Some Singaporeans are very naïve. When the Government wants to buy buses for the bus operators and help them in other ways, these people are worried that the operators would make more profits.
First, the operators will only make more profits if they increase the fares or if suddenly a lot of people decide to take buses. These are unlikely. Second, what is wrong if the operators do make more profits because of Government help. It is good for everyone. If profits remain stagnant, it is bad for everyone.
The fact is the operators do not make enough money to buy the extra buses or pay the drivers more. The bus fares are too low. So the Government steps in.
These people should worry about what happens after five years. If the Government stops its subsidies for the operators, where do they get the money for the maintenance of the extra buses and the wages for the extra drivers.
My view is that the Government will continue helping the operators after the five years, whether with drivers' wages or other costs for the operators.
With or without Government subsidies, fares still have to go up.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Thursday, January 5, 2012
No room for complacency
Death caused by food poisoning, escape of Mas Selamat, flooding in Orchard Road, breakdown of MRT trains, error in tests by the Science Laboratory …
One positive outcome of these happenings is that they make people wake up from their complacency. Not just the authorities, but Singaporeans at large. Singaporeans have been so used to our efficiency and security that some of us are taking them for granted. There is no 100% guarantee.
These unpleasant happenings are actually quite minor compared to the inefficiencies and corruptions in other countries.
Singaporeans should mentally be prepared for these problems and inconveniences or even disasters. We should tell ourselves that these things could happen. Probably there isn’t much you can do when one does happen but at least you accept it and you won’t be too panicky.
It would actually be good for Singaporeans to go through a period of economic hardship. Then they will treasure what our Country has achieved and not take them as if all these were their rights.
I also think it is good to let Singaporeans experience a dose of poor governance. The day will come when we cut the pay of our political leaders by 50%. Then Singapore will be run by people of lesser stuff and not much smarter than you and I. Another possibility is when we have a coalition government formed by opposition parties with each party insisting that the Country be run its way.
One positive outcome of these happenings is that they make people wake up from their complacency. Not just the authorities, but Singaporeans at large. Singaporeans have been so used to our efficiency and security that some of us are taking them for granted. There is no 100% guarantee.
These unpleasant happenings are actually quite minor compared to the inefficiencies and corruptions in other countries.
Singaporeans should mentally be prepared for these problems and inconveniences or even disasters. We should tell ourselves that these things could happen. Probably there isn’t much you can do when one does happen but at least you accept it and you won’t be too panicky.
It would actually be good for Singaporeans to go through a period of economic hardship. Then they will treasure what our Country has achieved and not take them as if all these were their rights.
I also think it is good to let Singaporeans experience a dose of poor governance. The day will come when we cut the pay of our political leaders by 50%. Then Singapore will be run by people of lesser stuff and not much smarter than you and I. Another possibility is when we have a coalition government formed by opposition parties with each party insisting that the Country be run its way.
Monday, August 29, 2011
My view on the Presidential Election
Tan Jee Say and Tan Kin Lian
Tan Kin Lian tried too hard to be popular. He also made pledges that people know can’t be fulfilled. Having spoken out for some investors who lost their money doesn’t make him Voice of the People. That he wants to be Voice of the People makes him appear egoistic.
Tan Jee Say is confrontational. His supporters and team-mates re-in-forced that impression. He should have told his supporters to behave themselves. At his rally he should also have told the speakers to tone down the rhetoric and not to spread untrue rumours about another candidate. Most of the people at his rally were his supporters and there was no need to appeal to them. He only needed to persuade those who had not decided and had come to see whether they should vote for him. I guess they went away with a negative impression.
If either of them had dropped out of the contest, I think Tan Cheng Bock would have won.
Tan Cheng Bock and Tony Tan
Now, don't assume that supporters of Tony Tan are against Tan Cheng Bock and vice versa. I think many of them support both but it is just a matter of their order of preference.
If one of the Tans dropped out of the contest, I think the other Tan would have obtained at least 60% of the votes.
Tan Kin Lian tried too hard to be popular. He also made pledges that people know can’t be fulfilled. Having spoken out for some investors who lost their money doesn’t make him Voice of the People. That he wants to be Voice of the People makes him appear egoistic.
Tan Jee Say is confrontational. His supporters and team-mates re-in-forced that impression. He should have told his supporters to behave themselves. At his rally he should also have told the speakers to tone down the rhetoric and not to spread untrue rumours about another candidate. Most of the people at his rally were his supporters and there was no need to appeal to them. He only needed to persuade those who had not decided and had come to see whether they should vote for him. I guess they went away with a negative impression.
If either of them had dropped out of the contest, I think Tan Cheng Bock would have won.
Tan Cheng Bock and Tony Tan
Now, don't assume that supporters of Tony Tan are against Tan Cheng Bock and vice versa. I think many of them support both but it is just a matter of their order of preference.
If one of the Tans dropped out of the contest, I think the other Tan would have obtained at least 60% of the votes.
Friday, August 19, 2011
MPs are the voice of the people
The MPs are the voice of the people. The president is elected only for its role and entrusted with the tasks as stated in the constitution.
Tan Kin Lian and Tan Jee Say talk as if they have the right to tell the Government how to run the Country. They behave as if they know more about law than the Law Minister or the experts in constitutional laws.
The two of them who have never even been an MP before think they know more about the governing of a country than the ministers or MPs.
The President should also be a good and able diplomat, enhancing our image abroad. He should not be quarrelsome and confrontational.
If either of them were to be president, I think he would only bring disrepute to himself. Even people who had supported him would be disillusioned when they realized they had been fooled by empty promises in the campaign. Even foreign leaders would not respect him.
This is what I think:
Tan Jee Say has a personal agenda – to further the opposition’s cause, particularly the SDP.
Tan Kin Lian still feels sore about having to leave INCOME. He didn’t want to join an opposition party as an ordinary member to contest the general elections in May because he considered that below his status. An ordinary MP also gets little attention from the media.
Contesting in the presidential election under the slogan ‘Voice of the People’ boosts his egoism - the people give feedback to him instead of the MPs. He is more powerful than all the MPs combined.
Tan Kin Lian and Tan Jee Say talk as if they have the right to tell the Government how to run the Country. They behave as if they know more about law than the Law Minister or the experts in constitutional laws.
The two of them who have never even been an MP before think they know more about the governing of a country than the ministers or MPs.
The President should also be a good and able diplomat, enhancing our image abroad. He should not be quarrelsome and confrontational.
If either of them were to be president, I think he would only bring disrepute to himself. Even people who had supported him would be disillusioned when they realized they had been fooled by empty promises in the campaign. Even foreign leaders would not respect him.
This is what I think:
Tan Jee Say has a personal agenda – to further the opposition’s cause, particularly the SDP.
Tan Kin Lian still feels sore about having to leave INCOME. He didn’t want to join an opposition party as an ordinary member to contest the general elections in May because he considered that below his status. An ordinary MP also gets little attention from the media.
Contesting in the presidential election under the slogan ‘Voice of the People’ boosts his egoism - the people give feedback to him instead of the MPs. He is more powerful than all the MPs combined.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
The neutral voters
According to political analysts, of all the voters, 25% are pro-PAP and 25% pro-Opposition. To these two groups, the candidates and policies matter very little.
The remaining 50% belong to the neutral group. Probably they base their decisions on the qualities of the candidates, the policies, their trust of the parties and their desire for more opposition MPs.
The results: PAP 60% and Oppositions 40%. If we exclude the 25% of the partisan voters from both sides, the ratio is 35 to 15. That means the PAP got 70% of votes from the neutral voters while the oppositions got 30%.
This shows most people have trust in the PAP and its candidates and accept most of its policies. So there is no need for the PAP to feel too badly about the drop of 6% in votes from the previous election.
There is also no need for it to go out of the way to try to please those who didn’t vote for the PAP.
Actually, with the huge amount misinformation, rhetoric and noise made by the pro-opposition group and the PAP still got 60%, it is a very good mandate indeed.
The remaining 50% belong to the neutral group. Probably they base their decisions on the qualities of the candidates, the policies, their trust of the parties and their desire for more opposition MPs.
The results: PAP 60% and Oppositions 40%. If we exclude the 25% of the partisan voters from both sides, the ratio is 35 to 15. That means the PAP got 70% of votes from the neutral voters while the oppositions got 30%.
This shows most people have trust in the PAP and its candidates and accept most of its policies. So there is no need for the PAP to feel too badly about the drop of 6% in votes from the previous election.
There is also no need for it to go out of the way to try to please those who didn’t vote for the PAP.
Actually, with the huge amount misinformation, rhetoric and noise made by the pro-opposition group and the PAP still got 60%, it is a very good mandate indeed.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Congratulations to Tin Pei Ling
Three cheers to Pei Ling for her courage, determination and conviction.
If Nicole Seah were to be subjected to the same criticisms and unkindness as Pei Ling had, probably she would have broken down, cried and stepped down from her contest.
If Nicole Seah were to be subjected to the same criticisms and unkindness as Pei Ling had, probably she would have broken down, cried and stepped down from her contest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)