Is the resident X-rated Fraud attempting to be serious in
posting its reply, or has it an agenda that is "more
than meets the eye" ?
There is more than meets the eye over the case. Consider the
facts before making a judgement.
As usual, it had to be the X-ratef Fraud to be able to see
more then anyone else - in its attempt to inflate a simple
issue with its hot gas so as to obsfuscate it so much to
allow the Dog to protect the 'Master's Tail that
wags its body ".
What other issues can there be that perpetually flow
from the pseudo-intellect of the resident X-rated Fraud
?
1. What was the exact amount owed -$400++. $1000++, or
$3000++?
Obviously, the pseudo-intellect cannot read the simple words
reported and will wish to obfuscate the separate issues into
one that it cannot even hope to understand.
The report had stated already that -
(1.) the Town Council had taken the matter to court over
"S&C arrears of
$432".
(2.) Now the "new debts now
ballooned to more than $1,000 which
included court
penalties and late payment
charges"
(3.) "Naturally, this
led to more penalties as my fresh S&C arrears spiked.
So, I am now
some $3,000
in debt to my town
council"
It seems that the X-rated Fraud with a pseudo-intellect is
not only poor in simpe Maths but cannot even read simple
English.
2. He is an unemployed man - did he lost the job before or after
he lost a leg to diabetes?
Does it make any difference if the unemployed man lost his job
before losing his leg to diabete, or if the diabetes caused him to
lose a leg which caused him to lose his job ?
Either way, the unemployed could not pay his "S&C arrears of $432" and it did
not help matters to bring him to court and caused his debt to
balloon to "some $3,000 in
debt to my town council".
3. Did he have any insurance coverage?
Can a man unemployed for 18 months - be in a
position to maintain a valid insurance ?
When he cannot even afford to pay his "S&C arrears of $432" - can he
afford to even pay his insurance premiums to keep it valid through
his 18 months of unemployment ?
4. What about his marital status - married with kids to take
care of him or not?
Take care of him or the "S&C arrears of $432" -
Obviously it did not dawn on the dim wit of a X-rated Fraud
with pseudo-intellect - to consider that if the other
spouse can afford it, would the situation be allowed to spiral into
a court case and worsen their predicament to balloon to a
"$3000 debt to the Town
Council".
5. Did he apply for social welfare schemes provided by our
generous society for his disabilities?
What "social welfare schemes" - from which generous society
?
Why is the X-rated Fraud throwing this responsibility back to
the over-taxed citizens, when the PAP Government has reported
Billions in surplus collected from GST alone, and
had to return paltry sums of $100 to $400 annually as "Economic
Restructuring Shares" ?
6. Did he consider selling his flat for a smaller unit instead (
if viable), or seek low rental units to support himself if he
is single and alone?
This is the characteristic traits of pseudo-intellect as
seen in all the various fraudulent suggestions made
here.
Can it have the interest of "fellow citizens" when it
is ignorant to the experience with what 18 months of
unemployment can be without any assistance from a heartless PAP
Government ?
If the unemployed subject cannot even afford to pay the monthly
"S&C arrears of
$432" - can he be expected to cope with more financial
commitments fo monthly rental payments ?
Even if he has an HDB unit for sale to allow him to
downgrade, does he have any cash to pay for all the necessary cash
outlays needed for such a transaction - which would have cost
more then the "S&C arrears of
$432".
7. Please take note:- the funds collected belongs to the
constituents but to be managed by the town councils to ensure there
is enough for future expansion or upgrading works, either thru
placing it in banks for savings or guaranteed returns type
investments almost EVERYONE now with better hindsight
realized 'guaranteed returns' had been false.
Jalan Besar Town Council is part of a larger
FIVE-Member Jalan Besar Group Representaive Constituency.
Five PAP Members of Parliament could not even take care of such
a situation, and allow a simple issue of collecting
"S&C arrears of
$432" from a disabled constituent who has been
unemployed for 18 months.
Obviously, none of the five Members of Parliament is aware of
this situation.
Obviously the X-rated Fraud is attempting to 'white-wash'
the stains on the MIW gorillas with its disingenious attempts
to obfuscate the main controversy by injecting side issues
concerning the funds.
In the first place, since "the
funds collected belongs to the
constituents" and "to be managed by the town councils to
ensure there is enough for future expansion or upgrading
works" - will the Town Council take responsibility for
the losses due to their poor management decisions ?
Secondly, if the funds managed by the Town Council end up
"either thru placing it in banks
for savings or guaranteed returns type
investments" - why should there be losses incurred
since "Bank Savings"
are always secure, and the money placed into the
"guaranteed returns type
investments" should have been safe ?
Were Singaporeans not told that the PAP
Candidates offered to be elected to be MPs are the
best from the limited talents available in Singapore ?
Why should these talents not have the diligence
and foresight to manage the collected funds from the
constituents, and require our hindsight to evaluate the losses
made ?
Should there even be losses considering the financial plans made
in "Bank Savings" and
"guaranteed returns type
investments"
How many more such losses have to be incurred before lessons can
be drawn, and ensure that safeguards are followed ?
Such funds are NOT for the town councils to use as they please,
for anyone they presume needs it. Best they go thru the proper
channels for applicants, so that they may be assessed correctly or
directed to the right places for help instead.
Is anyone asking for the S&C funds collected from the
residents to be used to pay for this outstanding "S&C arrears of $432" ?
Or was the unemployed and disabled subject not asking for
compassion and some form of assistance - instead of being dragged
to court by the PAP Town Council for the Jalan Besar Constituency
?
There are many who may need help, and help we as a society will
readily offer, but our funds are not unlimited over time, as well
as other causes or social needs that must be funded as well.
The infamous X-rated Fraud is known for its abilites to
Double-XX itself time and again, and this clearly shows the
effortless X-rated acts again in debunking its hot gas idea in
Point 5 above.
Where is "our generous
society" ?
It will seem that the PAP had led the way by showing how
generous Singapore can be - by losing US$100 BILLION to rescue
foreign banks and financial institutions.
Unfortunately, the rescue money was used to pay the
bonuses of the Executives that bankrupted these foreign banks and
financial institutions, while not a cent from the annual
surplus was spent to assist the unemployed Singaporeans
- nor were the hard earned money locked into the CPF accounts
allowed to be returned to Singaporean Account Holders who were
unemployed.
Otherwise, allegations of favoritism or impropieties would be
heaped upon the council managers.
Again the X-rated Fraud will Double-XX itself again to
contradict its Point 7.
If the funds are "intended for future expansion or upgrading
works" - and "NOT for
the town councils to use as they please" - can there be
any possibilities for such "allegations or improprieties would be heaped
uponn the council managers" ?
I sympathise with the crippled old man and will not hesitate to
contribute my share towards his welfare. However, let it be done
efficiently and rationally, after listening to both sides, and not
let emotions rule us instead or he be used for other
political manipulation purposes.
"Mr Lim Beo Thiam"
is only "a 52 year old who
has been unemployed for 18 months and lost part of a
leg" - does he deserve the insult from a X-rated Fraud
to be addressed as "the crippled
old man" ?
Is age 52 years considered to be old by anyone's
standard ?
In its usual efforts to seek its own grand standing performance
it will slyly slip in an underhand cut, and to be followed by
its self-aggrandizing display at pseudo-charity.
The issues are clear and simple, only the X-rated Fraud will
have its own interest to protect its Master's Tail that wag its
X-rated canine body.
May you consider the points raised before making
judgements, as is fully within your right. Cheers!
One should be asking what possibly could be the reasons behind
the X-rated Fraud known for its pseudo-acts to pass insidious
remarks on a helpless Singaporean, and to be so
pathetically cheerful on a subject matter that burns in every
household facing similar problems.
