How does government win votes from the poor and new poor?

robertteh SG

This seems to be another conceptual assumption that if people are becoming poorer they could throw them a few crumbs to let them survive for longer but there will be no lowering of the excessive charges and fees as they would want to keep surpluses to pay for their own salaries and future retirements golden hand shakes amounting to billions.

With every crumbs thrown out to feed the poor to stop them from destitution or dying it will be more and more high costs to be borne by the not so poor the new poor and those who are not yet drowning.

When will they own up that the high costs problem are caused by excessive spending on their own overheads and salaries and excessively high bonuses in every ministry and department. So instead of solving the high cost problems, they would just pass on the burden to someone else and do not really care as long as they can push away the problem to someone.

It looks that the way they will be politically shrewd to look like doing something compassionate to the starving and near-dead and win their votes and yet do not lose their high fees needed to feed their own high salaries and high bonuses.

Such hand-out of the poors will only result in pushing up the costs to the not-about-to-die the new poor and it will become more and more difficult for these marginal citizens to survive.

At the most they would do something to the new poor and the not so poor but not rich next time when they should next join the deprived and dying in the line for subsidy..because then they will also get their votes in due course.

Atobe SG

How right you seem to be ?

Why is the government handing out subsidies to the lower incomes in our population, when at the same time it is allowing the oil companies and the electric utility companies to increase prices ?

These prices were increased due to the external prices of oil increasing beyond our control.

Yet external prices of oil has been reported to be decliniing over the last two months - as reported in the Straits Times - Saturday edition, 1 July 2006.

Giving a little out on one hand, and taking more back with two hands.

Is it any wonder that a separate Straits Times reported (this week) that the lower income has suffered a drop in its net worth, while a smaller section of Singaporeans have seen an increase ?

killstyle SG

u belibe in all these proponganda crap????

i dont even bother with that piece of $hit anyway.

teh only thing good about that thick wad of pang sai zhua is teh sports section and classified ads

robertteh SG

The petrol taxes were fixed very high at its inception to discourage vehicle ownership. When COE and ERP were introduced all the previous vehicle excise duty and inflated petrol tax should have been moderated or removed since COE and ERP were claimed to be the most effective way to price road usage to solve traffic congestion problem.

Car park surcharge at $60 per parking lot per month was the only one removed due to motorist shoppers boycotting shopping centres and the power of one had no choice. Other than where people took actions government will carry on double and triple taxing to get what it wants.

This kind of government - use of its legalistic power - to keep taxing and getting its way is what causes the whole economy to lose out and go down.

There have to be another major recessions or crisis or major migration of its own younger population before it will do anything. People need to use its power to get what they want too. Power versus power is the way to lower costs of living or get a fairer hearing.