Originally posted by snow leopard:
1) Protectionism is good for Singapore's future and it
promotes investment like IRs
SL : a good example of protectionism at work is an ex-PM protecting
the position of PM for this son.
G : I am not sure if you could call that as protestionism, however
are you suggesting that protectionism is good for Singapore?
SL : what then would you call it? nepotism?
G : The question you should be answering is, IS protectionism good
for Singapore, and is Singapore IR an example of protectionism when
none of the winners are Singapore companies.
SL: 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.
singapore IR cannot be used to illustrate protectionism because
there is no local gambling company to protect.
G: Your reply only tells us one thing, ie. you are incapable for
defending yourself and the subject, because protectionism is
obviously bad for a country with no natural resources and is highly
dependent on FDI and trade. With regard to your 2nd sentence, you
will have to ask why Soul_rage say that Singapore IR are example of
protectionism.
2) Open economy is bad for Singapore and its
people
SL : why do you say that?
G : Ask Soul_Rage
SL : nothing is ever absolutely good or bad. workfare, which the
govt recently implemented, is a form of protectionism. would you
say workfare is bad? you wouldn't. hence there needs to be a
balance, a balance between staying competitive and ensuring that
those who cannot keep up, stay afloat.
G : Could you offer Singapore an alternative to prosperous like we
did in the past 45 years without having an open economy?
SL: could you show me where in this argument did i say that
singapore should have a closed economy?
G : Just tell me if you agree that an Open economy is bad for
Singapore and its people? ( I am not interested in your cock and
bull stories and childish excuses)
3) There is a 80/20 rule in income
distribution
SL : could you illustrate?
G : Ask Soul_Rage
SL : why ask him when you are the one making that statement?
G : I didnt, I am just highlight the BS that he is contributing to
this forum.
SL : like the "open economy" bull%%[email protected] "above which you imply i am
against when i am not?
G : You will have to ask Soul_Rage because he thinks that is such
theory for income distribution.
4) If SIA doest threat you well, you should consider leaving the
country.
SL : if you don't treat SIA well, old man will kick you out
G : You miss the point
SL : no i didn't, i hit the nail on its head. if you don't treat
SIA well, old man will kick you out.
G : As a consumer, do we need to always 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?
SL : how often do we ordinary singaporeans get to fly with SIA?
just an extension of your statement "If SIA doest threat you well,
you should consider leaving the country"
G : You are diverting from your earlier statement that if we dont
treat SIA well, the old men ( I presume you are referring to LKY)
will kick us out. Again it only shows how incapable you are in such
discussion.
5) Local and foreign companies offer the same benefits to
Singapore's future and economy
SL : foreign companies do not have vested interests and many have
voted with their feet already that led to widespread
retrenchments.
G : You have to ask Soul_rage why he said that.
SL : not true. when we merely work for MNCs, we do not develop our
own brand / technology which in the long run is what differentiates
a truly first world nation from one that relies on first world
nations
G : thats what I thought too, but according to Soul_Rage, there is
not difference.
SL: 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 : As again, I told you, in this case, the govt has
set up certain protective rules, so it is not exactly an issue
anymore on whether the company getting it, is local or overseas,
coz they have to promise, for eg, a certain level of investment
into our economy.
http://politics.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=250502&page=2
And please, think and read before you bark.
6) All casino gaming operators can operate world class IR
by themselves
SL : world class IR like world class public transportation that
receives so many complains all the time?
G : Again you are missing the point, Soul_rage is suggesting that
as a gaming operator, by default you will be able to operate and
run business such as Universal Studio, Dreamworks, MICE, whale
shark aquarium, without the need of having partners.
SL : show me the exact words that soul rage used that suggested
what you suggested. if you can't, you are putting words into his
mouth.
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,
SL : 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 : Again, you are speaking without any logic and understand behind
the whole IR selection process.
a) This is not just a casino project, this is an IR project and
majority of the revenue will be coming from non-gaming related
business
b) Harrahs and MGM Mirage are world no1 and 2 players in the gaming
industry, and you are questioning their ability to execute this
project?
c) Keppeland and Capitaland are minority shareholder in the project
hence the whole IR project will be lead by the world class casino
players not local companies.
d) There are more than 3 foreign companies that bid for the 2 IR
projects, please get your facts right.
7) Singapore employer are suckers for more expensive Indian
FT
SL : singapore govt is sucker for indians
G : Why? Can you support your claim?
SL : i quote you "i) Singapore employer are suckers for more
expensive Indian FT". your statement supports my claim.
G : Like I said again, whatever you see here, are just BS coming
from soul_rage, and thank you very much for questioning them.
SL : it is not bull%%[email protected] i agree with him.
G : You will agree with anybody who give you a bone to chew, and
obviously you cant support what you said.
