Making one of e most entrepreneurial race unentrepreneurial

last SG · 2007-03-06T20:25:14+00:00

In sg, non-elites are penalised for success. So why bother. If I were to be in business, I will do it in any neighbouring countries. Not in Sg. Similarly,...

Atobe SG

Originally posted by saffron60:

To atobe

Did I read too much into your statements, when you have cleverly inserted some snide remarks at the ability of Singaporean CHINESE ?

You did ask "Who is to blame ?" but continue without making any thoughts except to blame Singaporean CHINESE - even as you accuse the Government pointing at the PEOPLE, and the PEOPLE pointing at the Government.

Who are the PEOPLE you have accused of pointing fingers ?

Did you not end your derogatory statement saying - "this is the story of the singaporean chinese" ?

like i said, you read too much to it, i wasn't referring to the ability of the singaporean chinese, i was talking about their survival instincts and comparing it with the survival instincts of the chinese minority in other countries. You are twisting my words when i said 'who is the blame', i said that in response to a post from a forumer who largely blamed the sing gov. This forumer said:

''But the Sg govt has killed off all chinese entrepreneurialship... we are ruled by elites!!! woooooo!!!! '' - posted on 05 March 2007 10:04 PM

Are you splitting hairs in the difference between the words 'ability' and 'survival instinct' ?

Without any 'ability' can anyone have the capacity to have any 'survival instinct' ?

Is there any disagreement about what you are talking about that is aimed at the Singaporean Chinese ?

Is it not obvious in the direction of your derogatory slant even when you indicate that the - "Gov point finger at people, people point finger at gov...neverending story, but this is the story of singaporean chinese ?

Yes the other forumer "largely blamed the sing gov", but you brilliantly defended the Singapore Government with your statement that "this is the story of singaporean chinese" - as if though the other races are excluded and the Government is blameless; and added further that "If these Chinese can survive in other countries as a minority, what more about those chinese in singapore, who make up more than 70% of the population.

Your last statement suggest that the Singaporean Chinese is useless even as it formed 70% of the population - are you not blaming the chinese for this situation in making a derogatory "statement of fact" ?

Excuse me, you seemed to have blanked out what i said about the education system in singapore, I said:

''My reply was in response to the earlier post about comparisons between the singaporean chinese and the chinese minority in other countries. Of course, when you are talking about the singapore born chinese, what you said about the 'blank slate' applies, especially since they have been brought up through an academic system which values meritrocacy. And that's one the reasons why the singapore chinese are so fundamentally different from the minority chinese in other countries (although chinese families value education but education system is different). When the conditions are right, the survival instincts should kick in. Maybe singapore doesn't have these conditions and as a result people get stuck in their comfort zone. So back the original question, should people just sit and wait till gov change their ways or should people do something on their own first while waiting for the gov to change (that is if they ever change)?'' - 06 March 2007 05:54 PM, by saffron60

The large part of the education system that you have brought up was a digression, which would have formed a thread of its own if we were to discussed in detail .

Just to humor you along, I will engage you on this topic.

If you believe that Singapore's education system is based on meritocracy - are you not contradicting yourself by suggesting that it has killed the survival instinct amongst Singaporeans - whether Chinese or otherwise ?

Would it not be true that in a meritocratic system, competitiveness is even sharper, even more accute in an environment where the best and fittest survive ?

If at all, should it not be a fact that the entire Singapore System - built by this LKY Government based on MERITOCRACY - has developed a situation where the best moved ahead, and have left those incapable to catch up to fall by the wayside ?

Is it not a fact that a late U-Turn has been recently made to stabilise the politically sensitive development in which there has been a high rate of attrition, and the casualties are mounting, in a dog-eat-dog environment where those moving up the social-economic ladder has left behind others who could not make the grade.

Have you not appreciated the fact that it is LKY's introduction and insistence of the meritocratic system that has caused more barriers and hurdles in differentiating the Singapore Society into classifications and groups.

The meritocratic system is a sad myth that only advance those who are most capable, and created social barriers and individual immobility.

Is this not the situation now in Singapore, where the meritocratic few are all that is needed, while the remaining mediocre majority are stuck at their respective levels ?

The political-social-economic strictures that have been imposed on Singaporeans, with the draconian laws in place, have made Singaporean incapacited - has it not caused the loss in their ability to survive ?

So no, i did not just 'blame' the singaporean chinese, why don't you read more carefully next time. There are some people who are discontent with the gov, so these are the people who blame the gov. Yup, that is their story, as opposed to the chinese minority in other countries. Don't forget, my statements were made in comparisons to the chinese minority in other countries as a response to the post of another forumer. If you want to find any mistake i made in my response, you got to try harder than that. Mr. Green

No, you "did not just 'blame' the singaporean chinese" - you were very explicit in your statement already quoted.

Now you are backtracking and toning your position even further - by identifying that "There are some people who are discontent with the gov, so these are the people who blame the gov."

This is quite different from your earlier statement - "Gov point finger at people, people point finger at gov...neverending story, but this is the story of singaporean chinese

Even as you attempt to compare Singaporean Chinese with those Chinese who is a minority in other countries, your statements made are hopelessly sweeping and baseless; and in one broad stroke, you have twisted the entire "story of singaporean chinese"

Atobe SG

No, this is not simply about my opinion - and there is nothing fair or not.

Are you denying that Sir Stamford Raffles did not establish Singapore in 1819, and that it was the sheer hard work of Chinese enterprise and labor - as well as the enterprise and labor of the other races coming from across the seas - to built Singapore into a thriving City ?

Singapore's state of affairs today, is the ongoing consequence of over 45 years of continuous rule by LKY and the Political Party that he helped to form, as well as the single minded pursuit of policies advanced by LKY over the other voices from within his Party and the Country.

This single mindedness was revealed even in LKY personal thoughts, which he had written in his memoirs that as a Leader he does not need as much sleep as anyone; he is capable to read all reports coming from all levels of his government; and he is concerned that LHL may not have the same capacity as himself especially with the possibility of a relapse to LHL experience with cancer if he should be placed under pressure.

History is as recorded, and my remarks were more positive about the ability of the early Chinese migrants in Singapore to make Singapore a success during the Colonial Rule.

It was your NEGATIVE VIEW towards the history of "singaporean chinese" compared to the POSITVE history of their fore fathers that I have highlighted.

If your negative views is stated with such authority, is it not misleading to those who read your post - and should I not prove you to be wrong ?

The thing is, some people see it as a good thing, some people don't. One could also argue that the gov provided the people with the basic necessities for survival (hence, the term 'pacifiers'), and that if people wanted more than that, for example to become wealthy in business, they have to work harder for it. LKY's policies leaned more towards 'socialist' policies, which was aimed at the overall population, some people will argue that it kills entrepreneurship while some people will say that, having basic necessities is good, and if they want more than that, they are willing to work harder.

This is not about anti-LKY. It is about the entrepreneurial spirit of a race - the Chinese race and Singaporean.

You can try as hard as you want to explain and tone down your previously held position with more digressive points that are newly raised, but the fact remains that with each new points raised you are making your position even more absurd.

Atobe SG

Originally posted by saffron60:

To atobe

How did you come to this amazing conclusion about the private companies wasn't capable of running the lines" ?

The chequered history of the British Railway System is well documented, and you would have benefitted if you had done some research before making some conclusions to the situation that are still proving to be fluid at the moment.

Alright, the words 'not capable' were too strong, what i meant to say was that there were too many problems and finally, the gov took back the train lines. My earlier comments were based on the experience of people who lived through it and i know these people personally. You should take your own advice, since the report that you posted only showed HALF THE STORY of what actually happened.

''Railtrack was a group of companies that owned the track, signalling, tunnels, bridges, level crossings and all but a handful of the stations of the British railway system from its formation in April 1994 until 2002. On October 3, 2002, the main operating arm - the owner and operator of the national railway network, Railtrack PLC - was sold by its parent company Railtrack Group plc to "not for dividend" company Network Rail (a company limited by guarantee) and was later renamed Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. With that sale, the national railway network passed into the hands of a company without a share capital or shareholders, and in all essential senses the short, troubled and controversial life of Railtrack came to an end.''

''To bring Railtrack's administration to an end, the Government assisted in the formation of Network Rail, which bought Railtrack PLC from RT Group. Network Rail is a company without shareholders, and the Government insists that it is a private sector company, accountable to the public interest through regulation by the Office of Rail Regulation.''

quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railtrack

What happened in the end was that the gov took back the Railtrack's administration. However, there has been debate about whether Network Rail is a public sector or private private sector entity, but ultimately, it is under gov control.

''There has been considerable controversy over whether Network Rail is a public-sector or a private-sector entity. Government ministers and former ministers appear to try to look both ways on this issue. On the one hand, they need Network Rail to be classified in the private sector to avoid the company's enormous debts (over £20 billion) being counted as public expenditure liabilities. On the other hand, they like the idea that the shareholders have gone and the public perception is one of renationalisation - "renationalisation in all but name" is a common media description of what happened to Railtrack when Network Rail took it over.''

quoted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail

''Railtrack had been severely criticised for both its performance in improving the railway infrastructure and for its safety record.'' You can read the full article of the events in wikipedia.

Here are some 'highlights' of the railway privatisation, quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail

''Investment: It is a common view that the railways had been systematically starved of government investment since the 1960s as successive governments openly favoured road transport, and that when the railways were privatised they were already in bad shape and in need of renewal.''

''Since privatisation there has been considerable expenditure on modernising the system, but largely confined to a few routes. The consequences of the Hatfield accident in 2000 caused Railtrack to undertake large-scale track relaying without sufficient planning, and much of the work was substandard and subsequently had to be re-done. Railtrack's poor project management abilities were exemplified with the West Coast Route Modernisation project, which was intended to deliver a 140 mph (225 kmh) route in 2005 at a cost of £2 bn, but is finally likely to deliver a 125 mph (200 kmh) route in 2008 at a cost approaching £13 bn, which was a major factor in the company's financial collapse.''

''Profitability and Efficiency: One of the principal expectations from privatisation was that the railway service could be delivered more efficiently in the private sector because of the profit motive. The expectation that there were considerable costs that could be slashed from the system was not fulfilled; new operators found that BR had already done much of what could be done to improve efficiency. In addition, the profit motive was diluted when some of the passenger franchises ran into financial trouble and entered into management contracts with the franchising authority, which reduced the incentive to innovate. In addition, new health and safety requirements and the complexity of the privatised structure has thrown up additional costs in the industry. In all, the subsidy to the railway from the Government is considerably larger now than it was for BR.''

''Safety: This is one of the more emotive sources of argument. The railway can point to continued improvements in safety under privatisation; in fact the rate of improvement has increased compared to that experienced in the last years of BR. However, five serious rail accidents in the post-privatisation period (Southall (1997), Ladbroke Grove (1999), Hatfield (2000) Potters Bar (2002) and [Cumbria Rail Disaster [Tebay]] (2007)) all undermined confidence in the safety of the privatised railway and highlighted some areas where it appeared that new safety risks had been created as a result of the privatisation process (e.g. the separation of wheel from track).''

When you read the list of effects, you will find that overall, there are more negative effects than positive ones, (please take note that the article is based on arguments between the positive and negative effects of railway privatisation).

If you are trying to impress by making useless extracts simply to create a huge envelope of fog that serves to confuse the entire picture, and extract yourself out of an untenable position - you found the wrong angle.

All that you have written above still does not back up your initial statement that Privatisation of the Railroad in UK cannot compare to the greater efficiency through nationalisation - in having the Government manage the Public Transportation system.

Your extracts above only clearly show the failure of the successive UK government - up till Thatcher and through John Majors leadership - in mishandling the privatisation of the UK Railroad system.

It is a poor example to support your position taken, and I have already indicated to you that prior to LKY's coming into politics, there already exist ten PRIVATELY OWNED Bus Companies that had provided efficient transport service to the Singapore Public.

On one front, we have the LKY Government refusing to allow the Private Companies to increase fares unless they show their ability to improve their transport assets. On the other side, the Private Bus Operators will not invest unless the Government agree to their terms of fare structure so as to be able to recoup their investment.

The failure of the Singapore Private Bus Companies was due to the Government's own political-economic-socialist plans, with the other big picture in mind to starve the Other Political Parties from receiving political support and political funding.

Atobe SG

Now the 'brilliance in reading' that you accuse others of not having is reflected in your own anxiety to score points.

Are you changing my posted words to as - the gov's hypermarket and supermarket, or did I state in very simple words that hypermarket and supermarket in Malaysia are located in large urban population centers ?

It was clearly stated in your A.C. Nielsen's report that - "In South-East Asia, the picture differs, with Singapore the only market where the modern trade dominates."

Is it not a fact that the majority of supermarkets in Singapore is dominated by Government Linked - (not owned) - NTUC Fairprice ?

NTUC FairPrice Co-Operative is a supermarket chain based in Singapore and the largest in the country. The company is a co-operative of the National Trades Union Congress or NTUC. The group has 100 supermarkets across the island, with over 50 outlets of Cheers convenience in the island. NTUC FairPrice has partnered with ExxonMobil to run several stations with a FairPrice branding at the minimarts at their stations. The supermarket has a slogan known as Singapore's very own.

Do you need a more brilliant light to see that being the largest Supermarket store in Singapore, it is obvious that it will have the largest share of the market and revenue ?

Atobe SG

continuation

At first i said that i was diverting a little from the topic about NTUC, (because i was talking about the market trends) but i think i ultimately it is relevant to our discussions on the topic. I also said that there are some areas in economy where i think that the gov should allow the local businesses to thrive, but i didn't say that the gov is killing off private entrepreneurship. I also want to clarify that after i said ''Ya, i agree with this, as mentioned earlier'', i was referring to my statement about how gov should allow local businesses to thrive, not that i think that the gov is killing off private entrepreneurship. They may provide competition for other retailers but whether or not they kill private entrepreneurship in the grocery business, that has yet to be proven.

You seem to flip-flop with your position when it suits you.

First you cry for government intervention in public transport - even when I had shown you that Private Enterprise in Public Transport was already doing well since the Colonial Days, now you are "referring to {your} statement about how gov should allow local business to thrive" and you insult the readers' intelligence by further stating - "but i didn't say that the gov is killing off private entrepreneurship ".

The report is relevant because earlier we were talking about NTUC hypermarket. So this report, shows the trend of consumer grocery spending in singapore as well as other asian countries. Well, you kept saying the gov killed private entrepreneurship because they went into the hypermarket and supermarket business, so the report shows proof that there's a shift in consumer grocery spending which is a trend in most asian countries, which means that the consumers themselves change their way of grocery spending (although there may be many external factors which influence their decision) . So, the behaviour of consumers in singapore are partially responsible for the shift in spending and it can't be said that it is entirely because of government intervention. You have to also take into account the behaviour of singaporean consumers and that some of the factors that influence their decision are not related to gov intervention or gov owned supermarkets and hypermarkets.

If McDonalds had open its FIRST store in Singapore, within your neighborhood precint - will you not be amongst the first ten thousand residents to visit it during the first six months ?

Is it McDonald's fault for having enticed you to patronise its first store in Singapore - that happen to be located in your block ?

If someone offer you a cheap deal to buy a quality car - will you not change your attitude to accept the deal to the quality car ?

Was it not a fact that by allowing NTUC to move into a specialised field of a very specialised Private Enterprise, the government has already begun to mould Singaporean's attitude towards the idea of supermarkets and hypermarkets ? Is this not changing Singaporeans' behaviour and attitude ?

It is a fact that the government allowed NTUC to deviate from its original goals of looking after the welfare of the Singaporean Workers, and went beyond its scope of providing essential food items to Singaporean Workers through Union Members; and in the process killed off the neighborhood grocery stores.

Are you still attempting to place the blame on Singaporean for this change in Social Behaviour.

Atobe SG

Originally posted by saffron60:
I guess if you are not in the business field, you wouldn't put much emphasis in reading business reports. The economies of scale applies to large chain hypermarket/supermarkets and chain convenience stores, whether it is a privately or gov owned. The mineral water you are talking about, is it the same brand? It would be more fair to use examples from the same brand.

Wow, 1.5 lit mineral water for 80 cents? That's very cheap, i have never come acrossed that even though i've been to msia many times. I think you may be talking about the price of the 1.5 lit mineral water which is sold at hypermarkets and that would most likely be the hypermarket's house brand. It's an unfair comparison to compare prices with hypermart's house brand (because their line of products are always cheaper than most brands in the same categories).

About the eggs comparison, SG$1 = RM2.30. What's there to compare? A msian who goes to singapore and buys eggs, pays double for it, not the same price he/she would pay when she is in msia. I don't think that comparison helps your argument much. If you are saying that NTUC are charging higher than normal prices for their products, then you have to compare their prices with other retailers in singapore and give those examples instead.

Let's use the 'imported egg' example in an economic context.

The cost of selling imported eggs in a singaporean retailer = opportunity costs + cost of production + transport costs + distribution costs + tax (import, GST) + miscellanous retailer costs

When you are only focusing on the exchange rate and the 'strength of the sing dollar', then you are leaving out all the other factors which influence the price of eggs when it is sold in a singapore retailer. Another factor to consider is the higher cost of living in singapore compared with msia.

Let's compare the price of the egg in a retailer in the UK, it would be about £1 for a dozen eggs, which is about SG$0.30 per egg and RM0.60 per egg. so overall, it costs more to buy an egg in the UK, bear in mind, i'm not talking about imported eggs in the UK, i'm referring to the locally produced eggs. So, it shows that there are 'hidden' costs in involved in selling products. Some may be gov influenced,some market influenced, you have to distinguish between how much gov intervention is there in the market and the supply chain process in order to draw a connection between the prices of products sold in a retailer and gov intervention.

if singapore had land like their larger neighbours, sing gov might have a more diversified approach instead of just concentrating in the services industry. Why are you mentioning such obvious things?

What makes you think that I am not in business ?

You have shown an immense talent at immersing yourself into looking at the small prints and miss out the bigger plot from the entire book.

For crying out loud, post as many 'cut-and-paste' - digress as much as you want - and make your best effort to fog up the entire thread - the fact will still remains simple - that despite the declared intention of NTUC Fairprice towards Singaporean Union Workers, its prices are not exactly 'FAIR'.

Yes, you are right with your claim that Singapore's land cost is high, however, who has set the land prices so high that businesses are passing off their cost to the consumers, while continuously raking in their profit.

Malaysia may have a huge piece of real estate, however, they have a weaker ringgit, and depend as much on the importing of cement, steel bars, and most building materials. One will say that Malaysia should end up paying a higher price for the building even if the land price is lower.

Yet, Malaysia is able to offset the high import costs paid with a weak ringgit, and still maintain a more competitive retail price to benefit its consumers, who are also protected by a very active Consumer Price Inspectors.

Comparing to Singapore, despite the fact that we have a stronger currency than Malaysia - by two times over - our cost of construction is higher than Malaysia, even when there are more Malaysian construction workers than Singaporeans.

Yes, I can believe your statement that "if singapore had land like their larger neighbours, sing gov might have a more diversified approach instead of just concentrating in the services industry."

The Singapore Government will hoard the land, and auction the land to the highest bidder over its desired price, which will make the final product costs to be atrocious, while increasing revenue to itself.

The obvious is being stated, as you seem not to be able to grasp some basic concepts.

With a stronger dollar, and following the economic philosphy of comparative advantage, we were supposed to be able to buy cheaper primary and agricultural products for our daily essentials; yet the produce sold in the Singapore hypermarkets or supermarkets - are all much higher than those found in Malaysia.

Are you some connosieur of water, with your taste honed from a taste of fine wine ?

Bottled water consist of only mineral and distilled water - whatever the brands sold in Malaysia, the difference is only 10 or 20 sens.

The bottled mineral and distilled water sold in Malaysia, may not carry the same label as NTUC Fairprice will have their own house brands; while other Singaporean supplier may prefer to have their own OEM brand, and still retain the label indicating "Produced in Malaysia".

Why are you complicating a simple subject of eggs by spreading across several continents away ?

Why pick UK, and not Australia, or China, or Korea ?

Grade A eggs in Malaysia are sold at a controlled RETAIL price of 20 to 35 sen, which is about 0.15 cents - Malaysian retail price in Singapore currency.

If at this price, the Malaysian distribution chain will hive off 30 percent to cover their costs, this will make their wholesale price to be somewhere 0.245 sen or 0.12 cents.

Singapore's NTUC should be able to knock off another 10 per cent with its ability to pay cash and taking a bigger load for its more then 100 outlets.

With a stronger currency and ability to buy in bulk, and with shorter or less complex distribution tiers, we are paying much more then the Malaysians.

Joshua1975 SG

talking about small business... anyone remember the mobile fast food van or something like that?

before you, MIW must make 1st apply fully in that case. best part is the one with that idea did not get to do it. he had to do it the other way.

and what happen to all those van now??? where is that guy who come up with that idea???

how not to feel sick?

Atobe SG

Not to worry about this guy, as being an entrepreneur - he will probably have a few ideas up his sleeve and will probably be taking off with another project.

Unlucky for the two old ladies in their late 60's, both of whom only wanted to enjoy selling wanton noodles, so as to be independent in their old age; and were simply too proud to seek social welfare.

First the HDB forced them - and all other rental tenants - to buy over their hawker stalls at market real estate prices in prime location, then they were persuaded to commit to a long term loan from the Bank instead of HDB providing the loan.

Within the next four years, the Bank had to foreclose on the two old ladies, who were subsequently forclosed by the bank, and both were made bankrupts.

A classic case of bureaucracy gone crazy.

saffron60 SG

To atobe

Are you splitting hairs in the difference between the words 'ability' and 'survival instinct' ?

Without any 'ability' can anyone have the capacity to have any 'survival instinct' ?

Is there any disagreement about what you are talking about that is aimed at the Singaporean Chinese ?

Is it not obvious in the direction of your derogatory slant even when you indicate that the - "Gov point finger at people, people point finger at gov...neverending story, but this is the story of singaporean chinese ?

Yes the other forumer "largely blamed the sing gov", but you brilliantly defended the Singapore Government with your statement that "this is the story of singaporean chinese" - as if though the other races are excluded and the Government is blameless; and added further that "If these Chinese can survive in other countries as a minority, what more about those chinese in singapore, who make up more than 70% of the population.

Your last statement suggest that the Singaporean Chinese is useless even as it formed 70% of the population - are you not blaming the chinese for this situation in making a derogatory "statement of fact" ?

you are wasting my time on, HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO REPEAT THE SAME THING WITH YOU? WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND SIMPLE ENGLISH? I said gov point finger at people, people point finger at gov, that's the story of singaporean people, IN COMPARISON WITH THE CHINESE MINORITY IN OTHER COUNTRIES. Why you completely ignore my comparisons with the chinese minority? I never said singaporean chinese were useless or had no abilities, don't be so low as to put words in my mouth. Don't you know that abilities consist of more than just survival instincts? Why are you so blur?

These are the exact statements i made:

i agree with you that the chinese in singapore are a different breed. When you look at the chinese minority in other countries, even those in developed countries like Canada, UK, US, Australia, either seem to do well in business or at the very least, make ends meet, call it survival instinct. If these Chinese can survive in other countries as a minority, what more about those chinese in singapore, who make up more than 70% of the population.

Do we have a chicken and egg situation here? Is it the gov that kill off chinese entrepreneurship in singapore or is it the chinese singaporean who can't stop sucking the gov pacifier after all these years? Who is to blame? Gov point finger at people, people point finger at gov...neverending story, but this is the story of singaporean chinese. Maybe we should ask this question to the immigrant chinese singaporean who is doing well in a developed country

Ah...but the chinese in other countries as a minority don't have a pacifier and worse still, don't even have 'parents' to look after them, yet they can still make it. I'm not saying that they are 'better' than the singaporean chinese, but ultimately they are survivalists. Has singaporean chinese forgotten their survival instincts? If it is an inborn thing, surely the chinese singaporean will still find a way out of their current dilema and help themselves instead of hoping and wishing....

I WAS FOCUSING ON SURVIVAL INSTINCTS, SO PLEASE DON'T STOOP SO LOW AS TO SAY THAT I INSULT CHINESE SINGAPOREAN PEOPLE..YOU ARE THE ONE WHO MADE UP ALL THESE INSULTING WORDS....NOT ME...DON'T PLAY DIRTY

saffron60 SG

To atobe

Again, what is the matter with you? Why are being so completely biased? Why did you ignore the fact that i made response based on the post on one of the forumer, here's the post:

I dont really see it as the problem of Chinese Singaporean. They are just like blank piece of harddisk that inherits the values or (the OS) of the system. If a PRC Chinese was adopted and raised here, he would be like Chinese Singaporean, more honest, less challenging of authority and more afraid to take risks. These values are inherited through socialization in the education system and the environment.

If you ask why Chinese Singaporeans lack the survival instincts i think its because they are suck into the paper chase. The Singapore System overemphasizes on academics and distorts the environment of an average Singapore teenager.

Even for working adults, I can see many people try to beat poverty by going for private degrees rather then using their survival instinct to start a business. And when academic is not their forte, its really a waste of human resource. They may have started a business or gone into other careers.
- 06 March 2007 · 02:51 AM

You completely missed the point we were discussing in the education system, and why are now talking about completely different thing, PLEASE DON'T WASTE MORE OF YOUR TIME DISECTING PEOPLE'S CONVERSATIONS TO HIGHLIGHT YOUR BIASED VIEWS ON THINGS JUST SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE PEOPLE LOOK BAD. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING HERE AND YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT YOUR THEORIES AGAIN WHICH HAVE GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR CONVERSATION. YOU ARE THE KING OF DIVERSION TACTICS....

saffron60 SG

No, you "did not just 'blame' the singaporean chinese" - you were very explicit in your statement already quoted.

Now you are backtracking and toning your position even further - by identifying that "There are some people who are discontent with the gov, so these are the people who blame the gov."

This is quite different from your earlier statement - "Gov point finger at people, people point finger at gov...neverending story, but this is the story of singaporean chinese

Even as you attempt to compare Singaporean Chinese with those Chinese who is a minority in other countries, your statements made are hopelessly sweeping and baseless; and in one broad stroke, you have twisted the entire "story of singaporean chinese"

Why are so daft? Isn't it a fact that there are discontent people in singapore? hasn't it occured to you that we were referring to the PRESENT, isn't it a fact that the ruling party's popularity has been dropping over the years? Can't you make a connection between the two? Isn't it obivous that when i say 'people', those people i was talking about are the discontent? also, don't forget that those remarks are made in comparison with the chinese minority in other countries. The chinese minority have small political representation in whichever country they are in, because of the fact that they are a minority. So they can't complain, they can only suck it up and live their lives the best way they can.

Anyway, hasn't it always been the gov's way, when people ask for changes, gov always come back and say, no if you want this or that you have to work harder, blah blah, and then people say, no, gov have to change first in order for us to have this or that..blah..blah..see what i mean about gov pointing finger at people, and people pointing finger at gov? Do you get it now?

saffron60 SG

To atobe

Do you understand what you are bringing up with your statement that "LKY's policies leanded more towards 'socialist' policies ?" This must be the joke of the 21st Century.

Does LKY believe in the social welfare that is characteristics of socialism, or is he only interested in the draconian aspects of socialism that is characteristic of the Communist Socialism ?

Did you not read his memoirs about how he withdrew Singapore from being a member of the World Democratic Socialists Congress, before they moved to kick him and Singapore out ? This was within 10 years after he got Singapore kicked out of Malaysia.

There you go again, that is your interpretation of socialism. The statement that i made was a NEUTRAL one, you understand what NEUTRAL means right?
So, if you want to judge LKY and his policies, go ahead, be my guest, but it's got nothing to do with me, ok? because i only made a neutral statement.

like i said, you read too much into what i write and you draw your own silliy conclusions about what i'm trying to say. You accuse me of being insulting to the chinese singaporean. c'mon, if it was really true, i would have been fiercely attacked by other forumers and even the forumer that i was having a discussion with, didn't seem to think that i was insulting the chinese singaporean. So why only you seem to think that? I think you've got a real corrupt mind, that's why you always seem to take the negative view of what people are trying to say.

saffron60 SG

To atobe

All that i have written about the privatisation of the train lines in the UK was the truth of what happened. WHEREAS YOU TOLD ONLY HALF THE STORY TO TRY TO TWIST IT TO MAKE IT SEEM THAT THE PRIVATE COMPANIES WERE CAPABLE OF RUNNING THE LINES. IT LOOKS LIKE ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR COVER UPS, WHERE YOU READ SOMETHING ON THE INTERNET, NOT KNOWING THE FULL STORY OF WHAT HAPPENEND AND SIMPLY CUT AND PASTE IT HERE TO PROVE YOUR POINT. BEAR IN MIND, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME YOU ARE TRYING THIS CHEATING TACTIC HERE, I HAVE CAUGHT YOU ONCE BEFORE, SO PLEASE DON'T STOOP SO LOW AS TO USE CHEATING TACTICS, OK? Btw, i did acknowledge that THATCHER WAS IN THE WRONG FOR PRIVATISING THE TRAIN LINES, but MY STAND IS THAT, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IS SOMETHING WHICH THE GOV SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLING AND I GAVE THE STORY ABOUT UK TRAIN LINES AS AN EXAMPLE. If you don't agree with me on this, fine, it's ok, but please don't try to change the story about what actually happened in the UK. YOU WEREN'T THERE, YOU'VE NEVER LIVED THROUGH THAT EXPERIENCE, IVE TALKED TO PEOPLE WHO WENT THROUGH IT AND THERE ARE A LOT OF INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET WHICH SUPPORTS MY VIEWS, SO THERE'S NO NEED TO COVER UP.

If you really believe that you are right, please show me more evidence of your claims...c'mon, show me!!!!! Show me the proof....i'm still waiting for it

What you are saying about the LKY's involvement in the public transport system has been said earlier...you are just repeating yourself. If that's your stand, that's fine. You don't have to keep repeating..i'm not like you, where i have to tell you the same thing 3 or 4 times until you get it into your head, and sometimes even more times than that.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Erm dude, using caps to emphasize is cool... but kinda defeats the purpose if it makes everything hard to read...

Isn't the whole point getting information across?

saffron60 SG

Where is the direction of your line of thinking ?

If you are trying to impress, you fail miserably.

All the charts that you can bring up does not hide the fact that in Singapore, the government has created a political-economy that makes one of the most entrepreneurial race become unentrepreneurial.

Concerning "objectivity" : surely you will know that whatever report - with data or charts - that A.C.Nielsen produces, we are at liberty to use the information to fit or support whatever report or views in any manner we need. In other words, report can be subjected to window-dressing. You see what you want to see, or what you can see.

You sound very naive here, you think that a well respected company like AC nielsen doesn't understand the objectivity of their own reports? If you were to go to a client using the very same report that we were discussing, and you made such comments like that, you would be scolded and humiliated by the client. That's the real world for you. If you don't understand how to read statistics report, that's ok, if you don't want to admit it, fine, nobody is forcing you to admit anything. You talk about 'objectivity' as though you understand the report very well, c'mon lah, earlier, you made a mistake about reading the report, you acted as though the report was giving contradicting information, but when you read it again after i point out your mistake, now you say ''we are at liberty to use the info to fit or support whatever report or views in any manner we need''...you are dead wrong about that, there are many different types of reports used for different purposes or different objectives. Clearly, you don't understand what the objective of this report is..if you make such naive statements. I have told you a few times already what the purpose of the report is...and you pooh pooh the whole notion and call it 'window dressing'. like that i can also say the same thing with your theories as well..they are just 'window dressing' Mr. Green

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Paragraphs dude! Paragraphs!

Or else nobody will bother to read or reply!

saffron60 SG

To atobe

Now the 'brilliance in reading' that you accuse others of not having is reflected in your own anxiety to score points.

Are you changing my posted words to as - the gov's hypermarket and supermarket, or did I state in very simple words that hypermarket and supermarket in Malaysia are located in large urban population centers ?

It was clearly stated in your A.C. Nielsen's report that - "In South-East Asia, the picture differs, with Singapore the only market where the modern trade dominates."

Is it not a fact that the majority of supermarkets in Singapore is dominated by Government Linked - (not owned) - NTUC Fairprice ?

NTUC FairPrice Co-Operative is a supermarket chain based in Singapore and the largest in the country. The company is a co-operative of the National Trades Union Congress or NTUC. The group has 100 supermarkets across the island, with over 50 outlets of Cheers convenience in the island. NTUC FairPrice has partnered with ExxonMobil to run several stations with a FairPrice branding at the minimarts at their stations. The supermarket has a slogan known as Singapore's very own.

Do you need a more brilliant light to see that being the largest Supermarket store in Singapore, it is obvious that it will have the largest share of the market and revenue ?

I got confused by your statement:

Yes, there is no denial that modern supermarkets and hypermarkets are making their entry into Malaysia, Indonesia and even Vietnam - as reported in your A.C. Nielsen report.

However, the traditional neigborhood grocery stores continue to thrive in the sub-urban and rural areas - and away from the MAJOR URBAN CENTRES where the hypermarket and supermarkets will have the needed larger captive populations centers to form its base.

Here, i thought you were talking about the situation in singapore.

Then again, at the end of it all - after one earlier diversion, with another one here - where is the direction of your post in relation to this thread ?

If this does not prove that the Singapore Government's involvement in business - especially in the new hypermarkets and supermarkets concepts - have not already killed private enterprise in the neighborhood provision shops and grocery stores ?

Well, it's partly your fault, because you didn't indicate which country/countries you were talking in the second paragraph.

Again, you misunderstand what i say, of course when you compare NTUC chain of supermarkets and convenience stores, with individual supermarket chains like cold storage, then NTUC is the largest, that's true. But what i'm saying is that you have to compare ALL THE OTHER SUPERMARKET CHAINS AND WITH THOSE WHICH BELONG TO NTUC. Otherwise, how are going to show that NTUC dominate the grocery modern trade in singapore in terms of no of stores? Let's look at the figures, NTUC has got slightly more than a 100 supermarkets and cold storage has got about 80 supermarkets. So this shows, that the two chains dominate the market or it's called a virtual duopoly.

Ok, i should have told you earlier, when we are talking about the share of modern trade, we are referring to the sales in modern trade. So this means that even if there are many stores in a certain area, but it doesn't mean that the share of sales will be proportionate to the no of stores in that area. Let me give you an example.

Area 1 = 10 stores, share of sales = 30% of total sales at national level
Area 2 = 6 stores, share of sales = 50% of total sales at national level

this means that even though area 1 has got more stores than area 2, a larger share of sales still goes to area 2. It doesn't necessarily mean that just because you have more stores than another supermarket chain, that you should have more sales. And to proof that, we need to look at the data. So this means that you have to show the share data of NTUC and compare that with cold storage data and with the total combined share data of the other supermarkets. Ultimately, share of sales is more important than no of stores.

bigmouthjoe SG

Hehe Singapore can do business one meh… haha. In the past maybe, but now you start a business just to survive….

saffron60 SG

First of all, what is your definition of 'more competitive retail price'? And how do you compare this situation between msia and singapore? It may seem to you that the ringgit is weaker, therefore msia should end up paying a higher price for the building even if the land price is lower. Do you have any evidence that msia imports the amount of cement, steel bars, and most building materials that should make the prices of buildings more expensive? Again, this is your theory...but you show no proof. You cannot ignore the supply chain process and just focus on the strength of the sing dollar. At every step of the supply chain process, someone gets a 'cut' and this drives up the cost of the product. These so called active 'Consumer Price Inspectors', do you know how they operate? do you think they are able to cover the whole of msia? Why is it during chinese new year every yr, the chinese get slaughtered with 2 or 3 times more than what they usually pay for food? Again, those are just your theories, in theory, consumers are suppose to get protection, but in reality, it doesn't always happen. what i'm explaining to you are the realities of the market, the supply chain is a reality, so you can't ignore that it exists.

About the cost of construction in sinagpore, you also have to consider the higher cost of living in singapore compared to msia, that's why a construction worker in singapore gets paid more than in msia.

About the 'NTUC Fairprice towards Singaporean Union Workers, its prices are not exactly 'FAIR'. , you have to compare their prices with other supermarkets in singapore in order to get a fair comparison. It doesn't make sense to compare that with the same items in msia and say that the prices in singapore are unfair. Like that i can also say, the price of mineral water in UK is much higher, so the prices in UK are unfair or i can also say, the price of mineral water in indonesia is much cheaper, msia prices are unfair.

saffron60 SG

With a stronger dollar, and following the economic philosphy of comparative advantage, we were supposed to be able to buy cheaper primary and agricultural products for our daily essentials; yet the produce sold in the Singapore hypermarkets or supermarkets - are all much higher than those found in Malaysia.

Are you some connosieur of water, with your taste honed from a taste of fine wine ?

Bottled water consist of only mineral and distilled water - whatever the brands sold in Malaysia, the difference is only 10 or 20 sens.

The bottled mineral and distilled water sold in Malaysia, may not carry the same label as NTUC Fairprice will have their own house brands; while other Singaporean supplier may prefer to have their own OEM brand, and still retain the label indicating "Produced in Malaysia".

You remark about bottled water sold in msia is completely off, there are many brands in msia, example, 1.5 lit, the prices of cheap to mid range brands are between RM1.00 to RM3.00 and the more expensive imported brands can be as high as RM6.00 or more. Looks like i know more about bottled water in msia than you. What century do you live in? Haven't you heard of what's called a BRAND? And the pricing which is associated with brands, the same with bottled water lah....

Why are you complicating a simple subject of eggs by spreading across several continents away ?

Why pick UK, and not Australia, or China, or Korea ?

Grade A eggs in Malaysia are sold at a controlled RETAIL price of 20 to 35 sen, which is about 0.15 cents - Malaysian retail price in Singapore currency.

If at this price, the Malaysian distribution chain will hive off 30 percent to cover their costs, this will make their wholesale price to be somewhere 0.245 sen or 0.12 cents.

Singapore's NTUC should be able to knock off another 10 per cent with its ability to pay cash and taking a bigger load for its more then 100 outlets.

With a stronger currency and ability to buy in bulk, and with shorter or less complex distribution tiers, we are paying much more then the Malaysians.

I already talked about the supply chain process, the example you give here, is a very straightforward example in theory, but it does not apply in the real world. The supply chain process is longer than that, each time it passes through someone hands, that person makes a profit from it. It's not a simple 'percentage' of costs like what you just said. Anyway, you only talk about msian costs, what about singapore's cost e.g. retailer, distribution, so forth? And when we talk about the price, you also have to look at market factors as well, such as price perception, demand..and others. To go into business is not easy, there's a lot of things to consider.

I HOPE I GET YOUR ATTENTION HERE, I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT I'LL BE GOING OVERSEAS FOR WHILE, NOT SURE FOR HOW LONG SO I WON'T BE ABLE TO REPLY YOU ANYTIME SOON. SORRY IF I SOUND PRESUMPTIOUS AND DEFENSIVE BUT I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK THAT I'M 'CHICKENING' OUT IF I DON'T REPLY TO YOU. KNOWING YOUR STYLE OF WRITING, YOU PROBABLY WILL THINK THAT I HAVE . SO WHILE I'M AWAY, PLEASE BE A GOOD BOY, DON'T SMEAR MY GOOD NAME. I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO SHOULD SMEAR MY OWN NAME. THANKS.
Mr. Green

« Previous Page Next Page »