OK, if u say so
I Want Higher Taxes, Really!
- Thread starter dkw
- Start date
- Status
OK, if u say so
V
vince123123
Guest
Okay is fine, nothing to do with whehter I say so or not 
.
Incidentally I happened to read this online article on the GST hike, the relevant portion which says:
"In a report by the UBS recently, Singapore's food and household appliances were surprisingly more costly than Sydney's.
Although people in Sydney pay more tax than people in Singapore, and price levels are generally higher, Sydney's purchasing power was found to be higher than Singapore's."
.Incidentally I happened to read this online article on the GST hike, the relevant portion which says:
"In a report by the UBS recently, Singapore's food and household appliances were surprisingly more costly than Sydney's.
Although people in Sydney pay more tax than people in Singapore, and price levels are generally higher, Sydney's purchasing power was found to be higher than Singapore's."
Hoky
New Member
Okay is fine, nothing to do with whehter I say so or not
Incidentally I happened to read this online article on the GST hike, the relevant portion which says:
"In a report by the UBS recently, Singapore's food and household appliances were surprisingly more costly than Sydney's.
Although people in Sydney pay more tax than people in Singapore, and price levels are generally higher, Sydney's purchasing power was found to be higher than Singapore's."
Nice article.
I see information inferring:
1. We are #1 in the world for car taxes. [Excl. COE]... (Woo hoo.. we are still holding record)
2. Electronics in Singapore is generally more expensive than HK... (Time to get more cameras in HK)
3. Our pay is lower and tax rates is higher than that of Taipei's... (Didn't know that...)
Thanks for sharing.
No one likes higher tax. Period. But like many have realized, the money must come from somewhere. Having read the reactions from pple here, I am concerned that pple may vote for opposition just because they disagree with the policy. Not sure if opposition is able to provide better alternatives (unlikely).
Think the crux of the issue here is the transparency of government expenditure which many have pointed out. Personally I find the argument for increase in GST to help lower income contradictory if not flawed. Of course, this cannot be known for sure until the schemes to help the lower income come out. In any case, the middle income will once again be squeezed.
Think the crux of the issue here is the transparency of government expenditure which many have pointed out. Personally I find the argument for increase in GST to help lower income contradictory if not flawed. Of course, this cannot be known for sure until the schemes to help the lower income come out. In any case, the middle income will once again be squeezed.
Other parties are full of good ideas.
You don't vote for "opposition", you vote for WP, SDP, whatever.
Why do I say that?
Well, if you understand the concept of democracy, whichever party (or coalition of parties) wins the majority of seats in Parliament is invited to form the Govt. So every time there is an election, all parties start from the same starting line. But in Singapore's case, some are more equal than others.
In the US, the Republicans have now lost control of Congress and the Senate. That does not mean that the people voted for "opposition". They voted for the Democrats.
Same story in the UK, people voted for Labor, and thus the Conservatives and the Social Democrats are now in opposition.
But when Republicans campaign, when the Conservatives campaign, when the Social Democrats campaign, they don't refer to themselves as "opposition". They call themselves Republicans, Conservatives, Social Democrats, whatever.
And when people vote, they vote for what the Republicans, Conservatives, Social Democrats promise, they don't vote for "opposition".
This I think is the saddest thing for the Post-65 generation. That they've never known a time when the P A P was not in power, and thus they equate voting any other party to be voting for "opposition".
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Just because P A P was the govt for the last 5 years does not mean they will be in power next 5 years, if the people don't want them. If the P A P had lost every seat in the last GE, they could have become the opposition.
So I suggest, don't vote for the opposition. Vote for the party which best represents what you believe in. If you haven't read the party manifestos of the WP, SDP, etc. I suggest you do so. P A P does not have monopoly on ideas.
For political parties, I would suggest they stop referring to themselves as "opposition". That becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for them, and it's difficult to shake off such a label.
You don't vote for "opposition", you vote for WP, SDP, whatever.
Why do I say that?
Well, if you understand the concept of democracy, whichever party (or coalition of parties) wins the majority of seats in Parliament is invited to form the Govt. So every time there is an election, all parties start from the same starting line. But in Singapore's case, some are more equal than others.
In the US, the Republicans have now lost control of Congress and the Senate. That does not mean that the people voted for "opposition". They voted for the Democrats.
Same story in the UK, people voted for Labor, and thus the Conservatives and the Social Democrats are now in opposition.
But when Republicans campaign, when the Conservatives campaign, when the Social Democrats campaign, they don't refer to themselves as "opposition". They call themselves Republicans, Conservatives, Social Democrats, whatever.
And when people vote, they vote for what the Republicans, Conservatives, Social Democrats promise, they don't vote for "opposition".
This I think is the saddest thing for the Post-65 generation. That they've never known a time when the P A P was not in power, and thus they equate voting any other party to be voting for "opposition".
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Just because P A P was the govt for the last 5 years does not mean they will be in power next 5 years, if the people don't want them. If the P A P had lost every seat in the last GE, they could have become the opposition.
So I suggest, don't vote for the opposition. Vote for the party which best represents what you believe in. If you haven't read the party manifestos of the WP, SDP, etc. I suggest you do so. P A P does not have monopoly on ideas.
For political parties, I would suggest they stop referring to themselves as "opposition". That becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for them, and it's difficult to shake off such a label.
Bravo
the other political parties are there to give you a choice, different ideas on issues.
I'm sure they have a different idea on how to control prices. Don't just assume that "Not sure if opposition is able to provide better alternatives (unlikely)"
If you want to look at cost issues, you may want to consider how the spending habits of singaporeans contribute to this feeling of needing more money, plus the capitalist consumer culture that has been encouraged in our society has contributed to people spending more money than they need to (can you count how many shopping malls we have?)
Can't help but notice that everything on the formation of the next government by an Alternative Party is abt "I, My, Me & Myself" where personal living (read: Taxes, GST, Cost of Living) is concerned.
Lets see.... How abt the Nation's Defense Policy for present & future? Present & Future Foreign Policy? Present & Future Economic Policy? Nation's Future directions & shaping? Education Policy? Living & Environment Planning Policies? Internal Security & Defense? Law, Judicary & Courts? :think:
Doesn't the next party in power have to think abt these as well? :think:
Bravo for ur stuff waileong, but holding power in Parliament & forming the next government with Ministers would not simply mean the simplistic duties of just 'caring for Singaporeans' and lowering cost of living for Singaporeans (hell yeah, one can score lotsa points by simply concentrating on nationalistic issues of 'For Singaporean' and Human Rights Issues like 'Freedom of Speech' which seems like the buzz word these days).
Lets see.... How abt the Nation's Defense Policy for present & future? Present & Future Foreign Policy? Present & Future Economic Policy? Nation's Future directions & shaping? Education Policy? Living & Environment Planning Policies? Internal Security & Defense? Law, Judicary & Courts? :think:
Doesn't the next party in power have to think abt these as well? :think:
Bravo for ur stuff waileong, but holding power in Parliament & forming the next government with Ministers would not simply mean the simplistic duties of just 'caring for Singaporeans' and lowering cost of living for Singaporeans (hell yeah, one can score lotsa points by simply concentrating on nationalistic issues of 'For Singaporean' and Human Rights Issues like 'Freedom of Speech' which seems like the buzz word these days).
Give the Alternative Parties a chance..
They need not come to the level of the current ruling party immediately after all the ruling party had almost 40 years of experience of running the country...
The opposition are now in the process of becoming better and should become better...
I can remember the candidates they put up in the past are either taxi drivers or hawkers (no offence
) but now it is much better with more professionals standing foe election...
I do hope to have at least 2 comparable parties who are equally effective but having different ideas on how to make Singapore better...
They need not come to the level of the current ruling party immediately after all the ruling party had almost 40 years of experience of running the country...
The opposition are now in the process of becoming better and should become better...
I can remember the candidates they put up in the past are either taxi drivers or hawkers (no offence
) but now it is much better with more professionals standing foe election...I do hope to have at least 2 comparable parties who are equally effective but having different ideas on how to make Singapore better...
azul123
Senior Member
They are intertwined, linked.
Example.. for many years we think our only telecoms operator gives good rates and services.. when it was a monopoly, now that we have a little competition, there are further improvements.
It does not go from good to bad but it gets better and better over time, no one party can claim they have all the right answers.
../azul123
I think you really buy the P A P line that it's very difficult to rule a country that no one else but them can do it.
While it is not an easy task, the P A P doesn't do all the planning, thinking, executing etc. by itself. Your million-dollar ministers are supported by a huge staff of sub million-dollar aides and civil servants, who are quite capable in their own right.
Any other party or parties in power would be wise to do the same.
Let me put it this way. Nobody is born to be a defence minister, you cannot get that kind of experience or knowledge even if you got the best PSC scholars in your political party. So unless you are a long-serving military officer, you are unlikely to know what to do from day 1. When you become Defence Minister, when you enter the office on day 1, the chief of staff and the senior Mindef officials will be waiting for you to give you a full briefing of the situation at hand and will provide you anything you need to do the job. You will get briefings for every meeting you go to, and you'll get written papers (with detailed arguments) when it comes to every important decision, etc.
What you as the minister needs to bring to the table is intelligence, wisdom, judgement and experience so that you can see beyond just pure military perspective. The domain knowledge of military issues will be provided amply by your aides. You are also expected to be a leader, to be able to motivate and to harness talents of the people who work for you and to resolve conflicts if necessary.
Thus the defence minister is not a military job, it's a senior management job, and a political one at that. So do you think that there is no one, other than those who wear the P A P badge, who can run the defence ministry? Ditto the foreign affairs ministry? The environment ministry? What you need are basically wise leaders, not military experts, environmental experts, or diplomatic experts. Does the P A P have a monopoly on good leaders?
The difference a new party brings to Singapore is their beliefs. For instance, if they believe in open government, they may pass a Freedom of Information Act and eliminate the Official Secrets Act. If they believe in human rights, they would allow accused to have full access to legal counsel right from the time of arrest, rather than only after the police have "completed" their investigations, and allow defence counself full access to all evidence (including police statements).
This has nothing to do with being a internal security expert. These are political convictions. And if the party campaigns on a platform of freedom and openness, and the people vote in the party, then clearly the party has not only the opportunity but indeed the obligation to reform the judicial system. Else it would be a betrayal of the voters' trust.
Read the manifestos. Parties have thought about this a lot more than you think. While they cannot go into minutes details in a political manifesto, these parties do know what they want for Singapore.
While it is not an easy task, the P A P doesn't do all the planning, thinking, executing etc. by itself. Your million-dollar ministers are supported by a huge staff of sub million-dollar aides and civil servants, who are quite capable in their own right.
Any other party or parties in power would be wise to do the same.
Let me put it this way. Nobody is born to be a defence minister, you cannot get that kind of experience or knowledge even if you got the best PSC scholars in your political party. So unless you are a long-serving military officer, you are unlikely to know what to do from day 1. When you become Defence Minister, when you enter the office on day 1, the chief of staff and the senior Mindef officials will be waiting for you to give you a full briefing of the situation at hand and will provide you anything you need to do the job. You will get briefings for every meeting you go to, and you'll get written papers (with detailed arguments) when it comes to every important decision, etc.
What you as the minister needs to bring to the table is intelligence, wisdom, judgement and experience so that you can see beyond just pure military perspective. The domain knowledge of military issues will be provided amply by your aides. You are also expected to be a leader, to be able to motivate and to harness talents of the people who work for you and to resolve conflicts if necessary.
Thus the defence minister is not a military job, it's a senior management job, and a political one at that. So do you think that there is no one, other than those who wear the P A P badge, who can run the defence ministry? Ditto the foreign affairs ministry? The environment ministry? What you need are basically wise leaders, not military experts, environmental experts, or diplomatic experts. Does the P A P have a monopoly on good leaders?
The difference a new party brings to Singapore is their beliefs. For instance, if they believe in open government, they may pass a Freedom of Information Act and eliminate the Official Secrets Act. If they believe in human rights, they would allow accused to have full access to legal counsel right from the time of arrest, rather than only after the police have "completed" their investigations, and allow defence counself full access to all evidence (including police statements).
This has nothing to do with being a internal security expert. These are political convictions. And if the party campaigns on a platform of freedom and openness, and the people vote in the party, then clearly the party has not only the opportunity but indeed the obligation to reform the judicial system. Else it would be a betrayal of the voters' trust.
Read the manifestos. Parties have thought about this a lot more than you think. While they cannot go into minutes details in a political manifesto, these parties do know what they want for Singapore.
*clap-clap-clap*
U'd really swayed me (makes me wonder if u are helping out with any political parties or doing social/national volunteer work on a regular basis or u're a tax payer). :bsmilie: Except on the elimination of the Official Secrets Act which it sounds like u know what u're talking abt, but otherwise.
If anything, I'm a proponent of the OSA, ISA & ISD. I find it a pity that the penal code doesn't actually send ppl charged for high treason to the gallows or the firing squad. 20yrs imprisonment does sound like a good bargain to such ppl. ;p
Yes, I agree that PM Lee and all our cabinet ministers are very capable people but are they the only capable people in Singapore?
I don't think Singapore would fail if PM Lee and his team are no longer in charge...
The civil service which is really the one running the machinery in Singapore would still around... Would there be a 180 degree change in policy if another party take over? My guess is not a lot... Maybe some slight change in direction...
I don't think Singapore would fail if PM Lee and his team are no longer in charge...
The civil service which is really the one running the machinery in Singapore would still around... Would there be a 180 degree change in policy if another party take over? My guess is not a lot... Maybe some slight change in direction...
Walk 1000m on a straight line. Note ur ending point.
Next, walk the same 1000m at the same starting point with a slight change in bearing (say 1 degree). See where the ending point will end up.
Nation building's a game where there's no 'Quit', 'Reset', 'Restart Scenario' or even a 'Control+Alternate+Delete'.
Next, walk the same 1000m at the same starting point with a slight change in bearing (say 1 degree). See where the ending point will end up.
Nation building's a game where there's no 'Quit', 'Reset', 'Restart Scenario' or even a 'Control+Alternate+Delete'.
FWIW, politics is really about beliefs, not about running a country per se. That's why parties are divided into left and right, republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives.
These parties hold diametrically opposed beliefs, in most cases.
Politics is about getting people to vote in your parties, to get them to buy your beliefs and ideas. And if you do get voted in, clearly it's because people agree with your beliefs and ideas, and want them implemented.
So once you get into power, you are supposed to run the country according to the platform you campaigned on.
Politics is not (or should not be) about
a. Lift upgrading
b. Covered walkways
c. Defamation suits
d. Ter kuar
That said, it would be good to use a lift as your party's political symbol. People in Singapore might just unknowingly vote for you.
That's what 40 years of P A P rule in Singapore have created in terms of political awareness.
These parties hold diametrically opposed beliefs, in most cases.
Politics is about getting people to vote in your parties, to get them to buy your beliefs and ideas. And if you do get voted in, clearly it's because people agree with your beliefs and ideas, and want them implemented.
So once you get into power, you are supposed to run the country according to the platform you campaigned on.
Politics is not (or should not be) about
a. Lift upgrading
b. Covered walkways
c. Defamation suits
d. Ter kuar
That said, it would be good to use a lift as your party's political symbol. People in Singapore might just unknowingly vote for you.
That's what 40 years of P A P rule in Singapore have created in terms of political awareness.
The end point could be far better than the current course.
And in politics, you must accept the will of the people. If people vote in a party that believes in more welfare, then more welfare is what they should get, whether or not that is correct is something only historians can tell.
BTW, politics is not about "nation building". Politics is just politics. While there are many definitions in the dictionary, in this context it simply means wanting to rule. Nation building is a separate matter. If a party believes in running a S'pore Discovery Centre or spending tons of money on NDP every year, so be it-- but that's not politics.
And in politics, you must accept the will of the people. If people vote in a party that believes in more welfare, then more welfare is what they should get, whether or not that is correct is something only historians can tell.
BTW, politics is not about "nation building". Politics is just politics. While there are many definitions in the dictionary, in this context it simply means wanting to rule. Nation building is a separate matter. If a party believes in running a S'pore Discovery Centre or spending tons of money on NDP every year, so be it-- but that's not politics.
Textbook theory. At its height. :thumbsup:
Unfortunately, real politics run contrary. A smile in front with handshakes and backslappings are hidden with a dagger at the back where the people are merely the pawns in a larger chessboard. Idealists are called as such since no one in history ever ran a country exactly according to the idealists styles, all those that did - failed. ;p
Unfortunately, real politics run contrary. A smile in front with handshakes and backslappings are hidden with a dagger at the back where the people are merely the pawns in a larger chessboard. Idealists are called as such since no one in history ever ran a country exactly according to the idealists styles, all those that did - failed. ;p
Disagree.
Of course, politics is dirty. In fact, I was quite put off when I was in the US. It's all about sound bites, campaign contributions, playing to the gallery, egomania, opposing for the sake of opposing.
However, people still join political parties in this day and age-- why? Because these people believe in the party's beliefs. You wouldn't go to church unless you believed in God, would you?
And people still vote for political parties-- why? Because the party made certain promises that swayed the people.
So if you get elected, what are you supposed to do? Ask PM Koizumi. He went on a campaign of postal reform, got elected, and carried out his postal reform.
And if you don't do what you're supposed to do, what happens?
Ask thumpin' Bush.
Of course, politics is dirty. In fact, I was quite put off when I was in the US. It's all about sound bites, campaign contributions, playing to the gallery, egomania, opposing for the sake of opposing.
However, people still join political parties in this day and age-- why? Because these people believe in the party's beliefs. You wouldn't go to church unless you believed in God, would you?
And people still vote for political parties-- why? Because the party made certain promises that swayed the people.
So if you get elected, what are you supposed to do? Ask PM Koizumi. He went on a campaign of postal reform, got elected, and carried out his postal reform.
And if you don't do what you're supposed to do, what happens?
Ask thumpin' Bush.
How would you know the 2nd ending point would not be better than the 1st ending point? :think:
Nation building have NEVER been walking a straight line...
It is about how to apply solutions as and when a situations demand it...
Think casino... Who vehemently oppose it when he was prime minister and turned around recently advocating 2 Casinos for Singapore to be able to compete?
Put nicely, it would be in ur words.
Put it in a more honest manner, "Score 3 pointers & slam dunks". (they will drive the crowd wild)
That's politics.
Yes, call me a pessimistic freak but that's politics to me after I'd read deeper into WWI & WWII and after delving deeper into the human head. :bsmilie:
- Status
Similar threads
