="Johnnian"][quote="robertteh"][quote="acotis"]Robertteh,
It is dangerous to generalise like you did. You speak as if you are
very sure of the internal budgetting of the government. Are you? Do
you actually gather information on their accounts and after much
tabulation realise that the taxes are actually used more to cover
losses? No offence, but i find it hard to accept your argument. If
you have detailed evidence, please provide them.
Robertteh
Dangerous - based on whose perception? Is it not dangerous to deny
problems or access to assets as requested by ex-president Ong Teng
Cheong in that problems will become greater if there is no
accountability and transparency on asset management on the part of
government.
Is it not more dangerous if people cannot see what is being done to
their monies with clearly established facts and good corporate
governance?
Taxes are meant to cover the government's operational costs.
They fund a range of support services that the government provides
for the citizens. Some goes to helping the poor break the poverty
cycle, for example. Theres no free lunch in this world. By using
the phrase "double taxation" you have just insinuated that the
government spends too much in access for too little in return. Can
you prove that?
Robertteh
Lands acquired by the government under the Land Acquisition Act
belong to the people. If so, has the HDB the morality to charge HDB
Flats at or close to market values plus inclusion of land costs
again. Is this not double charging for land or double
taxation?
I appreciate a good argument. If it is well supported, I will
have no choice but to concur. But unproven claims do not make a
good argument.
Robertteh
For the rest of major policy errors please visit page 11 of
"Definition of True Democracy" thread of www.sgforums.com under
"Speakers' Corner". I have given many suggestions with facts to
Feedback Unit since 2001 such as the danger to produce many
educated unemployed under persistent academic education system etc.
I have also pointed that it is wrong for government to compete
against people for business in the domestic sector of economy. Many
other suggestions are awaiting their attention and I hope they will
consider citizens' views and make changes.
So I do not just criticise wrong policies but I am giving them
suggestions. Do not get me wrong that I am anti-government or
criticising without facts.
Did they includes land cost? I dunno, still young havnt buy HDB
yet. So you means when we buy the HDB flat ... there is a sub fee
on the land itself ? Is the fee huge? or its just the maintenance
fee of the land rather than the requisition of the land?
If it is the maintenance fee of the land, then how much ? Our
surroundings is actually quite nice with garden etc. I dont mind
paying that maintenance.
Robertteh
The first principle in any human progress is without doubt
openness, discussions and deliberations as it is only when majority
of citizens are interested to contribute to the governance that
there could be the best solutions and choices that lead to progress
and competitiveness.
Singapore leaders have been promoting a system to cultivate the
bests of crop of the cream. Fair enough, we need to motivate people
to study hard and excel there is no disagreement with such a system
of meritocracy.
However, such a system may be too narrow that tend to confine to
promotion of the academics and public administration without
broad-based practical knowledge application and related
entrepreneurship and creativity in the population.
Singaporeans have been denied of many opportunities to train the
people to excel in applying practical knowledge applications and
innovations. The great number of elites produced by our academic
system of education have not upgraded our competitiveness or
entrepreneurship or nurturing of a more innovative and knowledge
application society.
Many academicians produced are now joining the rank of the
unemployed because there do not possess the passions or drive or
other practical abilities to become economically competitive or
create jobs. This failure of our academic education system is very
clear for all to see.
The one-party system is anti-progress and anti-mass participation
in knowledge application.
Today the leaders still cannot see their own lack of understanding
of what work in the actual world. They are still persisting in
their past shortcomings and all the academic assumptions. They are
the ones to have to change before the moribund economy can turn
around.