-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Serious That Chan Chun Sing question: Quite a number of points, actually
- Thread starter Confuseous
- Start date
GRC is NOT GOOD for any democracy....that's why no other democracy in the world even has this nor it's citizens can even tolerate and accept.
He has your back...side.
Actually, high per se is not the real issue. The real issue here is that the people who are getting the million dollar salaries
do not deserve it, on the basis of their competence and deliverables. They are there because of the inherent problem of
supply and demand.
Lack of supply from the private sector due to the poor PAP brand image (how many people dare to claim that they are
card-carrying members of the PAP?) due to is association with greed, lack of empathy, the quality of the incumbent
cabinet members (maybe they are excellent surgeons) when it comes to the grappling with the real issues confronting
citizens.
PAP has no choice but to resort to the military (who won't want to be paid double or more of what they are earning) and
scholars from the GLCs, with the "you owe us one" pitch. They make the scholarship holders feel guilty about not giving
back to the country after the freebies of education and iron rice bowls in the GLCs.
That, is how we end up with the current situation - nobody is really there because of their dedication of the country. They are
there as a result of the money and the "obligation" pressure placed upon them.
do not deserve it, on the basis of their competence and deliverables. They are there because of the inherent problem of
supply and demand.
Lack of supply from the private sector due to the poor PAP brand image (how many people dare to claim that they are
card-carrying members of the PAP?) due to is association with greed, lack of empathy, the quality of the incumbent
cabinet members (maybe they are excellent surgeons) when it comes to the grappling with the real issues confronting
citizens.
PAP has no choice but to resort to the military (who won't want to be paid double or more of what they are earning) and
scholars from the GLCs, with the "you owe us one" pitch. They make the scholarship holders feel guilty about not giving
back to the country after the freebies of education and iron rice bowls in the GLCs.
That, is how we end up with the current situation - nobody is really there because of their dedication of the country. They are
there as a result of the money and the "obligation" pressure placed upon them.
The public sector in Sinkieland is too bloated for a city-state of its size. About 80% of the civil servants should be laid off.
Absolutely. The sheer number of police cars for a small incident will makes one wonder why the Home Minister says our
police resources are overstretched. A couple of years ago, FOUR police cars responded to a school principal's call when
a fight between a few boys took place.
police resources are overstretched. A couple of years ago, FOUR police cars responded to a school principal's call when
a fight between a few boys took place.
I refer to this article on Today.
Basically, in Parliament on 6th January, the PAP declared that Singaporeans are getting more jobs, 60,000 local employment. Mr Pritam Singh requested for the specific number in terms of PRs and Singaporeans.
However, Mr Chan Chun Sing vehemently refused to answer that question.
1) Mr Chan deflected the question, and instead questioned Mr Singh’s need for accurate, factual data.
2) Mr Chan made a one-sided universal declaration that ALL Singaporeans are getting good jobs, and ALL Singaporeans are getting increased wages. And he did so by not providing numbers to back his claim.
3) Mr Chan insinuated that there should be no divide between Singaporeans and PRs. He might as well just say out loud there is no difference between a Singaporean and a PR.
My thoughts:
I think it is fairly disturbing that ministers and MPs can evade answering actual questions, and taichi their way out of it. We’re asking for factual numbers and figures! Not a grandfather story! Just answer the goddamned question!
Secondly, we are just supposed to just believe what Mr Chan says at face value, without any evidence? If you are so confident of what you say, you wouldn’t mind showing us the numbers, right?
Basically, in Parliament on 6th January, the PAP declared that Singaporeans are getting more jobs, 60,000 local employment. Mr Pritam Singh requested for the specific number in terms of PRs and Singaporeans.
However, Mr Chan Chun Sing vehemently refused to answer that question.
1) Mr Chan deflected the question, and instead questioned Mr Singh’s need for accurate, factual data.
2) Mr Chan made a one-sided universal declaration that ALL Singaporeans are getting good jobs, and ALL Singaporeans are getting increased wages. And he did so by not providing numbers to back his claim.
3) Mr Chan insinuated that there should be no divide between Singaporeans and PRs. He might as well just say out loud there is no difference between a Singaporean and a PR.
My thoughts:
I think it is fairly disturbing that ministers and MPs can evade answering actual questions, and taichi their way out of it. We’re asking for factual numbers and figures! Not a grandfather story! Just answer the goddamned question!
Secondly, we are just supposed to just believe what Mr Chan says at face value, without any evidence? If you are so confident of what you say, you wouldn’t mind showing us the numbers, right?
Similar threads
