At last, something new!
Only thing is, you brought out the problems.
Now, where are
the solutions? example:-
"Can you cope with solutions that
have been offered before and will you advocate a lowering of the cost of living
for Singaporeans - by having a reduction in the high petroleum
tax, which is no longer valid to control the car population size
when COE limit the number of cars available to Singaporeans
?"
Is one of your solution to lower cost
of living is to reduce petroleum tax? Which in
reality lead to more petrol consumption as it becomes cheaper,
driving prices up eventually and something which governments around
the world are trying to curb consumption and reliance on
it?
You seem to be hasty and
incomplete in the things that you do, and jump to conclusions too
quickly. You should learn to be more circumspect in so quickly
expressing your thoughts.
Did you find the solutions finally
after reading and extracting one paragraph from my posts
?
For a little while you confirmed
my suspicion that you are blind, and choose to see only what you
wish to see.
Are you certain that petrol prices
will ever become cheaper ?
Consumption can be curbed not by
indiscriminately increasing the prices on a blanket basis that
hurts the essential services that need petrol or industrial oil,
which in turn affect the overall Cost of Living.
Electronic Road Pricing can be
fine tuned to discourage the intensive use of saloon cars, and
solve your concerns of petrol consumption for leisure - while
commercial goods vehicles can be priced lower that do not affect
transportation cost normally passed to consumer through product
pricing.
The selective use of Road Pricing
is to be differntiated with the arbitrary and indiscriminate
pricing currently implemented, which result in the ERP system being
a Revenue Generating Mechanism for the Government.
With or without local consumer
demand, World Petroleum Prices will continue to spiral
upwards, as the supply of petrol is finite, and is a depleting
resource - which is manipulated as a speculative commodity by
Oil Companies.
Why should Governments continue to
use an inflexible tax system to moderate consumption, when there
are more effective means that focus on specifics without producing
negative effects generally to the Cost of Living ?.
This
is only one example. I will not attempt to challenge the validity
of your 'alternative solutions'. I only seek that it be a well
thought out proposals, challenged by acadamics and
proffesionals, before submission and not something even an Ah
Beng can pluck from the air.
How would you even know if any
solution are well thought out proposals, if you do not make
any effort to even understand the structure of the proposal
?
It is always easy to opt out and
allow the academics and / or professionals to exercise thinking -
what happened to your own intellectual faculties ?
How will you know if Ah Meng is
not more intelligent then your 'Point_blank' approach that have
time and again led your points being exposed as blanks
?
Nor will I attempt to play expert to comment on your
'alternative solutions'. Or even teach you what to do with such
proposals when fine tuned if it can truly help the country. But one
thing i will have to say is that you will not get fine tuning here
in Speakers Corner. You must be nuts to think so. Ideas -yes, but
fine tuning - definitely not in this annonymous zone where
accountability is zero for some.
At this stage, I am no longer
surprise by your very presumptious and condescending remarks
towards participants in this Speakers' Corner.
If you are not willing to engage
but prefer to indulge in polemics - why do you even bother to be
here ?
If you believe that accountability
is zero, continue with your Point_blank approach in your debating
style, and see how far you get in this forum.
There is a responsibility to society attached to opposition
political parties. My question to you is:-
a. Would you, assuming you are an opposition political
party member, tossed a perfectly good solution peer reviewed by
proffessionals, into the gutter if you will not get credit for
it?
Or will you instead swallow such pride, un-politicised your
proposals and submit for consideration, for the greater good of
society, more so in these current pressing times, in the belief
that should one day you gained power, there definitely would be
problems that you can use to shine your party?
b. If your solutions are rejected by the administrators, will
you whine and cry foul play, if such solutions had been passed
through the grind mill and found wanting?
You got to make up your
mind which is more important - your ''responsibility to
society'' or to personal vanity.
Why should you even care
if your good solution is plagiarised by any thick skinned shameless
academics - if it benefits society at large ?
Has this not been the position of
CSJ in publicising his thoughts and solutions that he believe are
good alternatives in his book ''Dare to Change'' ?
The MIW dismissed his writings as
''western liberal thinking'' when it was released to the public in
the 1990s; yet some of the policy changes in the Year 2002 were
parallel ideas resembling CSJ's solutions published ten years
earlier.
During the preceding ten years
that CSJ's proposal was dismissed, at least one generation of
Singaporeans have to endure the selfish insanity of the MIW
Government in office between 1992 and 2002.
You can continue to insult me. Its ok. All i care are for
answers.
PS. Think about it. I will be off for a long while.
With your expertise in insulting
yourself so far, why do you need any extra help from me ?
Are you sure that you care for only answers from
anyone, or only the answers that you want to see or hear
?
You can take as much time as you
want to cop out from this debate, as no one will miss your
absence.
