Why WP will not take part in NatCON

[tanwahp]

Seriously, I think the WP should bring up this grossly unfair practice of keeping and locking-up of OUR hard earned Cpf till 65 and beyond.:o It should be returned to us at age 55 as before.

That's why I am tired of repeating, it's where to find the info. http://wp.sg/2011/01/retirement-amendment-bill-speech/

Not sure who wrote this but this issue was raised 11 Jan 2011 so I believe it's Sylvia Lim cos the rest were not elected yet.

How come no one ever brought up that SDP should raise this issue or that issue. Because if you find an issue that an opposition should raise, high chance you Google and find it has not been raised by them.

 

[Robert Half]

Seriously, I think the WP should bring up this grossly unfair practice of keeping and locking-up of OUR hard earned Cpf till 65 and beyond.:o It should be returned to us at age 55 as before.

I agree with you. WP nowadays like to talk things that are not relevant to our basic living.

Aljunied people must has repent now

 

[mojito]

Seriously, I think the WP should bring up this grossly unfair practice of keeping and locking-up of OUR hard earned Cpf till 65 and beyond.:o It should be returned to us at age 55 as before.

Personally I think this issue has many interlocking parts. The issue is not enough retirement savings after paying through the nose for million dollar pigeon hole. Return earlier, problem still there. One solution is to deal with the cost of public housing, another involves government to co-pay pension for old people. No solutions proposed so far. No sound no picture. All we hear is minimum wage lah, death penalty lah, pigeon shit in my estate lah. Each one as useless as the other.

That's why I am tired of repeating, it's where to find the info. http://wp.sg/2011/01/retirement-amendment-bill-speech/

Not sure who wrote this but this issue was raised 11 Jan 2011 so I believe it's Sylvia Lim cos the rest were not elected yet.

How come no one ever brought up that SDP should raise this issue or that issue. Because if you find an issue that an opposition should raise, high chance you Google and find it has not been raised by them.

WP has too many lawyer types. Too bogged down into minutiae. No creativity. No vision. The best candidate they ever had with a big picture perspective was GMS, which says a lot. LTK as well, but his forte is growing the party but not quite there when it comes to taking apart some of the PAP's public policies.

 

[skponggol]

That's why I am tired of repeating, it's where to find the info. http://wp.sg/2011/01/retirement-amendment-bill-speech/

Not sure who wrote this but this issue was raised 11 Jan 2011 so I believe it's Sylvia Lim cos the rest were not elected yet.

.....

After more than 20 years of invisible presence in Parliament and now with 8 eunuchs, was that the one and only time WP had ever raised the CPF issue?


It was raised just before GE2011, indeed, very opportunistically.


It seems that Vichy WP has shown little concern on the CPF than the bird-droppings and bird-singings which they have been dropping and singing so often in Parliament.


Btw, has the CPF Retirement Withdrawal issue been resolved by PAP? Then why aren’t the WP eunuchs continue to drop and sing on that issue in parliament since it was last raised almost 2 years ago. Where is their determination, persistence, commitment and enthusiasm on CPF issue.


Or, as their Chief Eunuch has admitted, WP MPs are easily demoralised, discouraged and disinterested. They just simply give up and close shop


Or, maybe, everyone in Hougang and Aljunied is above 65 and that CPF is a non-issue for all the residents living there.

.....

 

[tanwahp]

.....

After more than 20 years of invisible presence in Parliament and now with 8 eunuchs, was that the one and only time WP had ever raised the CPF issue?


It was raised just before GE2011, indeed, very opportunistically.


It seems that Vichy WP has shown little concern on the CPF than the bird-droppings and bird-singings which they have been dropping and singing so often in Parliament.


Btw, has the CPF Retirement Withdrawal issue been resolved by PAP? Then why aren’t the WP eunuchs continue to drop and sing on that issue in parliament since it was last raised almost 2 years ago. Where is their determination, persistence, commitment and enthusiasm on CPF issue.


Or, as their Chief Eunuch has admitted, WP MPs are easily demoralised, discouraged and disinterested. They just simply give up and close shop


Or, maybe, everyone in Hougang and Aljunied is above 65 and that CPF is a non-issue for all the residents living there.

.....

Yes, yes, we know nothing about WP pleases you. This is your cycle pattern - you fabricate that something is not raised, when found out, you say it not often raised, when found out again, you say it is not correctly raised, when rebutted, you distort what they have raised, when found out again, you say they raised but never do. We know you are here to rant, so please be our guest.

 

[tyudm]

Seriously, I think the WP should bring up this grossly unfair practice of keeping and locking-up of OUR hard earned Cpf till 65 and beyond.:o It should be returned to us at age 55 as before.

Seriously, even if they had brought up this matter, what do you think? The PAP will change it?
Wouldn't it look worst for WP if they couldn't change it?
Might as well let it penetrate further into the skulls of the other 60%

 

[Equalisation]

Seriously, even if they had brought up this matter, what do you think? The PAP will change it?
Wouldn't it look worst for WP if they couldn't change it?
Might as well let it penetrate further into the skulls of the other 60%

Tuan,

WP, although can't change the Cpf ruling back to the original wiithdrawal age 55 must also be seen actively pursuing it. The citizens at age 40s to early 50s feel very unjustly treated especially the poorer ones like me. In this way, votes to the Opposition in the next election can be swayed towards them.:o

Furthermore, if there are no objections, the withdrawal age may even be incresaed to 70 or beyond.

 

[Liquigas]

Seriously, even if they had brought up this matter, what do you think? The PAP will change it?
Wouldn't it look worst for WP if they couldn't change it?
Might as well let it penetrate further into the skulls of the other 60%

Change or not is not the issue here. The role of any opposition party is to grill the ruling party during parliamentary sessions. WP must be brave and prepared to ask difficult questions, don't make life easy for the MIWs. Take for example the recent US$4 b loan pledge to IMF, why must it be KJ (he is not even elected) who ask and why can't the elected WP MPs ask the question?

 

[sleaguepunter]

Tuan,

WP, although can't change the Cpf ruling back to the original wiithdrawal age 55 must also be seen actively pursuing it. The citizens at age 40s to early 50s feel very unjustly treated especially the poorer ones like me. In this way, votes to the Opposition in the next election can be swayed towards them.:o

Furthermore, if there are no objections, the withdrawal age may even be incresaed to 70 or beyond.

uncle, u where got no money... u go turfclub also go private rooms wheras i had to take in second hand ciggies smoke at the ground floor.

 

[SgParent]

The citizens at age 40s to early 50s feel very unjustly treated especially the poorer ones like me. In this way, votes to the Opposition in the next election can be swayed towards them.:o

Not from the repeatedly convincingly strong mandates the White Scums get, decades after decades. I agree with tyudm, let the daft, silent Majority continue suffer, repent.

WP should and must focus on taking good care of people in Hougang and Aljunied, who voted for healthy political competition last year.

 

[SgParent]

Change or not is not the issue here. The role of any opposition party is to grill the ruling party during parliamentary sessions. WP must be brave and prepared to ask difficult questions, don't make life easy for the MIWs.

Ask, yes. But ask any and every question? Definitely no no.

Take for example the recent US$4 b loan pledge to IMF, why must it be KJ (he is not even elected) who ask and why can't the elected WP MPs ask the question?

KJ has the background and interests on such matters. Even if his questions led to nowhere, no thanks to the Kangaroo Court, at least daft, silent Majority would notice more of him. And this would not harm the Oppo cause a bit

But I don't see the connection with whether he is elected MP or not. Do you?

 

[tyudm]

Tuan,

WP, although can't change the Cpf ruling back to the original wiithdrawal age 55 must also be seen actively pursuing it. The citizens at age 40s to early 50s feel very unjustly treated especially the poorer ones like me. In this way, votes to the Opposition in the next election can be swayed towards them.:o

Furthermore, if there are no objections, the withdrawal age may even be incresaed to 70 or beyond.

Oppositions had in parliament objected to many issues in the past but to no avail. They were out numbered by PAP MPs in parliament and were mocked and ridiculed on many occasions. LTK is not making the same mistakes again
What makes you think WP has the power to stop PAP from extending the CPF withdrawal age to 70 when they can suka suka increase the minimum sum at their own wimps and fancies?
It is unwise for WP to kpkb in parliament when they are in-effective and powerless.
They should not be waking up the PAP in taking a bull by the horn
The best strategy is to let PAP commit more 'crimes & injustices' to the people and hopefully making the other 60% feel the pinch

They should preserve all their kpkb ammunition and fire them during election time in order to catch the incumbent by surprise

Let it rot !

Let the injustices and mistakes multiply and spread until the other 60% feel the heat and hopefully explode comes 2016.

 

[tanwahp]

Change or not is not the issue here. The role of any opposition party is to grill the ruling party during parliamentary sessions. WP must be brave and prepared to ask difficult questions, don't make life easy for the MIWs. Take for example the recent US$4 b loan pledge to IMF, why must it be KJ (he is not even elected) who ask and why can't the elected WP MPs ask the question?

A country lending money to another country happens everywhere like normal. Some countries even donate money to another country.

When Singapore gave money to Indonesian tsunami victims, where was KJ? Giving is even worse than lending. Why did he not make noise?

The reason is because KJ was trying to pick on a technicality. He thinks the law says loans are wrong but didn't say giving is wrong. If you want to oppose, please oppose the spirit of the law and oppose both giving and lending. In the end, he got it wrong on the technicality also. The law was talking about borrowing, not lending.

When an opposition do something wrong, it's already very good that we don't condemn him because he is on the same side, still want us to support him?

We can ask a lot of questions, but as laymen, we don't do research when we want opposition to say something. In the end when we got it wrong, people don't vote for opposition, who we blame? All we can do is to call PAP voters blind, which makes them more piss.

You also seem to miss out a point that is so obvious. That is, even SDP and Chee did not support KJ. They always like to be the first to jump on such matters. Why they never speak up?

 

[skponggol]

A country lending money to another country happens everywhere like normal. Some countries even donate money to another country.

When Singapore gave money to Indonesian tsunami victims, where was KJ? Giving is even worse than lending. Why did he not make noise?

.....


How can you compare charity donation for natural disaster with that of finanacial bailout for fat cats? WP members and supporters are very ignorant, but I don’t believe they could be so hopelessly ignorant.


Is IMF going to use any of the money to help any tsunami and earthquake victims? No. They are going to use the money to bailout those European countries which have been living their unsustainable lifestyle on borrowed money.


Is it fair for every Singaporean to sweat their live to death so as to contribute $4b to feed those people? Of course NO!


Why isn’t any of the Vichy WP eunuch dare to stand up and speak up when such an huge amount of taxpayers’ money are being transferred, not for charity causes, but to bailout those financial fat cats. Such a huge amount of money can solve all their bird-droppings, bird-singings, flooding in rich man estate and every Ministers’ Million Dollar Salary which they are so keen and desperate to champion in Parliament.


Even if it is for any natural disaster, like the Indonesian tsunami, did the Singapore government ever donate so much? If the government did donate so much, isn’t there supposed to be a debate in parliament to make sure that such huge money is not siphoned off from charity causes.


In every First World Parliament, every First World Opposition party are challenging their government vigorously for giving any more money for further financial bailout……..But not in Singapore with a Third World Banana Opposition.

.....

 

[tanwahp]

.....


How can you compare charity donation for natural disaster with that of finanacial bailout for fat cats? WP members and supporters are very ignorant, but I don’t believe they could be so hopelessly ignorant.


Is IMF going to use any of the money to help any tsunami and earthquake victims? No. They are going to use the money to bailout those European countries which have been living their unsustainable lifestyle on borrowed money.


Is it fair for every Singaporean to sweat their live to death so as to contribute $4b to feed those people? Of course NO!


Why isn’t any of the Vichy WP eunuch dare to stand up and speak up when such an huge amount of taxpayers’ money are being transferred, not for charity causes, but to bailout those financial fat cats. Such a huge amount of money can solve all their bird-droppings, bird-singings, flooding in rich man estate and every Ministers’ Million Dollar Salary which they are so keen and desperate to champion in Parliament.


Even if it is for any natural disaster, like the Indonesian tsunami, did the Singapore government ever donate so much? If the government did donate so much, isn’t there supposed to be a debate in parliament to make sure that such huge money is not siphoned off from charity causes.


In every First World Parliament, every First World Opposition party are challenging their government vigorously for giving any more money for further financial bailout……..But not in Singapore with a Third World Banana Opposition.

.....

Ahem. Let me repeat to the broken recorder. A loan you can take back, a handout you cannot.

Really, I read the first sentence and saw "financial bailout", I straightaway switch off.

 

[skponggol]

Ahem. Let me repeat to the broken recorder. A loan you can take back, a handout you cannot.

Really, I read the first sentence and saw "financial bailout", I straightaway switch off.

.....


Tell that to the First World Opposition Party to stop debating in the First World Parliament about giving money IMF…..they can take it back from IMF later, plus interest. Don’t be stingy with those BILLIONS dollars of taxpayers’ “peanuts”.


Learn from the Vichy WP (A Third World ‘Opposition’ Outfit), act blur and keep quiet, and don’t care about any Transparency and Accountability with taxpayers’ money.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEv_cEOXbLM
[video=youtube;zEv_cEOXbLM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEv_cEOXbLM[/video]


George Osborne defends £10bn extra funding for IMF
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/21/george-osborne-10bn-funding-imf

- “George Osborne is facing anger from Tory backbenchers and Labour after announcing that Britain is to commit another £10bn to the IMF.”


.....

 

[tanwahp]

“George Osborne is facing anger from Tory backbenchers and Labour after announcing that Britain is to commit another £10bn to the IMF.”
.....

Must be thankful that the person trying to rebut me put up a post to validate my point that Singapore is not the only one.

Did they also use "Britain cannot give loans without Queen Elizabeth's approval" like KJ?

 

[skponggol]

Ahem. Let me repeat to the broken recorder. A loan you can take back, a handout you cannot.

Really, I read the first sentence and saw "financial bailout", I straightaway switch off.

....

Another new word for the Hammerrhoid zombies to learn and understand:


Bailout: A bailout is a colloquial pejorative term for giving a LOAN to a company or country which faces serious financial difficulty or bankruptcy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout


Do Hammerrhoid zombies know the difference between bailouts and handouts?


It is widely acknowledged that the members and supporters of Workers’ Party has very poor English and little financial understanding. But I did not expect it to be so much worse.

.....

 

[skponggol]

Must be thankful that the person trying to rebut me put up a post to validate my point that Singapore is not the only one.

Did they also use "Britain cannot give loans without Queen Elizabeth's approval" like KJ?

....

Indeed, Singapore is not the only that gives billion of loan to IMF.


But it is most probably the only one where the billion dollar of loan is not debated and challenged by its Third World ‘Opposition’ Outfit in parliament. Apparently, the Vichy WP eunuchs are not as angry as those First World Opposition when the billions of taxpayers’ peanuts are transferred overseas.

.....