PART ONE
atobe writes,
Is this not cleverness on the part of LHL, and being typical of
the style of the Ruling Party that formed this Government - giving
a little, and taking back just as much, if not MORE ?
Giving everyone the Saturday off, but making one work longer hours
during the weekdays.
The point is you are wrong in stating that getting
Saturdays off is tantamount to working fewer hours for more money.
But I do not see you acknowledging your error. For many, they are
quite happy that rearranging their work schedules gives them a
whole day off. Many are happy to work 30-60 mins more each weekday,
instead of coming back on Saturdays. Or put in another way, people
would be happy to work 9 hours from Mon-Fri (45 hours in all), than
work say 40 hours from Mon-Fri, and 3 hours on Sat, 2 hours on Sun.
Common sense isn't it?
atobe writes
Is it beneficial at all ?
The working housewives will end up getting home later to prepare
the meals for the family, staying up later to finish the household
chores - ironing and laundering, which if not done during the
weekdays, will end up as a huge pile that will have to be cleared
during the weekend.
Is this the way to spend the extra day of the week 'WITH THE
FAMILY' ?
It's certainly beneficial and welcomed by many,
especally those with families, and those who would prefer to have
the full weekend off. Working mothers (not housewives) may return
home an hour late, but I really do not think it's a big deal
(unless you insist on kicking up a fuss of course). It merely means
meal schedules have to be rearranged. It's one hour we are talking
about, not 5 or 6. Your exaggeration of a one hour delay resulting
in "staying up later to finish
the household chores - ironing and laundering, which if not done
during the weekdays, will end up as a huge pile" is amusing
to say the least. It appears you are trying too hard to press a
point. Maybe if mothers have to work 5-6 hours longer
everyday..there will be problems with household chores, but not 30
to 60 minutes
more.
atobe writes,
The unemployment figure for Singapore is now known to be 4.5%
(2004); but what is the current unemployment figure for 2004, for
all the countries that you have mentioned being taken from the CIA
World Factbook 2004 - with the figures still referring to 2003 ( ?
) How does Singapore's present unemployment rate of 4.5% (as of
August 2004) compare to the other countries that you have mentioned
- if the period is also compared to August 2004 ?
Most of the countries I used have maintained the unemployment
rates for a long period. The figures I used are the latest ones
available on an ANNUAL basis. 2004 is not over yet obviously. In
all instances, they have not fallen or gone up by
1% in the latest quarter. I will quote a few
here: UK is at 4.8% (from 5.1%), HK is at 7.3%, US at 5.4%. I hope
these satisfy your demand for exactness 
So, I would say Singapore is not doing too
badly.
atobe writes
Singapore's economy performed below 1% in 2003
Wrong again. To
be really picky (since you prefer precision), 2003's growth rate
was 1.1% (above official forecasts of 0.8%). I do concede that
growth from a low base does make the figure appear more
spectacular. However, this does not in anyway diminish the
importance of the fact that economic recovery has been made in the space of
12 months, SARS, Iraq war and all thrown in.
atobe writes
Certainly it will take time for the benefits to filter out to
every Singaporean, who have lost their jobs; but will it help the
Singaporeans, when the simplest middle ranking jobs are also open
to foreigners who are freely admitted into Singapore and accepted
into being PR too ?
I really have no wish to go into this here, but briefly: that is
a common misconception which has been pointed out many times.
Statistically, 9 out of 10 new jobs go to Singaporeans. (I suppose
you are thinking of the NTU dons and their clash with MOM.) Open
borders is a reality that everyone must accept, ultimately, it is
not the nationality that counts, but the skills that one has to
offer. It is a bitter pill that many (including I) find hard to
swallow. Would you employ a Singaporean by virtue of his
nationality (or even race, gender etc), even though he does not
possess the skills to perform, rather than a foreigner who is
competent and trained? It's common sense isn't it? Many foreigners
who take up professional jobs do so because there are simply
inadequate numbers of Singaporeans trained for it (e.g R&D in
biomeds and pharmaceuticals). They are NOT 'freely
admitted' to become PRs, but come into three different pass
categories as I am sure you already know. I do understand your
concern however that many foreigners excel in our local
universities, esp math science and engineering, and the number of
immigrants here have caused social tension (assimilation, worries
about job securities). But the alternative of not having skilled
people to support and propel the economy forward is even scarier,
esp when one thinks of the future. Let not your personal grouses
cloud the big picture.
atobe writes
If you believe that "Traffic congestion has always been heavy on
Saturdays, (and Sundays and public holidays too!) but not for the
reasons you stated- shopping, family-related recreational
activities" - then what can be the cause for the traffic congestion
on these Sundays and Public Holidays ?
The reason you
stated for traffic congestion is "Government Over-the-Counter Services will
stay open on Saturdays - leading to heavier traffic flow when
nearly everyone will adopt a 5-Day workweek. " The reasons I
stated for perennial congestion is just that: shopping,
recreational activities on weekends. These are my reasons, not
yours. Perhaps I did not articulate clearly (I really hope you are
not engaging in semantic games ).
