1st world country, 3rd world situation, Uniquely Singapore

last SG · 2008-07-19T17:15:21+00:00

Don't forget based on the last ERECTION result 66.6 % of SIngapore is happy with the garment.So I would really be shocked if the PAP keeps coming back strong...

eagle SG

Well tat is your personal experience. I am not writing a report to be read by delegates from other countries or a business proposal to beat competition or even an english exam. If it is a proper statement without grammatical errors and the point get through, wat r u complaining about ?

Back to the same thing

You are still telling us that the point got through when you told us MOM's reply was weird?

2nd, I believed that M13 and I have already told you that your email wasn't even accurate description. You are still insisting it is?

stupidissmart SG

Back to the same thing

You are still telling us that the point got through when you told us MOM's reply was weird?

I have written something different for MOM. Take note the previous letter is for IRAS. Did u read the letter I send to MOM ? No. So how can u comment on it?

2nd, I believed that M13 and I have already told you that your email wasn't even accurate description. You are still insisting it is?

Tat is very strange. I am asking MY enquiry. They answered MY enquiry. I insist I make a right description of MY enquiry. Who r u to insist it is not ?

maurizio13 SG

Back to the same thing

You are still telling us that the point got through when you told us MOM's reply was weird?

2nd, I believed that M13 and I have already told you that your email wasn't even accurate description. You are still insisting it is?

From a tax avoidance point of view, it was like he was incriminating himself, any rational (sane) taxpayer won't be that dumb to do it, even if their motive was to gain a tax advantage.

The letter he wrote was more like a tax suicide note from a taxpayer.

stupidissmart SG

From a tax avoidance point of view, it was like he was incriminating himself, any rational (sane) taxpayer won't be that dumb to do it, even if their motive was to gain a tax advantage.

I already answered u before. I am asking from a law point of perspective. The question has always been whether is it legal or illegal, and not whether can it be found out or not. Why don't u read back tis passage and comment on it first

I already mentioned the important point is the underlying law on it. U can classify it as someone who bring in business by literaly doing nothing and claim all sort of things, but then if the case is taken the task is to convince the judge the case u wanted to state. If just claiming and trying to justify your action is already sufficient, then there is really no law tat can stop u from doing all the illegal things.

U can state u recruit someone who do nothing, claim to bring in business and then get all the company profit and strangely remit them back to u eventually. U claim it is not wrong to recruit someone who do nothing.

Then I can also state I have the right to walk around with a knife pointing outward and tis particular person who had grieviences with me just bumps into me and die in my hand. Is it wrong for me to carry a knife ?

I can also claim i love to run around with hand outstretch and then touch all the women private part because I cannot control my running. Is it wrong to run with hands outstretched ?

The way u ask is already more on whether can the case be found out, and not on whether is the whole deal illegal. Tat is why there is a need for a judge or a jury to cross off claims which is deemed to be excessive or illogical. Otherwise why do u think we need a judge ? Just claiming doesn't means it is right. It has to convince the judge in the end. The important thing about the enquiry is to know the baseline, tat is the part on whether is it legal or not. The ways to cover up etc is just redundant in the enquiry.

Tat is why for the 2 scenario I have stated, the baseline question asked should be "is it illegal to kill someone" and "is it illegal to molest someone" and not "is it illegal to carry a knife, pointing it outward then tis guy bumps into me and die" or "is it illegal to run around with hand outstretched and then bumping into girls private part "

eagle SG

I have written something different for MOM. Take note the previous letter is for IRAS. Did u read the letter I send to MOM ? No. So how can u comment on it?

Tat is very strange. I am asking MY enquiry. They answered MY enquiry. I insist I make a right description of MY enquiry. Who r u to insist it is not ?

It's ok. I'm not going to waste anymore time to convince you in anything.

You are just hopeless.

If you like to take intelligence levels to justify things (especially when you take out Einstein), take out your certs to prove to me that you are more intelligent than me to say that you are more correct than me.

stupidissmart SG

It's ok. I'm not going to waste anymore time to convince you in anything.

You are just hopeless.

Well u can always compare with Einstein since he is the one tat stated the above statement which u claim is out of context.

U wanna show me your "Dean's list" and first class honor cert ? Dean list ? Big f$ck ya ? I am sorry man just because u r in dean's list doesn't means u must be right.

eagle SG

Well u can always compare with Einstein since he is the one tat stated the above statement which u claim is out of context.

U wanna show me your "Dean's list" and first class honor cert ? Dean list ? Big f$ck ya ? I am sorry man just because u r in dean's list doesn't means u must be right.

Well, you are the one who has implied to me when you question me "who I am to comment on Einstein's english" that because Einstein said so, it must be correct.

Why are you consistently stepping on your own toes?

If you can't take out any certs to prove anything, I will conclude, in your logic, that you did not properly portrayed in your letters what is being discussed here.

stupidissmart SG

Well, you are the one who has implied to me when you question me "who I am to comment on Einstein's english" that because Einstein said so, it must be correct.

Why are you consistently stepping on your own toes?

I am saying Gov officials and Einstein. Does Gov Officials means they have a better qualification than u ? R u the one stepping on your own toes ?

eagle SG

I am saying Gov officials and Einstein. R u the one stepping on your own toes ?

You justified that your language must be correct because "They r made by the most intelligent person in the world". You took their intelligence level to compare with me, which I did not deny that he's indeed more intelligent.

Yes, you include gov officials too, because they said it too.

Now we are discussing whether you have properly portrayed the discussion to IRAS; only you and I are discussing. No gov officials are around to see the discussion. What they know is from what you have emailed them. Hence your word in bold doesn't hold.

Same thing, if you still cannot take out any certs to prove anything, I will conclude, in your logic, that you did not properly portrayed in your letters what is being discussed here.

stupidissmart SG

Yes, you include gov officials too, because they said it too.

Then ? Wat is wrong with wat I had said ? It is true isn't it ? Did I say since he is the most intelligent fellow, he must always be right ?

And wat is your problem with it ? Only on the phrase "do not do anything" to "do nothing" and tat make u able to conclude it does not protray the discussion ? The gov officials use the phrase "do nto do anything" and tat is the crux of the discussion. Why suddenly u talk in another tangent and say they r not around to see it ?

Same thing, if you still cannot take out any certs to prove anything, I will conclude, in your logic, that you did not properly portrayed in your letters what is being discussed here.

Wat logic ? U r putting words into my mouth which i never claim. If u think qualification is everything, then LKY is always right since his qualification is almost unbeatable in his times.

eagle SG

Then ? Wat is wrong with wat I had said ? It is true isn't it ? Did I say since he is the most intelligent fellow, he must always be right ?

Wat logic ? U r putting words into my mouth which i never claim. If u think qualification is everything, then LKY is always right since his qualification is almost unbeatable in his times.

Then ? Wat is wrong with wat I had said ? It is true isn't it ? Did I say since he is the most intelligent fellow, he must always be right ?

Have you or have you not used intelligence as part of your justification?

Seems like you have severe comprehension problems. We are already done with that.
Go read back all the replies if you still do not remember what me and M13 said.

Wat logic ? U r putting words into my mouth which i never claim. If u think qualification is everything, then LKY is always right since his qualification is almost unbeatable in his times.

Back to the first question. Have you or have you not used intelligence as part of your justification?

stupidissmart SG

Have you or have you not used intelligence as part of your justification?

I have mentioned einstein intelligence. However the emphasis is also placed on gov officials. I mention einstein is the most intelligent person in the world however tat is not concluding he is always right. Does saying "einstein used to say tis before and he is the most intelligent man in the world" = "people with better qualification r smarter and always right compared with people with poorer qualification". Wat rubbish conclusions r u trying to draw ?

Seems like you have severe comprehension problems. We are already done with that.
Go read back all the replies if you still do not remember what me and M13 said.

Why don't u paste it here instead of just claiming it ? I am sure a dean's list student can handle tat

eagle SG

Why don't u paste it here instead of just claiming it ? I am sure a dean's list student can handle tat

You didn't place any emphasis. You said this

They r made by the most intelligent person in the world and also by a senior officer in America. They r already a good gauge that there is nothing wrong with using the phrase "people who do not do anything".

Not gov officials hor.

Back to the first question again. From the above quote, you tell me, have you or have you not used intelligence as part of your justification?

Why don't u paste it here instead of just claiming it ? I am sure a dean's list student can handle tat

You are telling me you are putting the effort on me because you cannot remember what was said earlier?

If you cannot remember or cannot be bothered to check back, it is already obvious that you do not even know what is going on before posting.

stupidissmart SG

Not gov officials hor.

Back to the first question again. From the above quote, you tell me, have you or have you not used intelligence as part of your justification?

How about

I don't think u have the right to comment since it is used by a lot of politicians and even senior officers in England and America.

It is officials. I have quoted einstein, and so does other gov department and gov officials. Then ?

You are telling me you are putting the effort on me because you cannot remember what was said earlier?

If you cannot remember or cannot be bothered to check back, it is already obvious that you do not even know what is going on before posting.

Com'on la. U r claiming tat I have a comprehension problem about the way the letter is phrased My memory is tat all had been rebuked. Since u r claiming something against me, surely u should be the one who list it out and not just claim something is out there somewhere.

eagle SG

How about

I don't think u have the right to comment since it is used by a lot of politicians and even senior officers in England and America.

It is officials. I have quoted einstein, and so does other gov department and gov officials. Then ?

I don't think u have the right to comment since it is used by a lot of politicians and even senior officers in England and America.

It is officials. I have quoted einstein, and so does other gov department and gov officials. Then ?

Do you understand what is meant by part of your justification?

I have told you that your letter was not an accurate description of what was going on. So has M13. That's what has been said many pages earlier, and what has been said a page earlier.

Then you continue to tell me about the phrase "do not do anything". Please lah.

stupidissmart SG

Do you understand what is meant by part of your justification?

Well I stated the gov officials in too. U might as well make me eat more words by claiming I said tat "civil servants r always right". I stated an example and it happened to be the most intelligent person in the world. However tat DOES NOT MEAN because he is the most intelligent person he is always right.

I have told you that your letter was not an accurate description of what was going on. So has M13. That's what has been said many pages earlier, and what has been said a page earlier.

For M13, I had already given him a reply repeatedly which he never answer to it.

For u, the only thing u complain about is "do not do anything". I have also told u it is a correct interpretation of MY enquiry which u never answer to it as well. So ? Wat r the specific problem u r seeing ?

eagle SG

For M13, I had already given him a reply repeatedly which he never answer to it.

nvm

I give up on your stupidity

let you win

maurizio13 SG

For M13, I had already given him a reply repeatedly which he never answer to it.

Yes Yes. I cannot answer you.

You win.

Go collect you prize from FireIce for being the smartest in sgForums.

eagle SG

Seems like I'm not the only one who says this.

See this post from CNA forums.

On the subject of helping to CREATE jobs, this is what actually happens:

There is a quota system for employer to hire foreign worker (SP & WP). The employer must have a number of local headcounts (C + PR) and based on this is then allocated foreign worker quota. For example in the services sector, it will need to "employ" 5 local workers to get a quota of 5 WP of which only 1 can be from PRC.

Many SMEs and small restaurants and shops will not have so many local employees. So in order to get the quota, what these companies did was to simply contribute CPF for some housewives, their uncles and aunties who are not working.

Ha ha, now we suddenly got an improvement in labor employment and most amazingly, many senior citizens or older workers are back in the workforce again. I remember our dear Dr. Ng EH was so proud of his ministries, but they either do not know the real reasons or pretended not to know.

So we got PHANTOM JOBS being created for the local workforce and got VIRTUAL improvements in unemployment figures! -- everything is virutal that sounds like computer games more than reality.

http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/viewtopic.php?t=172561&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10

lionnoisy SG

anyone can notice the parallellism here? Thats really strange that 1000 ppl every year migrate.

last i know that this scenario is for 3rd world countries like Sri Lanka, Africa where they come to Australia to escape their hopeless fate in their homelands. These people could not go back due to various reasons like civil war, poverty ect. and they stay in australia to get an education and a job.

But Singapore, a first world country?! . 1st world country, 3rd world situation. Uniquely Singapore.

Singaporeans are the new "refugees", abeit a higher class one, educated and skilled in other countries.

There are other parallellesims as well which such as the Death Penalty and Caning which resembles 3rd world countries.

PERMANENT DEPARTURES ---oz citizens estimated 4 times higher than SG per 100,000

Ok Lets talk gross migration----outgoing to other countries permanently,

SG citizens is about 3.3 million while Oz is about 20.6 million.

Thats 6 times.

If SG is 1000 a year (30 per 100,000),then Oz shall be less than 6000, right?

But u guess how many leave Oz in a year?

72,100!!That is 350 per 100,000.But i dunt know how many Oz

citizens included in this figure.

I estimate only one--third is Oz citizens,say 23,000 is citizens.

116 per 100,000 citizens leave Oz in a year, for all population 20.6 million.

Permanent departures of 70,000 pa from Oz----how many are citizens?

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Latestproducts/3412.0Main%20Features22006-07?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3412.0&issue=2006-07&num=&view=

Over the nine years ending 2006-07, the number of permanent departure movements from Australia has doubled to 72,100.

2005--2006---see link below.

Permanent departures--67 900

There are 150,000 FT migrated to Oz,two third under skilled workers scheme,

the rest family reunion.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Govt-releases-latest-migration-figures/2007/08/16/1186857656649.html

2005---2006

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/E0A79B147EA8E0B5CA2572AC001813E8/$File/34120_2005-06.pdf

p 16

Permanent arrivals (settlers)
131 600 — included in NOM

Permanent departures
67 900 — included in NOM

Explanations

To be fair,i dunt know how much Oz citizens included in the

Permanent departures figures.i think u can dig out from the sources

i provide here,,Dunt close your eyes.

Lets take it one third----a year say 70,000--one third is 23,000!!

OMG---that is 116/100,000!!!

Anything above 6,000 is more serious than SG migration ''problem.''

I dunt see it as problem--

Melbournite see it as problem.

Pl note the Oz figure double in 9 years,thats increase 8%

per annum!!!

Interest rate of Oz $$$ falls in first time in 7 years.

How do the Oz $$ move---up or down!!

Can u guys tell me how many Oz citizens leave a year??

« Previous Page Next Page »