Originally posted by Salman:
Original post by robertteh:
[b]Petition to PM Lee Hsien Loong to lower utility charges as
follows:
(1) 20% across the board rebate
Reply by Salman
Why? What for? Especially when oil prices are still going up?
At a 2005 Asia Excise Taxation
Conference, Singapore 3 March 2005, it was stated that
"Today, the excise duty on motor spirit ranges from $3.70 to $7.10
per decalitre" (see Page 5 Point 21) .
At this low rate, it is surprising that Petrol Retail Prices in
Singapore remains as high as those found in Hong Kong, China,
Japan, UK and even the USA, where prices are open to market
forces.
These high petrol prices exist in Singapore despite the fact that
Singapore is the second largest refinery center (after Rotterdam)
in the World
Is some group profiting excessively with the Government approval
?
We know that Petroleum Companies claim increase in fuel costs to
justify price increases, we also know that Petroleum Companies pay
SIX-MONTH BONUS to their employees - whose wages form part of the
cost of fuel processing.
We all know that
Fuel Taxation is a tool of Government to achieve
specific objectives.
In Singapore, Fuel Tax was used as part of Government Policy to
control and dampen the rampant growth in the car population
size.
With the succesful implementation of the COE and ERP that has tamed
the wild growth of the car population, is there any need for the
Fuel Prices to be used as a tool ?
Any cut to the Fuel Tax will help to lower the Cost of Living and
help Singapore to be even more competitive.
Can the prejudiced and small mind of a smoked Salman understand
such issues ?
:Posted by robbertteh
(2) To put on hold any further fee increases for 5
years
Reply by Salman
Again why? For what? In the midst of a economic boom and increasing
oild prices? Doesn't that sound very irresponsible of you?
Economic boom ?
A July 2005 report had stated that High
Employment Rate had dampen Retail Sales in 2005 and in
a separate October 2005 report it was stated Singapore
Exports fell in September by 3.3 percent
What economic boom are you referring to ?
Where are those substantive sources that you are basing your
opinions on - when you expect "whiners" to prove the positions
taken ?
Why are you not applying the same standard to your type of
"whining" ?
:continuing reply by Salman
What if oil prices shoot to more than USD200 per barrel 5 years
later. Will the citizens be made to pay a surged increase and also
repay back losses by Singapore Power?
Is it possible for "oil prices shoot
to more than USD200 per barrel 5 years later" ?
Are you trying to be an alarmist, or simply trying to make an
impression ?
If you are attempting at being authoritative, at least make some
effort not to show the hollowness of your opinion.
In a report that indicated
Global crude oil prices look set to stay high
the trend does not seem to indicate the alarmist levels of US$200
per barrel in five years time.
Taking a long term look at the Oil Prices - History and
Analysis - at critical points of history, crude oil
price have seen some spikes as during the Post-WW2 Petroleum
Embargo, during the Yom Kippur War in which OPEC responded with an
embargo on countries that supported Israel; crisis in Iran and Iraq
had all affected oil prices.
However, we should not forget that oil prices is largely influenced
by major oil producing and consumer countries, and not necessarily
in anyone's favor.
Can your scenario of USD200 per barrel be true ?
What is the basis of such a statement ?
Was it made in your callous "no brainer, one-liner"
?
:Posted by robbertteh
(3) To grant temporary relief loan (capped at $5,000) to
long-unemployed.
Reply by Salman:
$5000 huh? Thats a lot of money and it will encourage continued
unemployment and make things worst. I think the present garnt and
reliefs will do better. Better still, you donate directly to teh
poor yourself.
Before you give your "knee jerk"
reaction - note that this is a TEMPORARY RELIEF
LOAN - how can your preferred "present garnt and reliefs"
do better ?
What is the basis of your statement made ?
At the published rate of 3.3% of the
population being unemployed, can we assume the number to be 148,500
?
Of these 180,000 unemployed, can we assume that 30% is experiencing
'long term' unemployment - which amounts to 44,550 workers.
The total number of 44,550 workers on long term
unemployment will receive a mere sum of $22.2 Million
only.
This TEMPORARY LOAN AMOUNT of $22.2 MILLION will mean alot more to
these 44,550 needy persons - than the 19 MINISTERS
receiving $38 MILLION ANNUALLY - and with the $38
MILLION paid as SALARY and NOT A TEMPORARY LOAN .
In the first place, were you not against handout at all ?
Confused by too long an attempt at running circles around us
?
:Posted by robertteh
It was recommended to financed the above-stated non-welfare reliefs
from endowment funds allocated from 20% of national surplus
(currently US$130 billions) and ministries and department
profit-making market-based charges e.g. sale of commercial land
sites, vehicle excise/COE/ERP.
Reply by Salman
20%?! Thats irresponsible! This will destabilise the country even
when there is no recession! So what happens when hard times come?
Remember, most of our assets are actually real estate in Singapore,
not cash.
What is the basis of all your hot air
statements ?
"most of our assets are actually real estate in Singapore, not
cash" . 
How and where do you think
GIC and
Temasek get those BILLIONS that they are
investing in their overseas financial adventures ?
How much do you understand about an Endowment Scheme that qualify
you to make your statements in such an authoritative hollow way
?
Before you shoot your mouth off in a trajectory into the vacuum of
outer space, have you checked your facts first, or is your interest
only to make the loudest noise within your infinite vacuum in
thought ?
