Catherine Lim - The two main reasons behind the the decline of the PAP

[scroobal]

Agree with you that this does not seem to be evident.

I remember they said they were seriously going to reflect and improve after the dismal performance in GE2011. But from the recent crossing of swords in parliament, it further confirms the old adage - A leopard never changes its spot.

 

[Leongsam]

The thing I like about u Leongsam is your consistency. Yes, your consistent display of your political naiveity. Surely there is no need for us to point out to u that it is personalities that shape and influence a govt's philisophy and attitudes towards the manner in which they govern the country, which in turn determine the policies. In the local context, it's entirely LKY personality.

My "political naivety" is certainly surpassed by your "economic naivety" and your detachment from reality. Anyone who runs Singapore will have to adopt policies which by and large are similar to those of the PAP. The packaging may be slightly different but the formula will be the same.

Put the WP in charge at the next election and within one term, everyone will be saying the same things about PM LTK as you now do about the LHL team.

You only have to watch the Parliamentary proceedings and you'll soon see that the opposition are a bunch of clowns. Rabble rousing at election rallies is one thing. Running a country is a different ball game altogether.

 

[Leongsam]

Agree. It's forummers like aurvandil, yourself, Thich Face Black Heart, Windsor, Fook Seng, Nice-Gook, Conqueror and Tracy Tan that always made this forum so educational, enlightening and enriching. I count that as a blessings. Credit of course must also go to our dear Leongsam who entertains us with his rubbish postings without fail. He loves to stick his ass out for us to ..........

As you can see, at the end of the day, you're no different than the PAP dogs you claim to loathe. You feel an affinity with those who nod in agreement and you have no hesitation in labeling dissenting viewpoints as "rubbish" which puts you squarely in the camp of the enemy.

 

[@rmadill0]

As you can see, at the end of the day, you're no different than the PAP dogs you claim to loathe. You feel an affinity with those who nod in agreement and you have no hesitation in labeling dissenting viewpoints as "rubbish" which puts you squarely in the camp of the enemy.

Well said. "When you point one finger, there are three fingers pointing back to you."

 

[captainxerox]

As you can see, at the end of the day, you're no different than the PAP dogs you claim to loathe. You feel an affinity with those who nod in agreement and you have no hesitation in labeling dissenting viewpoints as "rubbish" which puts you squarely in the camp of the enemy.

and the sad fact of that is that it paves the way for the death of the centrist and their views. camps are still in white and non-white even after the so-called watershed 2011 ge, and no space for those who see thru the crap (and merit) of both sides.

 

[Leongsam]

and the sad fact of that is that it paves the way for the death of the centrist and their views. camps are still in white and non-white even after the so-called watershed 2011 ge, and no space for those who see thru the crap (and merit) of both sides.

The lefties here remind me of the George Bush "you're either for us or against us" doctrine. Agreeing with just one policy of the PAP will earn you an immediate label as "Pappy lap dog" while condemning the PAP entitles you to being crowned as "enlightened" regardless of your IQ levels.

I foresee dark days ahead for the country. It is inevitable that the PAP will be dethroned eventually. However, those that take over the reigns will be no different when it comes to dealing with dissent. The evidence is here for all to see.

 

[Fook Seng]

My "political naivety" is certainly surpassed by your "economic naivety" and your detachment from reality. Anyone who runs Singapore will have to adopt policies which by and large are similar to those of the PAP.

At the national level, a slight difference, a simple tweak of a formula can mean all the difference. I remember one forummer allude this to a butterfly (or something else. Cannot remember it clearly) flying across your path and the future of the world changes drastically perhaps leading to total destruction, an illustration the Chaos Theory. You don't have to upset the whole pack of cards. And I don't think any politician in his right of mind would do that.

A different govt could for instance link the ministerial salaries to the best of the civil service which in turn could be linked to a median income. The end result is everyone is working towards improving the well being of the common people as well as themselves.

The main problem and the hardest to solve is the common people. Just spend a tiny percent of your budget, say 0.1 % of it to address the needs of the lower strata. That will mean a lot and bring a lot more share of the popular vote. PAP does not think so. Maybe WP does. SDP definitely seems to be selling this.

Which area of emphasis you place on education can likely have a major impact on the entire cost structure of our society. If your emphasis is to look upon achieving that scholarship as the end of being successful, you get a people who measure financial wealth as the end of everything, therefore the need for this debate on salary.

On the hand, if the emphasis is on what you can contribute to society and that good is enough, salaries equating to the top 1000 will not be a necessity. You will in fact get the retort "what do you think we are?".

Yes, there might not be much to change but the little something can mean a lot.

 

[aurvandil]

My "political naivety" is certainly surpassed by your "economic naivety" and your detachment from reality. Anyone who runs Singapore will have to adopt policies which by and large are similar to those of the PAP. The packaging may be slightly different but the formula will be the same.

This is completely untrue. There are plenty of good alternative economic policies which can be pursued which are completely different from what the PAP is currently doing.

I'll get the ball rolling. Every year, the PAP government generates millions of dollars in surplus. These are mysteriously moved to Temasek and GIC who then proceed to invest these in all sort of companies. Many of these overseas investments have failed spectacularly. Although they have not published the actual figures, there is a good body of empirical evidence to suggest that Singapore has suffered losses in the billions.

An alternative economic policy would be to abolish Temasek and GIC. The surplus can be invested in long term capital projects in Singapore. For example Singapore floods regualrly. Instead of investing the money overseas, why not use the money to solve the flooding problem in Singapore? Our MRT lines were designed for a population of 4 million. Why not use the money to invest in an upgraded MRT system which allows Singaporeans to travel comfortably and reliabily? These are not the handouts the PAP fears but investment in the long term future of Singapore.

 

[Leongsam]

An alternative economic policy would be to abolish Temasek and GIC. The surplus can be invested in long term capital projects in Singapore. For example Singapore floods regualrly. Instead of investing the money overseas, why not use the money to solve the flooding problem in Singapore? Our MRT lines were designed for a population of 4 million. Why not use the money to invest in an upgraded MRT system which allows Singaporeans to travel comfortably and reliabily? These are not the handouts the PAP fears but investment in the long term future of Singapore.

I'm not going to speculate regarding what sort of returns GIC and Temasek have generated. It could negative.

However, the fundamentals of investing the money overseas so that profits can be repatriated is a sound one as this strategy puts the capital to work so that it can generate returns from external sources. Any same government of Singapore would do the same thing. There is no point keeping the money under a mattress. It won't grow.

I'm sure the govt is already investing more money in flood prevention and MRT upgrading.

 

[brocoli]

I'll get the ball rolling. Every year, the PAP government generates millions of dollars in surplus. These are mysteriously moved to Temasek and GIC who then proceed to invest these in all sort of companies. Many of these overseas investments have failed spectacularly. Although they have not published the actual figures, there is a good body of empirical evidence to suggest that Singapore has suffered losses in the billions.

you win some you lose some..... you cant win all the time, otherwise that is not called investing... that is call cheating and looting

 

[aurvandil]

you win some you lose some..... you cant win all the time, otherwise that is not called investing... that is call cheating and looting

You misunderstand the point I am making.

The available empirical evidence shows that the PAP is a poor investment manager. This is however not the problem. The problem is that when asked to chose between a risky overseas asset or investing in the physical infrastructure of Singapore, the PAP would rather invest in the risky overseas asset. As a result of this, we have infrastructure that can no longer cope with our growing population.

Leongsam asserted that there are no good alternative econmic policies to what the PAP is doing. I have used this example to show that this assertion is not true and that there are plenty of good alternative economic policies to what the PAP is doing.

 

[freedalas]

As you can see, at the end of the day, you're no different than the PAP dogs you claim to loathe. You feel an affinity with those who nod in agreement and you have no hesitation in labeling dissenting viewpoints as "rubbish" which puts you squarely in the camp of the enemy.

Wow! Calling yourself and PAP supporters here "DOGS" - that blasmephous to your beloved LKY, my advise is to better watch what u r saying else all your balls carrying efforts would come to nought if LKY gets to know. I know u got caught out by me over your silly statements, and therefore angry with yourself, but learn to control your temper and not utter words that can only harm your chances of being conferred a National Day Award which u dream so much of.

On the contrary, I do not label all views differing from mine as "rubbish". Some of such differning views are backed by substance with logical rationale that do appeal to me and I get convinced by them at times. But when someone comes help to spew generalities and motherhood statements without substance or worse still those that already proven wrong, I have to do the right thing to label them as "rubbish". These are those who defend PAP policies for the sake of defending and you happen to fall right in this category. If u wish not to have views being garbaged, then do the right thing. Think before u post. Do a proper analysis of the issues before u even start typing. The PAP knows u are for them, so there's no need to post an instanteous response to any criticisms of PAP policies without giving it any thought just to show your loyalty. I'm simply doing what Vivian did, calling a spade a spade or a flood a flood or in this case, rubbish a rubbish.

 

[freedalas]

and the sad fact of that is that it paves the way for the death of the centrist and their views. camps are still in white and non-white even after the so-called watershed 2011 ge, and no space for those who see thru the crap (and merit) of both sides.

I do not have any political inclinations of either a rightist, leftist or centrist or whatever political jargon u try to impress us with. I believe many of the forummers are like me, who come here to post views that are from ground and what the ordinary man in the street is saying. Unlike the PAP and their blind supporters, we are in the real world living among real people who express real feelings. Not the make-believe world that u are in. That u can't identify with the views that posted by many forummers that reflect what the people's thoughts are only prove one point which GE11 showed up - PAP is totally detached from the people and sadly, continues to be so. So called it white or non-white or whatever high sounding terms u uttered, it looks to be another deceit by the PAP in stating that they will work at connecting better with the folks.