![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
MP Denise Phua wanted to ask the Minister for Trade and Industry on the appropriate time for lifting of the ban on the sale of chewing gum in Singapore.
Alright, it is a valid question. But, of all the time she has in parliament, why does she have to pose this question during a Budget Debate? I am sure this is the least concern of the ordinary folks now. We are concerned with housing, foreign talent and the list goes on. Chewing gums? Oh please... i don't think it's even the top 100 questions Singaporeans are interested in.
Why are we paying MPs to ask mediocre questions instead of posing difficult questions to the Government on the policies that they have meted out?
"The government has no plans to remove the chewing gum ban that was imposed in 1992.
Parlimentary Secretary for National Development Maliki Osman was replying to a question posed by Mdm Cynthia Phua in Parliament, on the appropriate time to lift the ban.
" We remain concern that lifting the ban on the sale of chewing gum could result in chewing gum litter as a problem and undermine our own going efforts to curb littering. As the rationale for the imposition of the ban is still valid at present, the government's position is that the ban will remain. "
Chewing gum has been banned in Singapore due to problems arising from the indiscriminate disposal of gum litter. "
Source: Newsradio 938 Live
However those used for medical purposes are allowed here
At around 10pm on Thursday evening, as i was watching the news on Ch8 reporting the return of Jerry Ee, the guy who went missing on Christmas Eve with 386 luxury watches, to Singapore under the Police's custody, i realised something was not right, but i couldn't pin-point what it was then. As the news went on for the next few seconds, i suddenly realised what i found to be amiss. When Jerry Ee was taken to the police complex at Outram Road in a police car, scores of reporters and photographers surrounded the car and these photographers were able to place their cameras inside the car to take a snap shots of Jerry Ee. All these were made possible because the rear car windows were wound down. The policeman next to Jerry Ee apparently appeared non-chalant about what was going on.
A few questions ran through my mind.
Why were the windows wound down? Normally, the windows would not be wound down but in this case they were. I am pretty amused. Does the police not think that would cause potential risk of sabotage to their witness (he was not convicted then)? Why did the police allow such undue harassement to their witness. Note that like i mentioned earlier, the policeman next to him did nothing to stop the photographs from taking close up photos of Jerry Ee by putting their cameras into the car through the open windows. Shouldn't the police take actions to protect the safety of criminals and even for so for witnesses? Where is the policeman's professionalism in this case?
See video footage at the following link
http://www.straitstimes.com/Video+News/S
Internet not an effective self-regulated regime, says MICA
By Imelda Saad, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 04 February 2009 1614 hrs
SINGAPORE: Contrary to what some may feel, Singapore's Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts, Lui Tuck Yew, has said the internet is not an effective self-regulated regime.
Speaking in Parliament on Wednesday, Mr Lui cited the example of cybertalk which erupted after MP Seng Hang Thong was set on fire by a disgruntled ex-cabbie.
The blogs of local netizens were abuzz with the incident involving Mr Seng. Mr Lui said while a small number of comments were sympathetic, most were unhelpful.
"Significant numbers were unkind. A small number was downright outrageous. It's disappointing."
Mr Lui added that the internet community had not done enough to rebut some of the unhelpful comments delivered by fellow netizens.
He said: "It is a squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation. It would have been an example of the genesis of the first step towards a more responsible, a greater self-regulatory regime.
"But many of those responses were not rebutted nor answered. And I think it is not healthy for some of those to remain on the net unchallenged, unquestioned, and unanswered."
The Singapore government is now making more efforts to engage netizens after the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) submitted its proposals in December last year. But it is opting for a cautious and pragmatic approach for now.
Mr Lui said to develop a responsible cyberspace, all parties, including the government and netizens, have to play a role.
He said bloggers and website proprietors need to maintain credibility, while netizens should do more to establish and enforce the norms of acceptable online behaviour.
- CNA
Netizens need to be kind with their words. At least that's what seems to be the message Mr Lui tries to put across to us. Doesn't Mr Lui understand something? If a significant number of netizens went online to post unkind comments, that's their views and feelings and it does show that SHT is really not that well-liked as Mr Lui deems to be.
The net shows the true feelings of people on the ground. If we want sympathetic thoughts and kind words, we already have them on the papers, TV, radio. What is wrong with people expressing their true feelings? Since when has it become a bad thing to express your opinion or speak your mind?
If Mr Lui felt some of the comments were malicious and were baseless accusations, he could do a point by point rebuttal anytime by writing to the Straits Times.
It is totally absurd and ridiculous for Mr Lui to put down the netizens just because they did not seize the opportunity to be apple polishers.
1. Competitiveness
Many have expected the Government to cut corporate tax. But, i guess many more have expected the Government to slash corporate tax rates by at least 2% points. However, the Minister of Finance decided 1% point is enough. Now, instead of 18%, we have 17% corporate tax. Compared to our keenest competitor Hong Kong, we are still one/two percentage point higher. Actually, many countries have moved to increasing GST as a source of Government Revenue rather use Corporate tax to earn revenue. Since we had a 2% points increase in GST, then couldn't they have used it to offset corporate tax as well?
2. GST
As expected there was no cut in GST. Each household would, however, get additional payouts for the GST credits. Our dear Minister even went on to say, this is a more effective way than to cut GST. Our economy is now going down because of low demand. Therefore, shouldn't the Government cut GST and thus encourage people to spend more? Again, the Government see GST as a progressive tax policy. duh
I thought the Government should at least remove GST on basic necessities like staple food such as rice, noodles and also public goods such as Education (including Training and upgrading of skills) and healthcare.
3. Individual Income Tax
We thought this year's extraordinary budget for extraordinary year would be really extraordinary. However, where individual income tax is concerned, that's not the case. 20% rebate, capped at $2,000. Sounds familiar? Yes, that's exactly what was given for Year of Assessment 2008.
4. Business Costs
A lot of measures to help businesses comes in the form of rebates. However, from the limited knowledge that i have, businesses need immediate reliefs during this bad times. We would have thought the Government would probably lower rental (not in the form of rebate but really slashing rental). But still we don't see that.
Maybe there was very high expectation on this budget, that's why many of classmates and I thought the ang pow was really pathetic. We are not asking for freebies during this difficult period but since we are unable to control external factors (e.g. exports), the Government should try more in helping in ways that are within their control.
Met some friends for dinner, chit chat and games this evening. Just past midnight or so, one of our girlfriends told us she noticed someone was filming her from beneath the cubicle. We went to the toilet to check it out immediately and true enough when one of the girls pretended to go into the cubicle, she saw a camera (rectangular pinhole i think) underneath the cubicle partition. Immediately, she yelled and we rushed in to demand the person to open the door. Turned out to be a clean cut decent bespectacled student who is only 22 yo.
Well, apparently, we called the security guard and the police as well. While waiting for the police, my friends and i cornered him in the cubicle. The guy wanted to run away, pleaded with us, went down on his knees and begged us for forgivance. He was badly traumatised. It was very heart wrenching. I felt terrible at that point in time. Here was one chap who is supposed to have a bright future ahead of him. Yet, after tonight, his whole life would change, all because of his foolishness and our intolerance for such mistakes.
I seriously wonder whether we should have let him go and gave him another chance. Would he repent? What if he really meant it when he said he learnt his lesson?
Maybe i am just plain selfish. I just don't want to know I was one of those who ruined his life. It's 335am, but i can't sleep because my conscience is still pricking.
Now i can fully appreciate why many Singaporeans prefer to adopt the " Not my business" attitude.
Yes, the old man has spoken again last week. In his latest attempt to redirect all focus from the incompetent million dollar team in managing the recent DBS-Minibonds saga, he revisited his favourite topic.
During a recent Human Capital Summit, the old man spoke on assortative mating which means finding a spouse of your level. He cited the example of "You marry a non-graduate, then you are going to worry if your son or daughter is going to make it to the university."
This is not something new from the old man. During the 1980s, LKY also tried to promote the Graduate Mother Scheme - all graduates who gave birth to more kids would get more incentives and benefits. Non-graduate mums would be discouraged from having too many kids. I read with interest from one website. LKY said this during one of his rally speeches, " 'If you don’t include your women graduates in your breeding pool and leave them on the shelf, you would end up a more stupid society…So what happens? There will be less bright people to support dumb people in the next generation. That’s a problem.' ”
This is one man who obviously subscribes to the idea of procreating purely for the sake of genetic survivability and during the process, seek genetic superiority. To this man, love and respect are certainly not part of his equation.
Old man, let me introduce you to the game Spores. Over there, you can act as God and play your mating game but don’t come and mess up our society. This society is not your little playground. The society will be in disequilibrium if they subscribe to your school of warped thoughts.
Btw, old man, even Alan Greenspan had to apologise for being misled by his own belief and ideologies. What makes you think you are always right?
I hope Singaporeans remember the insensitive speeches he and his million dollars team made in recent days. They only serve to show the million dollars team is too far removed from the ground that they can't even understand what it means to be a human.
On the other hand, when i visited the HKMA's website, i was shocked and impressed by how transparent they have been. They even have a spreadsheet which details the statistics of processing of complaints concerning Lehman-Brothers related products. They go down to the details of revealing how many cases are pending at each stage of the investigation. How many cases have our MAS resolved?
I don't know what factors would probably make one a financial hub but i do know a strong monetary authority gives investors the confidence. In that aspect, MAS has lost the game by a large margin.
Singapore wants to be the next financial hub in Asia. Sorry. Please queue behind Hong Kong.
Just how many times do they have to conduct such surveys?
Please don't make it sound like people are so happy to work till they die. The title should be changed to "About half of older Singaporeans Need to Work for as Long as they can".
What to do? Old people lost hard earned money, government also refuses to help. No pension, high electricity tariffs, increasing expensive transport costs, what can these old Singaporeans do other than to work till they collapse?
Well, that's life. (Quote: GCT)
About half of older S'poreans want to work for as long as they can
By Ryan Huang, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 17 October 2008 1928 hrs
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
SINGAPORE: About half of Singaporeans, aged between 43 and 60, surveyed want to work for as long as they can, according to a government survey.
This has prompted the Council for Third Age, an agency championing active ageing, to urge companies to get their workplaces ready for older employers.
The survey also showed that among the other half who plan to retire, three in 10 of them expect to do so beyond the official retirement age.
A longer life expectancy is among the factors set to make Singapore the fourth oldest population worldwide by 2050.
Thus, there are growing calls for companies to pay attention to how their workforces are aging and to have a wider perspective.
Gerard Ee, chairman, Council for Third Age, said: "During boom times, you're so busy you have no time to send your employees for training. During this quieter downtime, this is the time to invest in training, to train your employees and to be prepared for the upturn."
Minister, Prime Minister’s Office, Lim Boon Heng, said: "In these uncertain times, you need people to have experience. The experience would count for how the company responds to the current crisis.
"Many employers would find that the older employees are valuable of the insights they have gained from the experience of past downturns."
Officials said that before changes can happen, people first need to talk about the issue. That is why an upcoming international conference on reinventing retirement will become increasingly relevant when it is held here next January.
The second edition of Reinventing Retirement Asia Conference will be held in Singapore for the first time.
In the lead up to the event, two local companies, Alexandra Hospital and SingHealth, have been recognised for their age-friendly workplace practices. - CNA/vm
About three weeks ago, i received a call from one of the local banks. After i picked up his call, the guy on the other side of the line immediately asked if i was interested to take up a loan which offers the lowest interest rates in town. When i said i didn't want to, he persuaded that i could use it to pay for my credit card bills, take my family members on a holiday, etc. Sounds familiar? I bet a number of us would have received this kind of cold call sellings from banks.
What amuses me is that the entire perspective of banks making loans has changed. Just last year (if my memory serves me well), one of the giant banks decide to provide credit cards to individuals who are not even working. Credit limits have also been lowered over the last few years. The banks seem to be encouraging people to spend more and beyond their limits. It used to be the case where businesses or individuals would need to take a lot of effort to persuade banks to make loans to them. These days, it seems that banks are more than willing to lend out money to people.
The US financial market is in a turmoil now because of poor credit lending to the Americans. I don't know if Singapore would be affected by this. I hope not because if it does, the crisis would have far reaching effects, affecting not just house owners but also people who have taken car loans and those credit card owners. Notice that many young couples are buying houses beyond their means. As Marcus put it simply, during the good times, some people think they can afford $100k houses with their $5k salary. I also seriously question about how many of us know the different types of loans and how the banks modelled these loans. If you don't even know what is being packaged in the loan, why are people willing to take the risk to borrow them?
Anyway, the point i want to make is to remind my friends and myself that we should perhaps be more conscious of signing up such loans with banks. These days the banks are more than happy to offer loans to us and the process of obtaining loans have been simplified thus making it more attractive for us to take up loans. If we do not do our math properly, more likely than not, we will be enticed to take up the loans and suffer serious consequences when the economy nosedives.
CONDOLENCE LETTER FROM PRIME MINISTER LEE HSIEN LOONG ON DEMISE OF JB JEYARETNAM
30 September 2008
Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam
Mr Philip Jeyaretnam
Dear Kenneth and Philip Jeyaretnam
I was sad to learn that your father, Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, has passed away.
Mr JB Jeyaretnam was a Member of Parliament for Anson constituency from 1981 till 1986, and a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament from 1997 till 2001. He used to engage in heated debates in the House. Perhaps it was because he and the PAP never saw eye to eye on any major political issue and he sought by all means to demolish the PAP and our system of government. Unfortunately, this helped neither to build up a constructive opposition nor our Parliamentary tradition. Nevertheless, one had to respect Mr JB Jeyaretnam's dogged tenacity to be active in politics at his age.
However, our differences were not personal. In 1993, one of you (Kenneth) wrote to Mr Goh Chok Tong, who was then Prime Minister, to say that you found employers in Singapore reluctant to offer you a job, and your only explanation was that the employers felt the authorities would not welcome your employment because of your name. Mr Goh replied with a letter which could be shown to prospective employers, to say that the government did not hold anything against you, and that employers should evaluate you fairly on your own merits, like any other candidate, because Singapore needed every talented person that it could find. Mr Goh had previously made the same point to your brother Philip, whom he had invited to lunch. I am therefore happy that both of you have established yourselves in Singapore.
Please accept my deepest condolences.
Yours sincerely
Lee Hsien Loong
What kind of a condolence letter is this? Trying to have a dig at a dead man for his failure to usurp the authority or trying to show the magnanimity of the authority?
Either way, i think they have failed. They only showed they lack the human touch and the nature of a true gentleman.
I do not know Mr Jeyaratnam well enough to comment much but at least he showed that the authority is not as informidable as they choose to think and this alone leaves a legacy that will be well remembered.
