Below is an extract of an article from a bitter Singaporeans, not local,
a Singaporean. He is asking the same question many unemployed and
highly qualified and experienced PMETs are asking. Many just resigned to
their fate and disappeared even in govt statistics of the unemployed,
no longer part of the statistics, not even good enough to be a
statistic, forgotten, vanished. They no longer count in the percentages
of unemployed to make it look as if the unemployed number is really low
and acceptable.
Here is the extract by a Don Tan posted in TRE.
“A strange country, low level jobs like taxi drivers, insurance and
property sales persons, you have highly qualified professionals. To rub
salt into the would, the entry requirements for these course is you only
have certificates from Singapore schools like NTU, NUS, SMU, Polys et
cetera, all other certificates need to be separately assessed as they
are not recognised!
What has gone wrong with this country? Third world foreigners coming
into this country with inferior or fake degrees or qualifications are
given good jobs while locals with good degrees and qualifications are
relegated to prepare themselves to downgrade to low level career? You
wonder why taxi, insurance and real estate would only prefer to look at
local qualifications while govt ministries, GLCS and MNCS would hire all
these third world inferior qualified?
Is this what you voted for? You are preparing yourself to be replaced by these imported FTs?”
What is happening to your country and your fellow Singaporeans? I don’t
care a fuck about the locals that are not Singaporeans in such a
situation. Now you even have MPs caring for PRs when the PRs are not
eligible to vote and did not vote them to rule over you. They rather
take care of PRs that are classified as locals than Singaporeans.
How many of you are PMETs and in dire strait like those attending
courses with Don Tan and no MP would want to give you a helping hand?
Wake up daft Sinkies. Vote for people who care for you, not to care for
foreigners even if they are classified as locals. They are not
citizens, not Singaporeans. They are here stealing your jobs.
3/12/2018
Chee Hong Tat - Test balloons are false and vicious
SINGAPORE: The Workers' Party could have
used its "test balloons" allegation on the timing of the
Goods-and-Services Tax (GST) "to great effect for political attacks", if
the Government had not challenged it in Parliament, Senior Minister of
State Chee Hong Tat has said.
"Had the Government not pursued the matter in Parliament, most people would have overlooked Ms Lim’s 'test balloon' comment. However, the WP could later use it to great effect for political attacks, including during the next general election," he wrote in a letter addressed to all Singaporeans published on the People's Action Party (PAP) website on Saturday (Mar 10)....
"Had the Government not pursued the matter in Parliament, most people would have overlooked Ms Lim’s 'test balloon' comment. However, the WP could later use it to great effect for political attacks, including during the next general election," he wrote in a letter addressed to all Singaporeans published on the People's Action Party (PAP) website on Saturday (Mar 10)....
Mr Chee said in his letter that her allegation was "false and vicious" and "goes to the heart of the Government's integrity".
"The underlying sting of that allegation was that the Government was being dishonest with the people," he wrote.
The WP could then repeat the allegation at election rallies and claim that since the Government did not rebut it in Parliament, "it must be true", he said.
Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/test-balloons-allegation-if-not-refuted-could-have-led-to-10032354
"The underlying sting of that allegation was that the Government was being dishonest with the people," he wrote.
The WP could then repeat the allegation at election rallies and claim that since the Government did not rebut it in Parliament, "it must be true", he said.
Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/test-balloons-allegation-if-not-refuted-could-have-led-to-10032354
I thought after Sylvia Lim refused to apologise to Grace Fu's threat to file a complain against her this silly chapter on the test balloon allegation would have been closed and forgotten. The above is another report in Channel News Asia on Chee Hong Tat's public letter to the people to tell the people how dangerous is the test balloon allegation.
For goodness sake, testing the ground before implementing or changing policies or laws have been a standard practice by almost every govt all over the world. There are times when policies are unpopular or controversial or simply bad for the people and govts need to be very careful of the backlash if introduced. They would adopt all kinds of tactics to test the ground, soften the ground, creating fake news and misinformation to distract or convince the people to believe the policies are good and not bad for the people. Some govts may even tell lies to get the people to believe in their bad policies.
Test balloon is just another different expression of such govt tactics. It is nothing new or abnormal. What is the farce all about? Test balloons are false and vicious?
I give up. It is a waste of time and resources like crying wolf or throwing a red herring to confuse the people. Oops, is crying wolf false and vicious, is throwing a red herring false and vicious, like test balloon?
What do you think?
PS. I think the people would be better educated and entertainment reading my rubbish in mysingaporenews.
3/11/2018
Driverless trains need drivers
Below is a comment by a Stupida posted in TRE.
“After spending a fortune on driverless trains,
we will now have drivers in the trains becos the
tech is not working. However, we are going to go
ahead with being a cashless society – and do it
Overnight, rather than ease in – and there’s no
backup in place when the machines break down. “
Stupida has a point. Driverless trains come with a technology to save on manpower, thus more expensive than trains that need drivers. Now driverless trains need drivers to be more efficient and safer. This is really stupidity has no cure.
And it reminds me of not just going cashless and when the system goes bonkers, everyone must make sure got money in his pocket, but driverless cars. They are testing driverless cars and if the above case of driverless trains is what is coming, driverless cars would still need drivers to be safe.
What’s new, kopi O kosong with sugar? Saving a life time with money in the CPF for retirement but not enough money for retirement? Still need to save more and have more insurance policies. Having compulsory medical insurance and still needs to have minimum sum in Medisave Account to be doubly sure got money for medical?
Got PM, 2 deputy PMs, still need more ministers in PMO? Got MPs still need mayors?
Alamak, susah lah. Not only susah, anyone think this is a big waste of money?
“After spending a fortune on driverless trains,
we will now have drivers in the trains becos the
tech is not working. However, we are going to go
ahead with being a cashless society – and do it
Overnight, rather than ease in – and there’s no
backup in place when the machines break down. “
Stupida has a point. Driverless trains come with a technology to save on manpower, thus more expensive than trains that need drivers. Now driverless trains need drivers to be more efficient and safer. This is really stupidity has no cure.
And it reminds me of not just going cashless and when the system goes bonkers, everyone must make sure got money in his pocket, but driverless cars. They are testing driverless cars and if the above case of driverless trains is what is coming, driverless cars would still need drivers to be safe.
What’s new, kopi O kosong with sugar? Saving a life time with money in the CPF for retirement but not enough money for retirement? Still need to save more and have more insurance policies. Having compulsory medical insurance and still needs to have minimum sum in Medisave Account to be doubly sure got money for medical?
Got PM, 2 deputy PMs, still need more ministers in PMO? Got MPs still need mayors?
Alamak, susah lah. Not only susah, anyone think this is a big waste of money?
3/10/2018
Post by Concerns of a Heartland Sinkie - Part 3
As mentioned before, pls edict/ amend any error you may deem fit. Thank you.
"Generally, wages in the labour market are determined in the below simplified algebraic equation:
W = PeF(u,z)
On the other hand, prices that producers charged to consumers can be determined by the following equation:
P = (1+Tgst) (1+m)W
Substituting the first equation into the second, we get:
P = Pe(1+Tgst)(1+m)F(u,z)
Further simplifying the factor “u” and converting it to output (Y) yields the following relation:
P = Pe(1+Tgst)(1+m)F(1-Y/L, z)
Given LHS is P (price level) & RHS contains Y (national output), this relation can be plotted in a Price Level – National Output space.
At any given aggregate demand, when the term “Tgst” is increased, say eg from 7% to 9%, at each and every national output level, P would be higher translating to a decrease in the aggregate supply.
Thus, the effect as shown (Mathematically) above implies that at a given aggregate demand, an increase in Tgst would lead to the double-whammy pernicious effects of a higher price level and a reduced national output."
NB: Above formulations are “clobbered” together during lunch break hours (on 9 Mar 2018) amidst gobbling down of a take-way sandwich in a crowded “chairless” stand only tall tables eatery in town area. The “inspiration & motivation” (to “clobber” above-mentioned formulations) came from reading Uncle RB’s post while walking to buy a quick lunch. Thus, there may be oversight in the formulation. If there is any conceptual “discrepancy”, would humbly and highly appreciate any learned economist working near Uncle RB’s office in MBFC, RP or any Economics Professor teaching in the Unis to share their insights. Thank you so much in advance.
"Generally, wages in the labour market are determined in the below simplified algebraic equation:
W = PeF(u,z)
On the other hand, prices that producers charged to consumers can be determined by the following equation:
P = (1+Tgst) (1+m)W
Substituting the first equation into the second, we get:
P = Pe(1+Tgst)(1+m)F(u,z)
Further simplifying the factor “u” and converting it to output (Y) yields the following relation:
P = Pe(1+Tgst)(1+m)F(1-Y/L, z)
Given LHS is P (price level) & RHS contains Y (national output), this relation can be plotted in a Price Level – National Output space.
At any given aggregate demand, when the term “Tgst” is increased, say eg from 7% to 9%, at each and every national output level, P would be higher translating to a decrease in the aggregate supply.
Thus, the effect as shown (Mathematically) above implies that at a given aggregate demand, an increase in Tgst would lead to the double-whammy pernicious effects of a higher price level and a reduced national output."
NB: Above formulations are “clobbered” together during lunch break hours (on 9 Mar 2018) amidst gobbling down of a take-way sandwich in a crowded “chairless” stand only tall tables eatery in town area. The “inspiration & motivation” (to “clobber” above-mentioned formulations) came from reading Uncle RB’s post while walking to buy a quick lunch. Thus, there may be oversight in the formulation. If there is any conceptual “discrepancy”, would humbly and highly appreciate any learned economist working near Uncle RB’s office in MBFC, RP or any Economics Professor teaching in the Unis to share their insights. Thank you so much in advance.
A childish parliament versus an adult parliament
How can there be a childish parliament? You are right, all parliaments are for adults, national leaders, men and women and some very young men and young women. There is no parliament for children. The only parliament that is for children is a moot parliament that sometimes the schools would organize to educate the children and let them do some role playing to experience what the lives of adults would be like.
In a childish parliament, you can expect them to speak childishly and behave childishly as it is only natural for children to do so. And the language used would be childish as well. Any bad words used would not be tolerated and they would squirm and report to the teacher in charge. In a childish parliament, you would not expect them to be rude or to talk nonsense, oops, maybe children will do, occasionally as they would not know the difference.
Of course a childish parliament would not stand up to the adult’s expectation of honesty, integrity and truthfulness, at best like a debate. Oh yes, a childish parliament would have all the rules like in a debate. Everyone would be allowed to speak with a limited time and in decorum, speak good English, no Ingrish or Singlish. And no telling grandfather and grandmother stories.
Why, because time is precious in a debate. Each one is only given a limited time and they cannot afford to waste time telling grandfather stories. In a real adult parliament, you can imagine how much time is wasted if a parliamentarian wasted one hour telling grandfather stories. Not only he/she would waste her/his one hour, but the one hour of the PM, the ministers and all the MPs. And if this is broadcast over TV, it would waste the time of millions of viewers. Time is precious even in a childish parliament.
Actually, I think, an adult parliament has a lot to learn from a childish parliament. There are good things, good rules to learn from a childish parliament. Those good debaters should conduct lessons on how to speak well, speak eloquently in an adult parliament, even conduct good Ingrish lessons.
Another important thing about childish parliament is that they would not allow anyone to talk cock. The girls would be blushing. And if a boy were to get angry and shout, fuck you, the girls would be running out to hike in the toilet, some would faint. That is what childish parliament would be like.
Teacher, teacher, he cannot say like dat, cannot use bad words.
In a childish parliament, you can expect them to speak childishly and behave childishly as it is only natural for children to do so. And the language used would be childish as well. Any bad words used would not be tolerated and they would squirm and report to the teacher in charge. In a childish parliament, you would not expect them to be rude or to talk nonsense, oops, maybe children will do, occasionally as they would not know the difference.
Of course a childish parliament would not stand up to the adult’s expectation of honesty, integrity and truthfulness, at best like a debate. Oh yes, a childish parliament would have all the rules like in a debate. Everyone would be allowed to speak with a limited time and in decorum, speak good English, no Ingrish or Singlish. And no telling grandfather and grandmother stories.
Why, because time is precious in a debate. Each one is only given a limited time and they cannot afford to waste time telling grandfather stories. In a real adult parliament, you can imagine how much time is wasted if a parliamentarian wasted one hour telling grandfather stories. Not only he/she would waste her/his one hour, but the one hour of the PM, the ministers and all the MPs. And if this is broadcast over TV, it would waste the time of millions of viewers. Time is precious even in a childish parliament.
Actually, I think, an adult parliament has a lot to learn from a childish parliament. There are good things, good rules to learn from a childish parliament. Those good debaters should conduct lessons on how to speak well, speak eloquently in an adult parliament, even conduct good Ingrish lessons.
Another important thing about childish parliament is that they would not allow anyone to talk cock. The girls would be blushing. And if a boy were to get angry and shout, fuck you, the girls would be running out to hike in the toilet, some would faint. That is what childish parliament would be like.
Teacher, teacher, he cannot say like dat, cannot use bad words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)