All out to defame our governement

last SG · 2007-06-07T10:34:23+00:00

Not in biomed business, but believe such hubs exist in many places besides Australia and Singapore. not interested in disputing what the australians have est...

maurizio13 SG

Yah we know!!! It's you Gazelle!!!

Mr. Green

Gazelle SG

Do I look like I am being bullied? Mr. Green

dealing with these are a bunch of incapable whiners are not that difficult, all they are capable for doing is calling you names, label you as so and so. just like a domesticated puss.ycat that is only capable of meowing.

Are you amused by the type of BS the they have been talking in this forum?

soul_rage SG

hehe, we wouldn't dare to bully a wall. A wall is harder than flesh and blood, so of coz we won't bully a wall.

Its so interesting to see how you can be so self-righteous and think you can still be on higher moral ground, when you sprout vulgarities and abuse other people here.

right now, Gazelle is behaving like a drunk. "I am not drunk, I am not drunk". He is shouting "I am not drowning, I am not drowning." "I am not wrong, I am not wrong".

will4 SG

He cannot accept the fact 150000 locals have migrated to other countries.
8500 PR became citizen out 50000 PR for the past ten years.

soul_rage SG

he's going to ask you for proof for the figures you quote here Smile

and then, when you provide him the proof, he will say that the statistics are skewed and totally incorrect, and ask you for more proof

proof
proof
proof
proven fool.

will4 SG

Lionnoisy has put this in a thread but Gazelle also participated n got into serious argument again with others. Surprised

ShutterBug SG

He can deny the direction the wind blows, because the wind can't be seen...

However, he cannot deny the direction the trees around him is bending, in the direction the prevailing wind is blowing...

Facts, cannot be re-factualized...

will4 SG

Show him the PM national day's rally speech last year.

Gazelle SG

If you are referring to this thread, http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=255756&page=2, I only post twice and they are

G : Government is fully aware of the situation and the reason why some singaporeans prefer to live overseas is not because life here is tough, but because they want to get more exposure to the western cultures and thinking. Hence it will be foolish for the government to take extreme measure to favour Singapore at the expense of FT who are here to contribute to our society. Anyway, Singapore is only a 40plus years old country, hence in one generation time, all existing immigrant citizens will be as singaporeans as any Singaporean we have today. I dont see that why singapore government has to worry.

will 4's reply : The govt is already worried as 800 local migrated to other countries each year according to National day rally speech last year. MM Lee has stated 150000 local have left for good. It is not about the tough life but more of the quality of the life in here. I wonder if u read the a report stating PR will prefer to retain their original citizenship compared to conerting to local citizenship.

G : what is 800 compare to 8500 new Singapore citizens we have each year.
Furthermore, how many Singaporeans who migrated has actually given up their Singapore citizenship.

Is that what you call cannot accept the fact? or are you meowing for the sake of meowing?

will4 SG

Originally posted by Gazelle:

If you are referring to this thread, http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=255756&page=2, I only post twice and they are

G : Government is fully aware of the situation and the reason why some singaporeans prefer to live overseas is not because life here is tough, but because they want to get more exposure to the western cultures and thinking. Hence it will be foolish for the government to take extreme measure to favour Singapore at the expense of FT who are here to contribute to our society. Anyway, Singapore is only a 40plus years old country, hence in one generation time, all existing immigrant citizens will be as singaporeans as any Singaporean we have today. I dont see that why singapore government has to worry.

will 4's reply : The govt is already worried as 800 local migrated to other countries each year according to National day rally speech last year. MM Lee has stated 150000 local have left for good. It is not about the tough life but more of the quality of the life in here. I wonder if u read the a report stating PR will prefer to retain their original citizenship compared to conerting to local citizenship.

G : what is 800 compare to 8500 new Singapore citizens we have each year.
Furthermore, how many Singaporeans who migrated has actually given up their Singapore citizenship.

[b]Is that what you call cannot accept the fact? or are you meowing for the sake of meowing?[/b]

I read the paper or maybe read wrongly? 8500 R became citizen in a year or for the past ten years? According to PM Lee's speech, 800 locals migrated to

other countries each year but MM Lee said a total of 150000 local migrated ea.
For these 150000 locals migrated, since when they started migrating ? Coming back to the immigration problem, as a local urself

1) Do u think in ur honest opinion, the immigration among the local will continue to rise more?

2) Do u think Spore is becoming like HK in the sense that HK people like to migrate to Canada as for local like to migrate to Australia?

3) Spore is becoming an ageing society but the govt recent move to cut subsidy for the PR. Is it a move to encourage more PR to be local?

4) 8500 PR became citizen out 50000 for the past ten years? This is only 17%.
What has gone wrong?

5) I read some month back some of the PR prefer their countries back to Spore. Please list the possible reason why they like their countries better?

Some quote it is NS as the problem. We already have local grumbling about NS. Can the foreign professional not be worried about it?

will4 SG

Gazelle, is it okay to ask u a question?

Is this problem about migrating among the locals bothering u too much?

snow leopard SG

Originally posted by Gazelle:

G : Do you have what it take to support your argument or are you just like the other who is only capable to speculating BS?

yes

G : If the government main objective is to collect tax, why should they border if the project is enticing or not? Plus do you know what sort of revenue the government desire?

if the project is not enticing enough, it may not be sustainable in the long run, thus ruining collection of taxes in the long run. lots lots.

Comparing a 4D booth to casino is just like comparing a hawker stall to a restaurant.

and how much bigger is the restaurant as compared to the hawker stall?

I am wonder if you will have your wedding dinner at hawker center when you get married.

you're might be the only person in this world wondering.

G : Obviously you are not aware that this a ATOBEs claim (Go do some reading)

i am aware that you have been twisting other people's words. back up your words if you have balls.

G : Could you tell us which smart government in this world is doing what you claim should be done??

could you tell us which smart government pays itself millions?

G : Really? Obviously you have been reading the wrong thread. If you are polite enough to say please I will show it do you. I promise.

please stop defaming atobe

G : Like I said again, the question is not about who is the biggest winning, but will MICE activities benefit Singaporeans.

your question is not of interest to me. the question that is of interest to me is why in every decision, the greatest benefactor has to be the govt.

ölala SG

eh Lee Kuan Yew famous wif the U.S Secret Service already liao.

snow leopard SG

Originally posted by Gazelle:

G : They cant be the same because without a casino license, no companies will be willing to invest more than $5b in this IR project.

if a place is attractive in and of itself for MICE activities, then whether or not we build a $5 billion casino won't change that. hence the purpose of the casino cannot be anything other than gambling dollars.

G : Calling people stupid doesnt make you smart.

it may not, but it at least explains why you cannot see logic.

And the question here is IS Malaysia and Shanghai losing money hosting F1?

the fact that they are making money doesn't guarantee that we will make money. if i'm not mistaken, official calculations record losses.

And based on your argument, are you suggesting that Singapore should not attempt to do anything unless it has never been done before?

no. i am saying that if my neighbour becomes rich selling chicken rice doesn't mean i will get rich selling chicken rice. that's all.

Like we should not have SIA because Malaysia already has their own airline? We shouldnt have universal studio in Singapore because they already have that in Japan and America?

since i'm not saying what you say i am saying, i cannot be saying this rubbish that you just spewed.

ladies and gentlemen, here is as yet another attempt by him to twist and misrepresent my words. a perpetual liar, i cannot trust what he claims is said by others. so unless he quotes the exact words used by others, he is lying and defaming the rest.

G : I only need you to comment if the is indeed a PM Badawi visit to Singapore to influence Singapore government to award the Sentosa IR deal to Genting. (nothing to do with our minister visiting the world)

i need you to show me the exact statement that suggests this and not some concoction of yours.

G : If they can afford, the F1 project will make sense, if they cant it wont.

jumping to conclusions. the fact that F1 makes money in Shanghai suggests that it may make money in singapore. but it doesn't guarantee that it would or that F1 will work. Ong Beng Seng said so himself, it's his deep personal interest.

furthermore being able to afford doesn't imply willingness to pay. also, the shanghai population is so much larger than ours.

G : Because Chinese from China is different from Malaysian in Malaysia.

if they illustrate the same thing and your response is also the same, why not group them together instead of posting separately?

G : I am just quoting what Atobe said. You should stop asking me, send him a PM as ask him.

no, you're the only person here capable of misrepresenting the words of others. show me those are his exact words and not twisted by you.

G : Obviously you are still not aware that there is no such visiting in the first place and that Atobe is just making up story to defame Singapore government,

you have a reputation of misrepresenting the statements of fellow forummers. show me the exact statement made by atobe.

snow leopard SG

you need to stop slandering people. you need to stop defaming others. it only makes you and the govt that you represent, look bad.

Gazelle SG

Originally posted by snow leopard:

1) Singaporeans will not benefit from the IRs

SL : the benefit from the IR will largely accrue to the govt
G : The question is not about who will benefit more, it is will IR benefit Singaporeans.
SL : this is the more impt conclusion "the benefit from the IR will largely accrue to the govt"
G : Do you have what it take to support your argument or are you just like the other who is only capable to speculating BS?
SL : yes
G : yes, doesnt mean anything, please back it up!!

2) the whole objective of IRs is for the government to collect gaming taxes.

SL : it is the number one reason, even oxford mushroom agrees
G : If you say so, then why does the government suggest the Venetian LV 30/70 business model and limit the floor area of gaming business in the IR?
SL : various possibilities: anything less enticing would result in less than attractive bids or bids of the wrong kind. the floor area is calculated to be sufficient enough to earn the kind of revenue the govt desires. you go to the sprawling NTUC hypermart in AMK and you'd find a very small but prominent corner selling 4D. you don't need a big space to earn big bucks from gambling.
G : If the government main objective is to collect tax, why should they border if the project is enticing or not? Plus do you know what sort of revenue the government desire?
Comparing a 4D booth to casino is just like comparing a hawker stall to a restaurant. I am wonder if you will have your wedding dinner at hawker center when you get married.
SL : if the project is not enticing enough, it may not be sustainable in the long run, thus ruining collection of taxes in the long run. lots lots. and how much bigger is the restaurant as compared to the hawker stall? you're might be the only person in this world wondering.
G : Casino is probably the most profitable, sustainable and least risk component of the whole IR project, hence if the government is only keen on collecting gaming tax revenue I dont see why you even question its sustainability.

3) Singapore economy to will become like Monaco because we have F1 SL : in what ways?

G : You ask Atobe
SL : why ask atobe when it is your claim?
G : Atobe With the IR and these Up-Market Developments, the Government had declared that Singapore shall be the next Monaco to be a playground for the Rich and Famous http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=252941&page=1

4) The reason why genting won the sentosa IR bid is because of PM Badawi

SL : back up what you're saying
G : Ask Atobe (thats his claim)
SL : i quote you "4) The reason why genting won the sentosa IR bid is because of PM Badawi". it is your statement so back it up if you have the balls. don't hide behind the skirt / trousers of atobe.
G : Obviously you are not aware that this a ATOBEs claim (Go do some reading)
SL : i am aware that you have been twisting other people's words. back up your words if you have balls.
G : Atobe the reasons that Genting can beat Eigth Wonders for the Sentosa IR, considering the visit made by PM Badawi at a critical moment of the bidding process, which is all too much to be a co-incidence
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=252941&page=1

And yes, I do have the balls, and they are both functioning very well,.

5) Rich people attracted to singapore is comparable to Singaporeans going to JB to buy cheap grocery and food.

SL : rich people coming to singapore to stay will inflate housing prices here. at least singaporeans going to JB to buy groceries won't stay in JB and cause property price jump.
G : Yup it is different, but in my opinion, you argument is misguided by your interest that property prices in Singapore should remain flat or inline with your personal income growth.
SL : if the argument is right, it is right. the need to keep property prices in check is not a misguided interest but an impt economic variable that any govt smart enough would come to realize
G : Could you tell us which smart government in this world is doing what you claim should be done??
SL : could you tell us which smart government pays itself millions?
G : Plenty, the Prince of Oman, Saudi, Kuwait, Brunei, etc. However thats beside the point, could you please give us an example of a smart government that is doing what your claim should be done.

6) Mcdonald market strategy is to get kids addicted to their burger and fries and they will eat till they die.

SL : what are you trying to imply?
G : Ask Atobe (his claim is that Mcdonalds food are addictive and you will eat till you die)
SL : i can't find that in his postings. are you defaming him?
G : Really? Obviously you have been reading the wrong thread. If you are polite enough to say please I will show it do you. I promise.
SL : please stop defaming atobe
G : you are making yourself look like a mad dog trying to defend your master atobe

7) MICE activities in Singapore will not benefit Singaporeans.

SL : but won't it benefit the govt a whole lot more than ordinary singaporeans?
G : The question is not about weather the government will benefit more or less, it if it will benefit Singaporeans. Since you are at it, can I know why you say that the government will benefit more than the private companies that organize MICE, the participants the seal business deal during the MICE, and the companies and Singaporeans that are supporting the MICE activities?
SL : the most impt conclusion for singaporeans to take away is that the govt is the biggest winner in any decision, including the casinos. with or without the casino, the income from MICE and deals are just the same for private companies. hence the new addition - casino, mainly benefits one entity - the govt.

G : Like I said again, the question is not about who is the biggest winning, but will MICE activities benefit Singaporeans.
SL : your question is not of interest to me. the question that is of interest to me is why in every decision, the greatest benefactor has to be the govt
G: It is not you are not interested, it is because you are incapable, and stop arguing like a spoilt child, that is very childish!!

Gazelle SG

Originally posted by snow leopard:

8.) Tourists in Singapore, will only spend money at Marina Bay Sands and RWS

SL : is the whole idea of marina sands to earn money from tourists buying satay?
G : No, their main income will be coming from the MICE, gaming, F&B and hotel. But what is your point of asking about satay? Confused?
SL : of the items you listed, MICE, F&B and hotel are the same whether or not we have a casino. so those components don't change whether or not we have a casino. hence, the only item left - gaming is the only reason for the casino.
G : They cant be the same because without a casino license, no companies will be willing to invest more than $5b in this IR project.
SL : if a place is attractive in and of itself for MICE activities, then whether or not we build a $5 billion casino won't change that. hence the purpose of the casino cannot be anything other than gambling dollars.
G : The amount of investment one is willing to invest in the MICE, Hotels and F&B outlet is very dependent on the risk level of the project and the reason why LV Sand and Genting is willing to take such a risk is because of the casino license. Hence it is wrong to say that with or without the casino license Sheldon Adelson will still go ahead with the investment.

9) Countries like Malaysia and Shanghai are losing money hosting F1

SL : taiwan and hong kong businessmen making money in china doesn't mean we would make money too.
G : I dont see a logic is what you are trying to say. The question should be, are you sure they are losing money? Or is atobe trying to distort information?
SL : i understand, you have proven to be most stupid that's your question. my take is this: if we can screw up in china when our competitors, taiwan and hong kong can fluorish there, there's no reason to say that malaysia and shanghai make money means we're sure to make money
G : Calling people stupid doesnt make you smart. And the question here is IS Malaysia and Shanghai losing money hosting F1? And based on your argument, are you suggesting that Singapore should not attempt to do anything unless it has never been done before? Like we should not have SIA because Malaysia already has their own airline? We shouldnt have universal studio in Singapore because they already have that in Japan and America?
SL : it may not, but it at least explains why you cannot see logic. the fact that they are making money doesn't guarantee that we will make money. if i'm not mistaken, official calculations record losses. no. i am saying that if my neighbour becomes rich selling chicken rice doesn't mean i will get rich selling chicken rice. that's all. since i'm not saying what you say i am saying, i cannot be saying this rubbish that you just spewed.

ladies and gentlemen, here is as yet another attempt by him to twist and misrepresent my words. a perpetual liar, i cannot trust what he claims is said by others. so unless he quotes the exact words used by others, he is lying and defaming the rest.

G : You are very mistaken and I am not even surprise. Honestly I dont see what exactly are you driving at when you are trying to question the viability of Singapore hosting F1. IMO you are very childish.

10) there were multiple PM Badawi visits to Singapore before and after the Sentosa IR announcement.

SL : PM Lee made a personal visit to PM Thatsin just before the signing of the Shincorp deal.
G : PM Lee visit to Thailand as got nothing to do with PM Badawis visit to Singapore. Obviously you are not aware of what we are talking about, because you should ask yourself this question, (Did PM Badawi visited Singapore in 2006?) before jumping into conclusion that he did. (Example of blind leading the blind??)
SL : PM Lee's meeting with Thaksin immediately before the Shin Corp deal is a good example of the possibility of state involvement in the Shin Corp fiasco.
G : I only need you to comment if the is indeed a PM Badawi visit to Singapore to influence Singapore government to award the Sentosa IR deal to Genting. (nothing to do with our minister visiting the world)
SL : i need you to show me the exact statement that suggests this and not some concoction of yours.
G : You have already asked this once, dont have to repeat because you will embarrass atobe twice.

12) Chinese cant afford to attend F1 race in Shanghai

SL : so?
G : Your question should not be so, it should be are you sure they cant afford?
SL : my question is still - so? so what if they can or cannot afford?
G : If they can afford, the F1 project will make sense, if they cant it wont.
SL : jumping to conclusions. the fact that F1 makes money in Shanghai suggests that it may make money in singapore. but it doesn't guarantee that it would or that F1 will work. Ong Beng Seng said so himself, it's his deep personal interest.
furthermore being able to afford doesn't imply willingness to pay. also, the shanghai population is so much larger than ours.
G : There are statistic to support that the host nation or city will reap in about S$100 to 150m of tourism revenue during the F1 weekend, and that is excluding the ticket sales. I think you should just leave the marketing responsibility to OBS and this team.

13) Malaysians earning in Ringgit cannot afford to attend F1 race in Malaysia

SL : and?
G : Same as question (12)
SL : then why you post twice?
G : Because Chinese from China is different from Malaysian in Malaysia.
SL : if they illustrate the same thing and your response is also the same, why not group them together instead of posting separately?
G : childish!!

14) Cost of Shanghai F1 facility, US$3,000,000,000 ($3b)

SL : back up your figures
G : Ask Atobe or maybe M13, thats their claim.
SL : i quote what you wrote "14) Cost of Shanghai F1 facility, US$3,000,000,000 ($3b)"
so it is your claim, back it up if you have the balls. you may ask atobe for help
G : I am just quoting what Atobe said. You should stop asking me, send him a PM as ask him.
SL : no, you're the only person here capable of misrepresenting the words of others. show me those are his exact words and not twisted by you.
G : Atobe : Considering that the China Formula ONE organiser has a contract with Formula ONE to host the series from 2004 to 2010, and that they have spent about US$3 Billion to build the Formula ONE facilities, and US$20 Million annually to maintain it, and with the gate receipts for 150,000 tickets bringing a revenue of US$36 Million from the 2004 race - it will be brilliant mathematics to find this event to produce any net gain for the Organiser, and China.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=252941&page=9

15) Only Singapore Straits Times cover PM Badawi's visit to Singapore in 2006

SL : but straits times is the main newspaper in singapore isn't it?
G : Do you have reasons to believe that such high profile news will only be covered by 3 media companies and that you cant find news coverage of his visit from internet and our government website?
SL : doesn't change the fact that the main source of news for the masses would come from govt controlled news media
G : Obviously you are still not aware that there is no such visiting in the first place and that Atobe is just making up story to defame Singapore government,
SL : you have a reputation of misrepresenting the statements of fellow forummers. show me the exact statement made by atobe.
G : This is the 3rd time you are asking me the same question.

soul_rage SG

snow leopard, let's just stop the thread. Why waste time talking to a brick?

Let him win, he's a loser in real-life. Let him be a winner at least in this virtual thread Smile

let's be forgiving and forgive him for his ill manners.

After all, the only people that will be disappointed with such lack of manners is his parents. Only goes to show what a failure their son has become Smile

Mei2 Jia1 Jiao4

pikamaster SG

Gazelle,

at least Rock^Star and a few others from the anti-camp made reasonable comebacks to my post. Yo on the other hand... please wake up your idea!!

snow leopard SG

Originally posted by Gazelle:
[quote]Originally posted by Gazelle:

G : The question you should be answering is, IS protectionism good for Singapore,

like i said before, there's no such thing as absolutely good or absolutely bad. hence, protectionism is not something you can say with a definite yes or no.

i say again, what we need is a balance between remaining competitive and ensuring that no one is left behind.

and is Singapore IR an example of protectionism when none of the winners are Singapore companies.

singapore IR cannot be used to illustrate protectionism because there is no local gambling company to protect.

G : Could you offer Singapore an alternative to prosperous like we did in the past 45 years without having an open economy?

could you show me where in this argument did i say that singapore should have a closed economy?

G : I didnt, I am just highlight the BS that he is contributing to this forum.

like the "open economy" bullshit "above which you imply i am against when i am not?

G : As a consumer, do we need to always fly with SIA?

how often do we ordinary singaporeans get to fly with SIA?

Could you tell us what do you mean by treating SIA well and what you mean that the old man will kick me out?

just an extension of your statement "If SIA doest threat you well, you should consider leaving the country"

G : thats what I thought too, but according to Soul_Rage, there is not difference.

come on, show me the words "Local and foreign companies offer the same benefits to Singapore's future and economy" is said anywhere else by any other person. stop misquoting and misrepresenting other people.

G : Soul_Rage In the IR tender, the govt DID give the tender to foreign companies. Why is that so? Its because none of our companies here have the experience of running a casino or such a huge resort, thus its reasonable for the govt to give this to the foreign company experienced in such a project

http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=250502&page=2

By saying that, he is claiming that Genting won because they are capable for running the whole IR by themselves and the reason why Keppeland and Capitaland lost is because they have never run an IR because despite the fact that they are partnering companies like MGM, Kerzner,

read the exchanges. agree wholeheartedly with soul rage. you have misrepresented him.

this is a casino project so the casino operator is key. keppeland and capitaland are local partners, not the main contenders. as such, it was a choice between Genting + Universal studios, Kerzner and 8th Wonder, all foreign companies. hence, soul rage is right to say that "govt to give this to the foreign company experienced in such a project" as there is no local gambling company to give to.

your interpretation is a grave misrepresentation of soul rage's posting.

given that all three gambling bidders are foreigner companies, and that there are no local gambling companies involved, this example does not support your statement "the result of the IR tender is a clear indication that the government will not favour local firms just because they are local"

G : Like I said again, whatever you see here, are just BS coming from soul_rage, and thank you very much for questioning them.

it is not bullshit. i agree with him.

G : This has no relationship to how the government handle its projects.

all else being equal, i would prefer a govt that doesn't write forums during office hours.

G: We have foreign footballers who are playing for S-League and have been offered citizenship because of their talent in sport. Hence do you think it is right to say that all FT are highly educated?

show me where and who said that "S-league foreign footballers are all highly educated individual". you must have misrepresented someone else's words again.

Are you sure that nobody watches S-League? Are those people seating in the stadium ghost or something?

what are they compared to the many more glued in front of TVs watching EPL? and all those who watch S-league are more likely than not to watch EPL as well.

G : Are you also saying that those badminton player from China who have become Singaporeans are highly educated?

show me where and who wrote "You need to be highly educated to be consider a talent."

G: Really, mind showing me where you get that from?

mind showing me where you got "Income gap = living standard" first?

G : Could you give us some example of rich peoples business?

i can but i wonder if i should also propose a snow leopard's challenge and get someone to go under a skirt.

« Previous Page Next Page »