Originally posted by snow leopard:
yes but that involves sacrifices on the part of us citizens for not
having to drive isn't it? so what do we get in return for our
sacrifices? all the money from the exhorbitant COE and car import
tariffs have already gone into the govt's pockets. what do we get
in return?
OMG, you are so narrow minded and self centered. You're the type
of person that complains when you don't get to drive; complains
it's too expensive to drive when you get to drive; and complains
about the traffic jam when it's cheap to drive and own a car.
seriously, what solution do you have? widen the road? reclaim more
land? what would you have done if you're the government.
a good opposition/government not only needs to be able to spot a
problem but understands the problem and provide concrete
suggestion/alternatives.
this is corny but JFK said," ask not what your country can do for
you but what you can do for your country."
furthermore, there is a limit to how much transportation operations
can be scaled, which is essentially the carrying capacity of roads.
beyond a mininimum efficient size when roads and trains are fully
utlilised, you cannot further increase scale without straining the
system and worsening service levels. now we're already rubbing
shoulders in MRTs, if you increase the population to 7 million, we
would have our face hard pressed against train doors. i wonder if
you really understand the implications of what you're saying.
are you saying cars are cheaper here in singapore than in hong
kong?
I wonder if you really understand the concept on economies of
scale. I can't really be bother to explain these fundamentals.
Suppose we have 7 million and we can now reduce the cost for public
transport. You'll be complaining about having to squeeze into
trains.
And yes. The total cost of ownership for cars are cheaper here in
Singapore than in Hong Kong.
nope, not wrong. you don't seem to understand simple economics yet
you have the cheek to lamblast the opposition for not knowing their
economics. don't you know what purchasing power parity is?
supposing, i can either earn US$10 in US or earn SGD $10 in SG.
let's say the conversion rate is 1 US$ = 2 SGD. if a big mac costs
1US$ in the USA, because of purchasing power parity, the same big
mac has to cost SGD $2 here in SG. so while in the US, i'm only
spending 1 US$ out of my 10 US$ for my big mac, here i am spending
SGD $2 out of my SGD $10 paycheck. i'm twice as poor here as
compared to my counterpart in US.
So you think a BigMac meal cost US$4 because it cost about S$6
here? Then I conclude that not only have you not been to US, you
are just plain stupid to think everything has constant cost
regardless of where you are.
How much do you think a BigMac meal cost in Malaysia (I sure you
must have been to Malaysia)? That's right RM$6! But wait, should it
cost RM$12 since it cost $6 here???
Like I've said. If you're earning SGD and spending it all in US.
Then yes. You are poorer. Likewise, if you take all your SGD and
spend only in Malaysia, then you are wealthier. But if you take
your SGD and spend it in SG, it's the same as a Malaysian taking
his RM and spending it in Malaysia.
Please don't be a fool and make your statement without doing your
homework. That's how most of our opposition get clipped.
I'm talking about relativity.
