- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 65,066
- Points
- 113
The government's job is to create opportunities. It is up to the citizenry to take advantage of the opportunities created. No government is going to hand out huge wealth to everyone on a platter.
-
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.
Two Views of The PAP
- Thread starter TracyTan866
- Start date
The government's job is to create opportunities. It is up to the citizenry to take advantage of the opportunities created. No government is going to hand out huge wealth to everyone on a platter.
That's true, a govt ought to create opportunities. But what opportunities had the PAP created for the average and below average S'poreans? In fact, the PAP had created obstacles for them instead.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 65,066
- Points
- 113
Opportunities aren't handouts. They're prizes and the PAP is awarding them in abundance. That's why there are so many wealthy people in Singapore and the per capita income is the highest in Asia.
All Singaporeans are allowed to compete for the same set of prizes. Nobody is barred from entering the race. However not everyone can be winners. Some will have to walk away empty handed. That's the nature of life.
By now, even the most politically blur forummer would know that per capita income is not a true measure of the well-being of the citizens. So the fact that u don't know even that, where does that place u? I'm not sure if u have The Straits Times over at NZ. If there is, u may want to read Page A6 and A7 of the reports on Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) annual forum "Singapore Perspectives 2012 - Singapore Inclusive:Briding Divides". Tharman as the guest of honor said the govt wants to continue creating oppotunities for socila mobility, prevent incomes in the lower and middle income brackets from stagnating, and achieve a progressive policy of income redistribution to help the poor. The Straits Times also carried a report on a study done an expert panel from IPS with this screaming headline "Foreign talent policy had effect on income gap. Inflow hurt wage grwoth for some".
I believe after reading these 2 reports, u will realise how much of what the forummers here had been posting and now acknowledged by the PAP and its think-tank. I also believe after reading these 2 reports, u won't know where to hide your face after making such silly statements time and again
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 65,066
- Points
- 113
I have no reason to feel ashamed for standing up for what I believe in.
Per capita income does not reflect the well being of ALL citizens but it does reflect the well being of those who matter viz the hardworking, the talented, the high achievers, the risk takers. These are the people that make a nation successful.
The PAP may be making conciliatory noises in order to appease the masses but I doubt if they're going to change the formula that has made Singapore the success that it is.
Every time I log on to this forum and read the contents, I see the statement "helping the poor". It has a nice resonance and imparts a feel good factor but in reality, income redistribution is the worst possible way of helping anyone. What the poor need is not more charity. What they need is a kick in the pants to wake them from their stupor. Nothing destroys the human spirit more than being rewarded for being useless. It makes the dependency on charity even greater and demotivates those around them who actually earn an honest day's work and are striving to make their lives better.
I've seen this happen with my own eyes. Two households living side by side. One family works. The other claims benefits. Guess what... those on benefits live just as comfortably, in some cases even better than those who put in 12 hour days. In the end, the working family decide "why should I bother slogging away. I might as well join the layabouts and get something for nothing.". In no time at all, the whole street are on the dole and remember this.... it is not the government that pays them to do nothing. It is you and I.. the taxpayers who have to support these scums of society.
Exactly. And unfortunately most of the whining forumers you have here are those who don't matter - losers who can't make it in life and want to blame the PAP for their own shortcomings.
You can't view the poor and needy in S'pore thru yr NZ eyes or compare with those you see there. The Samsui Ah Por would rather push her cart of cardboard boxes to scrounge a few cents than stand in the queue for a handout. Asians like us are proud people even when down and out. Lazy louts are found more commonly in the West and if any in the East, they are to be found in the PAP.
What do you think the Ah Peks and Uncles and Ah em's are doing at MacDonalds, or working as cleaners in food centres? When do you want them to stop?
It's the inhuman filthy rich gorging Wall St types of capitalists like you who think that you made it up there all by yr own when in fact, society has given you all the support to put you up there. Be a decent human being and return some back to society.
What do you think the Ah Peks and Uncles and Ah em's are doing at MacDonalds, or working as cleaners in food centres? When do you want them to stop?
It's the inhuman filthy rich gorging Wall St types of capitalists like you who think that you made it up there all by yr own when in fact, society has given you all the support to put you up there. Be a decent human being and return some back to society.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 65,066
- Points
- 113
Introduce weekly welfare payments and these people will still be doing the same thing. I salute those who believe in the dignity or work. I wish there were more of them.
However, there'll be no shortage of people at the dole queue. It won't be the Ah Pors and the McDonald's Uncles. It'll the lazy good for nothing louts who can now get something for nothing.
Welfare invariably ends up in the hands of the people who least deserve it.
As for society "support" I can categorically state that society did absolutely nothing to help me along the way. I've paid far more in taxes than I've ever collected. I've received no charity and received no invaluable advice.
The only "support" I got was from ignorant idiots telling me that my ideas would not work.
You continue to rail against helping the needy and those in the bottom echelons, you will only hurt the Ah Pors and Ah Peks who are trying to hold their lives from falling apart.
Introduce means test or whatever to weed out the fakers then. This 'talented' govt has to start doing some work given their fat oversized pay. That's why I say they are lazy louts.
Introduce means test or whatever to weed out the fakers then. This 'talented' govt has to start doing some work given their fat oversized pay. That's why I say they are lazy louts.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 65,066
- Points
- 113
"Means testing"... famous last words of all socialist governments trying to explain why people who don't work seem to be far better off than those who do.
"They've been means tested" is the standard answer. No government I've ever known has been able to stop benefit fraud. There are always gaping loopholes created by the fact that someone does not have to own something in order to be able to enjoy the benefits that it provides. You could put Einstein in cabinet and the result would be no different.
If you "means test" LKY, he'd probably qualify for welfare payments too. He doesn't own SIA but he sure as hell has the power to commandeer a plane whenever he wants one.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 60,580
- Points
- 113
after living in the u.s. for many years, i'm convinced welfarism based on entitlements and dependencies don't work. it has great intentions, but fully flawed when it takes on a life of its own. the main problem is the formation of a massive bureaucracy to administer taxpayers' funds to prospective beneficiaries. the bureaucracy becomes corrupt, and in growing itself to attract more funding and justify its own existence, useless peons who are paid high salaries and enjoy pensions and excellent benefits go all out to "recruit" beneficiaries and dependents....illegals, homeless, single parents, divorcees, grandmas and grandpas of immigrants (many 3rd world grannies with decent lives back home are called over to enjoy the entitlements including medicare and "free" money), relatives, entire villages with the same last name. this is one of the main reasons why the u.s. is so fucked up today. the housing debacle can partly be blamed on these welfare bozos who don't have the means but insist on living the american dream with zero down, low interest rates for the short term, and ballooning arm's for the long term. never let losers and dependents addicted to free benefits tip the balance and distribution of wealth in any country. they will bring everyone down to the hellhole with them.
Pleese lah, the population of the US is a few hundred million whereas that of Singapore is only 3 million. The same percentage in both countries will still see Singapore handling a small number of such people.
Oh dont worry, even when the PAP and the rest of the world use the same term, you can trust the PAP to be able to interpret it in such a way and to find innovative ways to serve their advantage. Just like democracy and elections, the PAP has evolved its own view and model. Ditto with means test. It's only a question of will. whether they want to.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 60,580
- Points
- 113
whether it is 3, 30, 300, 30k, 3m or 300m, once welfare dependency is started, you don't go back. when welfare addiction began in the u.s., liberal socialists were touting extremely low insignificant numbers compared to total taxpayer population in order to sell the idea that the program wouldn't cost too much. look at the numbers now. 47% don't pay taxes today. 30m are on welfare and food stamps. the ratio will continue to worsen with time. sg will face similar ratio and percentage issues with passing time. population comparison in raw terms is a lame excuse for lack of better arguments.
We are not referring to welfare. It's just a straw man argument. We just want there to be less acute income disparity by taking care of the lower bottom. All the wealth in this country are rising to the very small cone at the top. Did they get it there all on their own?
On whose backs do they step?
On whose backs do they step?
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 60,580
- Points
- 113
pray tell. how are you gonna redistribute the wealth to achieve idealistic parity? try the experiment first with char kway teow. some are gonna complain they don't get enough kway teow, some will whine hum not enough, some will cry foul over pork fat, and some will challenge you on why it should be nasi lemak instead of non-halal pork laden poofeed. you've forgotten that the pap tried doing that with hundred-dollar angpows and someone not getting his share resorted to kerosene and lighter. guarantee there will be riot and violence in sg if you pull a stunt like giving wealth away. winners and achievers will leave, and losers will kill each other. :p
One can sense from yr examples that your mindset is still very much blindsided around what we are asking as "welfarism".
We are not talking about redistributing wealth. We are not talking about Robin Hood. We are talking about income disparity. The widening income gap. It is the responsibility of good govt to reduce the income gap in a society or lese it can lead to social tension and divisiveness. We have reserves, huge surpluses. The right model can be found, only the will doesnt exist.
Btw, I hope you really mean the $100 angpow is just that - an angpow. Surely the PAP is not so dishonest as to say that is welfare?
We are not talking about redistributing wealth. We are not talking about Robin Hood. We are talking about income disparity. The widening income gap. It is the responsibility of good govt to reduce the income gap in a society or lese it can lead to social tension and divisiveness. We have reserves, huge surpluses. The right model can be found, only the will doesnt exist.
Btw, I hope you really mean the $100 angpow is just that - an angpow. Surely the PAP is not so dishonest as to say that is welfare?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 60,580
- Points
- 113
from doling out to the old and poor to welfare to income disparity. make up your freaking flip floppy mind what you want to debate. the moment i start trashing you on the income gap debate, you're gonna twist and turn back to treatment of old folks and the poor.
To you income redistribution means robbing the rich to pay the poor. None of us is saying that. Only yr perverted freaking fossilised retarded mind keeps blindsiding you.
It's really Econ 101. We need income redistribution policies so that income gaps will be kept manageable and politically and socially acceptable. Is it so hard to understand?
You shld read Sunday's paper Ho Kwon Ping's article and that of Paul Cheung of the IPS panel. What has happened is that in the past decades, the incomes of the rich and higher brackets have surged ahead whereas the lower income rungs have stagnated. This has led to the income inequality and wide gap. The reason is that while the rich have been able to pander to the highest bidder in this well-connected world of high finance, banking, commerce, the "wage revolution" did not occur to the lower income groups.
Additionally, their earning powers have been further depressed by the reckless immigration policies of bringing in millions of foreign cheap labour. The wage revolution was not completed because employers employed these cheap labour to grow their profits instaed of raising productivity. Had the employers been forced to raise producitivity, they would have employed people who could operate equipment and other productivity raising tools, workers who usually command a higher wage level. That way, then the lower income group's wages will rise to narrow the gap.
It is recognised now by this govt that this is possible. So why wasnt it implemented earlier? Is wealth stolen from the rich in this respect? So thru shrewd economic policies, the wheels of commerce and industry can be turned in a certain way, and in the end, everyone benefits.
Where, pray tell, is the notion of stolen wealth?
It's really Econ 101. We need income redistribution policies so that income gaps will be kept manageable and politically and socially acceptable. Is it so hard to understand?
You shld read Sunday's paper Ho Kwon Ping's article and that of Paul Cheung of the IPS panel. What has happened is that in the past decades, the incomes of the rich and higher brackets have surged ahead whereas the lower income rungs have stagnated. This has led to the income inequality and wide gap. The reason is that while the rich have been able to pander to the highest bidder in this well-connected world of high finance, banking, commerce, the "wage revolution" did not occur to the lower income groups.
Additionally, their earning powers have been further depressed by the reckless immigration policies of bringing in millions of foreign cheap labour. The wage revolution was not completed because employers employed these cheap labour to grow their profits instaed of raising productivity. Had the employers been forced to raise producitivity, they would have employed people who could operate equipment and other productivity raising tools, workers who usually command a higher wage level. That way, then the lower income group's wages will rise to narrow the gap.
It is recognised now by this govt that this is possible. So why wasnt it implemented earlier? Is wealth stolen from the rich in this respect? So thru shrewd economic policies, the wheels of commerce and industry can be turned in a certain way, and in the end, everyone benefits.
Where, pray tell, is the notion of stolen wealth?
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 10,090
- Points
- 113
and use Singtel mouthpiece quite often until she retired
Similar threads
