for institutions and deference to common procedures….
He betrayed honesty and integrity, the foundation of all cooperative activity. He made explicit and implicit oaths to respect the secrecy of the information with which he was entrusted. He betrayed his oaths. He betrayed his friends. He betrayed his employers. He betrayed the cause of open government.’
The above is an extract of an article by David Brooks in the New York Times and reprinted in the Today paper today. Brooks used this article to thrash Edward Snowden, the young CIA spy that exposed the dirty works of the US Administration for spying on its own citizens in a scale never seen before, an outright violation of individual rights to privacy in the name of good for country and people.
The assumptions of Brooks are that the US Govt is honest, clean and virtuous and doing the honourable and right thing. Is that so? Or is the US Govt violating everything there is in the Constitution, abusing its power and privileges, and betraying the people, betraying its citizens and a scum in all counts? When a govt indulges in dirty schemes and things against its citizens, it is the govt that is betraying the people. And other than an exposure like what Snowden did, there is really nothing much the common folks can do to a rogue govt.
What is the moral of the story? A govt needs to act in a way that earns respect and trust from its citizens. When a govt betrays its citizens, there is nothing that the people can do about it except unconstitutionally.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13855
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dengue epidemic reaching a critical level
More than 9500 cases so far this year or 1,500 cases a month. Last week alone 820 cases were reported. Vivian Balakrishnan is warning the public that this may become more serious if the spread of the disease is not controlled. It is spreading from the East to the West of the island or is it from the West to the East?
For the first time I read that 1.2m insect repellants will be distributed for free! At $5 a can, that is $6m. This is to prevent people from being bitten by the mosquitoes in their homes.
Being bitten is one way the disease will spread. The mosquitoes will carry the viruses to pass on to the next victim. So anyone falling sick because of dengue is going to be a carrier. And if they did not seek treatment or cannot afford to seek treatment, they will be a walking carrier, feeding the mosquitoes with more viruses to pass around.
Apart from giving free insect repellants, maybe it is time that all dengue patients should be given free medical treatment. This will encourage every dengue patient to come forward for treatment and will cut down the source of virus carriers in the chain.
Would this be possible? Free medical treatment for a near epidemic disease that is starting to take lives? Would there be affected patients who chose not to see the doctor because they could not afford the fee? If you think this a joke, read what Vivian has to say,
"Infectious diseases are a test of special cohesion as a society and we need everyone to understand that our own health depends on the health of our neighbours and we need to exercise personal and collective responsibility for each other."
An infectious disease that is spreading in the community is not the problem of an individual. It is not a heart problem that stays with the sick person. It is a living sickness that is going to be passed around. This will take commercial interest of selling drugs at a profit to selling drugs to prevent an epidemic. Can the govt say no money no drugs, no treatment?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13855
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What do you want?
Sinkies are most happy when their property prices keep going up. Sinkies are even happier when they own more and more properties. Sinkies are happiest when they look at their bank accounts and see the number of zeros behind the digits keep growing.
Are these what Sinkies are happy about? Would Sinkies be happy to have more babies and children in their homes? The Govt think so but for the wrong reasons. There are different kinds of joy in life. Some want more money and properties, some want more power, some want more children. What do Sinkies want?
The way it is going, many will leave this world without having children or maybe one or two. Many may want to have more as having children is another kind of happiness, another kind of wealth that money cannot buy. Many Sinkies spent a lot of money going on holidays, visiting this place and that place, taking photographs of the places they visited. Some choose to stay at home to enjoy their children and grandchildren. Different interest, different joy, different happiness.
The govt also want children but of an unrelated kind. Strangers from all over the world are welcomed just to push up the economy, for economic growth. Is that a really good thing or a foolish thing to do?
While the social economic system in the country is designed to make the citizens childless or unbearable to have children, and the Govt could not understand why, and choose to import foreigners for economic growth that brings little or no joy to having your very own children and family, and the joy of seeing them grow.
Is there something not right somewhere? What is the purpose of this country if it is not to make the people, the citizens, happy and enjoy a fruitful life of abundance, not only in owning more and more expensive properties, but also having more children and a growing family?
Many will end up leaving behind all their material riches, money and properties, with no children to inherit them. When they pass away, it is all over. What is life and what do we live and strive a life time for? Some are contented that they lived well and do not bother after children after they are gone. It is life, our lives, not the lives of foreigners and people that have nothing to do with us. As a country, the Govt should be talking and thinking about how to make lives worth living in this island for its citizens, and having children and happy children must be a major goal in living. What is the point of having so many properties when there is no one going to live in them when the owners die? Oops, we shall invite the foreigners to take over this island and everything there is in it. Is that the purpose of it all?
I am just rumbling.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13855
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ministers and their ministries and their pay
A title like that will simply make what I want to talk about quite obvious. Our ministers are the highest paid in the world. Our ministers are even paid many times more than Obama. I don’t think anyone will want to dispute this with me. Please don’t tell me about Obama’s Air Force One and all his other perks like he can collect millions going on a lecture circuit. I am just taking a simple comparison of pay, basic or gross.
Why we pay our ministers such a big salary? We have been told that they are super talents. If the govt does not pay them well, the private sector will grab them and pay them more. Good point. We are also told that they should be paid market rate pay. We are also told that they should not be underpaid and be tempted to risk corruption. The pay is to help them not to corrupt.
So all our ministers are paid very well, with portfolio or without portfolio, with ministry or without ministry, with big ministry and with small ministry.
The question is, should the ministers be paid the same just because they are ministers? Maybe it is a bit complex to break down their jobs and responsibilities. So I think it is fair that every minister running a ministry should be paid the same salary. We are here talking about a ministry of people and responsibilities and big money at stake.
What about ministers without portfolio? I think this is an exception in the case of the Secretary General of the Trade Union. It is a big portfolio and a lot of things to take care of and the breath of responsibilities are pretty big.
What about ministers in the Prime Minister’s office? Should they also be paid the same salary as a minister running a ministry and has a big and complex portfolio to look after? A minister in the PMO does not run a ministry. How big is his or her portfolio and area of responsibility that the salary should be the same as a normal minister?
You ask me?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13855
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hsien Loong’s National Day Speech
Hsien Loong is working hard on his new National Day Speech to the nation. And with the coverage of CNA, the speech is going to be broadcasted over many countries and will have millions of viewers. It is a great PR opportunity to sell the island and how well it is managed.
I hope he does not get carried away by the size of the audience and get down to really talk about the problems and challenges facing the people, the unhappiness and the concerns. There are many serious issues that will not go away just by not talking about them. In the past, most of his speeches were devoted to making the people feel good. The effect of such feel good speeches does not last longer than the next TV programme. It would be good if he could address the people’s concern, not what the Govt thinks are the people’s concerns or to say what the Govt thinks are the right things.
Would he be telling the people what is the Govt’s position on the 6.9m population and what is the situation now, what is the size of the population and what is the Govt’s intent? There were two public demonstrations against the 6.9m population and the disquiet cannot be ignored. Would he address the problems of locals losing jobs to foreigners, particularly in the PME fields and how the Govt is tackling the fake qualifications and discrimination against Singaporeans by foreigners here? Would he be talking about the housing problems, how many Singaporeans have been left out from public housing schemes by the bad policies of the past and what the Govt is going to do to redeem itself and to ensure that every Singaporean will have a chance to buy a HDB flat, that every male citizen who has served NS and will continue to be in the reserve, has the right to buy a public flat?
The problems of public transportation, car ownership and the regular breakdowns of the SMRT, what is the Govt thinking, what it is going to do about them? Higher ERPs and higher COEs are not going to solve these problems if the influx of foreigners continues and the target of 6.9m is still unchanged.
The high medical cost, the shortages of hospital beds when we don’t have such problems in the past when the govt was relatively very poor, fewer hospitals and few doctors. The waiting time to see a specialist, to see a medical practitioner, to see a dental surgeon, is now becoming ridiculous. Many would have died or suffered while waiting for their next appointments. Why are there such a big shortage of doctors and hospital beds and what are the solutions when the situation can only get worse with more immigrants coming in?
There are so many problems and so many things to answer. Can Hsien Loong address the problems and let the people know what the Govt will be doing, a change from the past when he painted almost an utopia, of happy and prosperous people in a vibrant and rich city and everyone hoping to live happily ever after?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13855
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Policy changes coming up

Heng Swee Kiat was reported to have said that more policy changes are in the card in Hsien Loong’s National Day Rally speech next week. The key areas expecting major changes are Housing, health care and education. Nothing was mentioned on the influx of foreigners and the loss of jobs to foreigners due to discrimination? I do hope Hsien Loong will take a personal interest in this and put his weight behind Chuan Jin to give him more clout and confidence to deal with foreigners and foreign companies practising discrimination against Singaporeans.

Boon Wan has solved some of the more urgent issues of insufficient housing supply with his ramping exercise. The backlog of enforced demand due to bad policies should have ease somewhat. Now we will have to see what changes the Govt will come up with. Will there be a fundamental policy shift to ensure that ALL Sinkies be allowed to buy his homes direct from the HDB and to do away with all the silly and stupid Sinkie discriminating policies of the past? Will Sinkies be allowed to be prudent like Boon Wan has said, not to over commit in buying properties beyond their means and be allowed to buy properties/HDB flats that suit their needs and not the size of their income? Would Sinkies be allowed to buy smaller flats if they so desired without being forced by the Govt to buy bigger flats and compromise on their retirement savings just because the Govt think it must be like dat?

The exhorbitant medical care cost must be brought down, at least in govt hospitals, and that they are not allowed to charge like private hospitals just because they are now called privatised. Govt privatised hospitals are built using public funds and have a duty to serve the people and not merely profits. Many senior citizens are waiting to be bankrupt by high medical bills.

Would there be a comprehensive medical insurance scheme for the senior citizens that will minimise the amount they have to pay in govt hospitals or for the govt to fully pay for the medical premiums of those above 65 or 70 and above? The thinking behind medical policy needs a thorough relook as the population ages as the cost is running to frightening and unaffordable level. To what extent is the Govt responsible to the elderly for their medical care and medical bills?

The slippery education policy, the cost and how many to be educated to tertiary level and whether the Govt is seriously looking at a paradigm shift, to educate Sinkies to be crane drivers and hawkers is something mesmerising and truly innovative to watch.

More important is the population size and the size of foreigners in the country. Is the 6.9m a forgone conclusion and the people must accept it with no exceptions or changes? Will foreigners still be allowed to dominate our employment scene, to kick the citizens aside, especially the PMETs and to rule over Sinkies?

What is the ideal percentage of foreigners for the island and should there be a need to obtain the consent of the Sinkies? Or should 77 MPs be allowed to decide the fate of this nation and its citizens without question?

What is going to happen to the Sinkies and the high cost of living?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13855
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tharman – A little meat and a little departure

In today’s ST front page, Tharman listed 5 priorities of govt policies that in a way are related to Hsien Loong’s NDR speech on a comprehensive health care scheme for the senior Singaporeans. Tharman filled in some meat to that general policy change and direction, and also included a few cautions and departures from the sweeping Medishield Life scheme for all, sick or unsick.

Tharman’s first priority is about targeting govt subsidies to those who need them and said that universal benefits are ‘wasteful and inequitable’. A comprehensive all encompassing healthcare benefit scheme will fit into this wasteful and inequitable definition perfectly. There is no need for further elaboration on this as the impact and consequences are simply obvious.

The second priority, to design redistribution policies to spur self reliance and individual responsibility has been the cornerstone of many govt policies. To lump every Singaporean into a healthcare scheme with no recognition of their needs and demands on the system is going to be in conflict with the concept of self reliance and individual responsibility. The reckless and irresponsible are going to pass the buck to the rest of the people to foot their bills, as simple as that. Would this be acceptable under the new scheme?

Tharman did qualify by saying that those who are in genuine need for assistance would not be left on their own. This is the big difference between humans and animals. In the animal kingdom it is survival of the fittest and the weak and sick will perish on their own steam. As a social animal, the human specie has this innate ability to want and can look after their weaker fellow beans, the old, the sick, the less able and less talented. Human beans can be caring, generous and selfless.

The third policy pointed out by Tharman is more startlingly in a way as it has been violated in many instances for vain glory and misplaced responsibility. This policy is about making ‘sure tax incentives and grants “aggressively” support and catalyse community and civic efforts, and strengthen “the values that drives us to be our brother’s keepers”’. How would spending money on foreign sports talents and paying for foreigners to study here fit into this brothers’ keepers idea? How would bringing in foreigners to replace our citizens in jobs be a good thing? We need to take care of our very own, incentivise and motivate our own to excel in all fields. The foreigners are not our responsibility and money spent on them is simply wasteful and also inequitable.

How would this policy fit into the comprehensive health care scheme with PRs and new citizens in our midst and standing to benefit wholly from public funds?

Tharman’s fourth policy is about progressive taxation, benefits and social spending. I think he must believe that GST is progressive taxation. Or would he now be more enlightened to tweak this regressive tax to tax the poor less? In this regard he hinted at the need for future tax increases to fund the growing health care needs. Here is his biggest contradiction. If the recently floated comprehensive health care scheme does take cognizance to the priorities mentioned, there should not be a need to raise taxes. Raising taxes is only necessary when the scheme is an unlimited buffet spread for all to partake with little regard to equitable distributions and prudence not to over provide with no regard to the cost involved.

Tharman’s final point is about a just and fair society, about opportunities to enjoy quality living, public spaces and our work and living environment. Would the govt be building more and smaller flats to improve the quality of living for Singaporeans, or would the dreams of the 70s and 80s when every family aspire to own a 5 rm flat or better, including private properties be reignited? Can Singaporeans relive this dream?

With the freeing of the two pieces of land in Paya Lebar and Tanjong Pagar, the govt is given a chance to really redevelop and design quality housing for the people and not more mickey mouse pigeon holes in close proximity. A new concept of living with bigger homes and space could be the future, if only the wet dream of 6.9m does not become a reality. We have more space and create even more space for everyone here, and not creating more space to squeeze in more migrants to fill up every inch of space created. Can there also be a departure from the mindset of more population for more economic growth and the deception that small and little space are good quality living, good for bringing up children?

Yes, we have the money to build our dreams. And our dreams must be better and bigger space and more amenities for the people, not more squeeze and lesser space to live like mice and competing for space and air. There is no need to drive down a road to hell when we can go to paradise. But as they say, the road to heaven is wide open but few takers, but the road to hell is narrow and dangerous and crowded like hell.

How would these five policies mentioned by Tharman be worked around the Medishield Life for all?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs All times are GMT + 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 8 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group. Hosted by Vodien Internet Solutions