Strong Government, strong economy and strong army – these are crucial for Singapore. Besides for our own well-being, it enables us to deal firmly with pressure and demands from our neighbours, negotiate trade packs and other agreements with other countries and participate in international missions. Which country would want to cooperate with us or help us if we can’t defend ourselves and have little money.
Foremost is an efficient, strong and non-corrupt government. In future if no party can provide that, it is bad omen for our Country. But that doesn’t mean no oppositions in Parliament. But we must have competent ones who put the Country’s interests in first place.
I believe certain things will not change whichever party forms the Government: People who are a threat to our security will still be detained. People who defame others will still be sued. Say-all-the-nonsense-you-like type of free speech will not be allowed. That also applies to controversial issues on race and religions.
If we have a mediocre Government, Singapore will be no different from other Asean countries. There will be strikes, confrontations and even chaos because being a small country, a few incidents could spread and affect the whole country rapidly. Troublemakers might stir up racial tensions. Why then would investors, foreigners or even tourists want to come here. Who would want to become our citizens.
And there must be the rule of law. Some people may think a certain law is silly but a law is made only after careful considerations. You may not agree with it, but I believe there is a reason or purpose for a law to be there.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Cut GST to stimulate spending?
Will people spend more if the GST is cut?
Say a poor family that spends about $2000 or less a month and saves little or nothing. If the GST is reduced by 2%, the family can buy a bit more with the $2000 or it spends less on the same amount of things and save about $40.
Or say another family that spends about $4000 pm and saves $200. If the GST is reduced, probably it will still spend $4000 but I don’t think it will spend more by using the money budgeted for saving.
Also people in the lower-income group might spend more if they are thinking of buying a costly item. But this is not something that happens frequently.
If you take a rich family that spends $8000 or more. The rich is not bothered by GST. If the GST is reduced, it will continue its normal lifestyle. Since prices are lower, it will spend less than $8000.
So I don’t think cutting the GST will encourage people to spend more. Instead the Government will collect much less revenue from the rich, the amount of which can be used to help the poor.
Say a poor family that spends about $2000 or less a month and saves little or nothing. If the GST is reduced by 2%, the family can buy a bit more with the $2000 or it spends less on the same amount of things and save about $40.
Or say another family that spends about $4000 pm and saves $200. If the GST is reduced, probably it will still spend $4000 but I don’t think it will spend more by using the money budgeted for saving.
Also people in the lower-income group might spend more if they are thinking of buying a costly item. But this is not something that happens frequently.
If you take a rich family that spends $8000 or more. The rich is not bothered by GST. If the GST is reduced, it will continue its normal lifestyle. Since prices are lower, it will spend less than $8000.
So I don’t think cutting the GST will encourage people to spend more. Instead the Government will collect much less revenue from the rich, the amount of which can be used to help the poor.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Foreign-born Ministers?
I said it is possible for the oppositions to win GRCs, but not because the PAP is complacent or slackening. It is just that some people think it is better to have more opposition MPs. Check and balance, accountability and transparency, they say. To do that you must have quality MPs.
I think the PAP also thinks it is possible for them to lose GRCs. So I believe they are prepared for this. Don't forget they always think long-term. I feel it really doesn't matter much. Unless there are some capable ones who perform very well, if not the oppositions MPs will just make more noise, the media will be very excited but after a half a year and a few sessions the excitement will die down.
Capable people who want to see changes in certain things they don't agree with are more likely to join the PAP. Because they agree more with the PAP than with the Oppositions and it is easier to get the changes inside the party than by opposing it. Or the ministers could convince them that what they do is best for the Country.
Of course there are people who say whatever the PAP does is wrong. I guess they are those with personal reasons, or those who just dislike the PAP or those who think freedom of speech is the only thing that matters even if they have to sleep on the street or eat bread crumbs.
With more and more foreigners becoming citizens, shouldn't the parties start recruiting able people from these foreign-born citizens. I'm not surprised if the PAP has already done so. In the future one or two ministers could be these citizens or their children.
I think the PAP also thinks it is possible for them to lose GRCs. So I believe they are prepared for this. Don't forget they always think long-term. I feel it really doesn't matter much. Unless there are some capable ones who perform very well, if not the oppositions MPs will just make more noise, the media will be very excited but after a half a year and a few sessions the excitement will die down.
Capable people who want to see changes in certain things they don't agree with are more likely to join the PAP. Because they agree more with the PAP than with the Oppositions and it is easier to get the changes inside the party than by opposing it. Or the ministers could convince them that what they do is best for the Country.
Of course there are people who say whatever the PAP does is wrong. I guess they are those with personal reasons, or those who just dislike the PAP or those who think freedom of speech is the only thing that matters even if they have to sleep on the street or eat bread crumbs.
With more and more foreigners becoming citizens, shouldn't the parties start recruiting able people from these foreign-born citizens. I'm not surprised if the PAP has already done so. In the future one or two ministers could be these citizens or their children.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Two-party System
A two-party system means there are two strong parties and each has wide support of the people. So any party can form the Government after a parliamentary election. It is not just about having an opposition party to check or oppose the Government.
Having enough good candidates is very important, if not how can you contest all the constituencies. At present, how many parties can field good candidates for all the constituencies? Only the PAP. So how to have two-party system.
If we want a two-party system, first the opposition parties should combine together. Then they should actively recruit good talented people to join them. To get people to join them, they must have a good manifesto and tell people what policies and programmes they would implement if elected.
If people think these policies and programmes good for the Country and would benefit the people, I believe good able people would consider joining the Opposition. Even those intending to join the PAP initially may switch to the Opposition.
Otherwise, the oppositions will just remain as oppositions, even if they win two GRCs which I think is possible. They would lose the GRCs at the next election if their MPs fumble. There won't be a two-part system.
Having enough good candidates is very important, if not how can you contest all the constituencies. At present, how many parties can field good candidates for all the constituencies? Only the PAP. So how to have two-party system.
If we want a two-party system, first the opposition parties should combine together. Then they should actively recruit good talented people to join them. To get people to join them, they must have a good manifesto and tell people what policies and programmes they would implement if elected.
If people think these policies and programmes good for the Country and would benefit the people, I believe good able people would consider joining the Opposition. Even those intending to join the PAP initially may switch to the Opposition.
Otherwise, the oppositions will just remain as oppositions, even if they win two GRCs which I think is possible. They would lose the GRCs at the next election if their MPs fumble. There won't be a two-part system.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Non-Chinese PM and GRCs
Non-Chinese PM
Even if we choose to have a non-Chinese PM, I don't think it necessary means that we are less race-conscious or more race-blind. There can only be one PM and I think we all agree that we let the best person do the job. There will still be other Chinese ministers.
Now, if we have no Malay or Indian ministers and the Malays and Indians don't mind, then we are really race-blind. Or if we have no Chinese ministers and the Chinese don't mind.
If this were to happen I believe everyone would mind because it is not a good thing. I feel that completely race-blind is not a good thing.
GRCs
If all our constituencies were single-seat and we really don't care about race, then we vote for the best candidate in each case. It could happen that in each case or in most cases the best turns out to be Chinese. Then we would have very few, or none, MPs from the minority races.
Then maybe we can have NCMP only from the minorities but I think no one likes that. Or we can stipulate that certain constituencies can only be contested by candidates from the minorities. Again I think no one likes that. So I think the better way is still GRCs.
GRCs are advantages to the PAP only because the oppositions do not have enough good candidates. There are quite a number of single-seat wards, how come the oppositions only won two seats. The same reason too. If the oppositions have enough good candidates, they have equal opportunities. Then they will not oppose GRCs, they may even like them.
Even if we choose to have a non-Chinese PM, I don't think it necessary means that we are less race-conscious or more race-blind. There can only be one PM and I think we all agree that we let the best person do the job. There will still be other Chinese ministers.
Now, if we have no Malay or Indian ministers and the Malays and Indians don't mind, then we are really race-blind. Or if we have no Chinese ministers and the Chinese don't mind.
If this were to happen I believe everyone would mind because it is not a good thing. I feel that completely race-blind is not a good thing.
GRCs
If all our constituencies were single-seat and we really don't care about race, then we vote for the best candidate in each case. It could happen that in each case or in most cases the best turns out to be Chinese. Then we would have very few, or none, MPs from the minority races.
Then maybe we can have NCMP only from the minorities but I think no one likes that. Or we can stipulate that certain constituencies can only be contested by candidates from the minorities. Again I think no one likes that. So I think the better way is still GRCs.
GRCs are advantages to the PAP only because the oppositions do not have enough good candidates. There are quite a number of single-seat wards, how come the oppositions only won two seats. The same reason too. If the oppositions have enough good candidates, they have equal opportunities. Then they will not oppose GRCs, they may even like them.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Do it right.
I would say if the Government had scrapped building the dormitory if would lose more votes. Residents who didn't sign the petition and some other Singaporeans would see this as a weak Government. And it doesn't mean that residents who are happy the project is scrapped will vote for the Government.
So, no need to worry about votes, just do what is right.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Investment & Risk (2)
These few days there were plenty of news about these investors who might lose all the money. They all mentioned that the bank advisors told them that their savings were safe. But fixed deposits also safe, how come they didn't put their money there.
Because these investments could give them higher returns. But no investors mentioned this. I guess because it would make them look greedy and no one wants to admit it. Maybe they would just get a bit more. But whether large amount or small amount, it is still greed. Or even if it is just some free gifts.
It is not wrong to try to get higher returns but when things turn bad, cannot everything blames it on people misleading you.
Furthermore, whatever the advisors said investors should know there are risks. Perhaps the only thing is that they didn't know they could lose everything.
Although I feel sympathetic for the investors, I think investors should bear 70% responsibility.
If this becomes a court case, the bank will have to defend itself.
Now the bank says it will take resposibility if there were wrong-doings but if goes to court the bank will try to prove that the investors themselves have to bear greater responsibility. They might be cross-examined by defence lawyers.Then it is no use for investors to appeal to emotions or say that it is all their life savings. And I think there are two things unfavourable to the investors:
1. Besides being 'misled' into thinking the investment was safe, another reason for investing in the product was because the investors were attracted by the high interest.
2. Since it has a higher interest than fixed deposits, investors should know there is some risk. Even if LB had not collapsed their investments would have dropped considerably in value.
So, even if the investors win the case, the most optimistic outcome is they get back 50% of their capital. They might lose the case too.
If I were an investor I would rather wait and see what the bank has to offer me.
Because these investments could give them higher returns. But no investors mentioned this. I guess because it would make them look greedy and no one wants to admit it. Maybe they would just get a bit more. But whether large amount or small amount, it is still greed. Or even if it is just some free gifts.
It is not wrong to try to get higher returns but when things turn bad, cannot everything blames it on people misleading you.
Furthermore, whatever the advisors said investors should know there are risks. Perhaps the only thing is that they didn't know they could lose everything.
Although I feel sympathetic for the investors, I think investors should bear 70% responsibility.
If this becomes a court case, the bank will have to defend itself.
Now the bank says it will take resposibility if there were wrong-doings but if goes to court the bank will try to prove that the investors themselves have to bear greater responsibility. They might be cross-examined by defence lawyers.Then it is no use for investors to appeal to emotions or say that it is all their life savings. And I think there are two things unfavourable to the investors:
1. Besides being 'misled' into thinking the investment was safe, another reason for investing in the product was because the investors were attracted by the high interest.
2. Since it has a higher interest than fixed deposits, investors should know there is some risk. Even if LB had not collapsed their investments would have dropped considerably in value.
So, even if the investors win the case, the most optimistic outcome is they get back 50% of their capital. They might lose the case too.
If I were an investor I would rather wait and see what the bank has to offer me.
Some investors want to band together to get a lawyer to negotiate with the financial institutions. I don't think it will help them to get more compensation or to get it faster as the FIs say they will look at it case by case. Even if those who band together have the same profile, there may be things they don't want to disclose to each other, like if they have invested in similar investments before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)