Why does Dr Chee/SDP appear to take delight in the Sands IR financial problems?

[kakowi]

Quote:
The SDP has been pointing out the faults and failings of the PAP, but without showing any evidence of a viable and better alternative.



If pointing out the faults/failures of the PAP must be accompanied by evidence of a viable and better alternative, then:

(1) which political party has managed to do this?

(2) there is a confusion between the role of the opposition party as a checks and balances versus that of an alternative government.

A party capable of being an alternative to the PAP will definitely want to show that they have viable and better alternatives.

A party capable of only providing checks and balances to the PAP dominance will want to point out the negative implications of PAP rule and suggests that their presence can help to improve the PAP to the benefit of ALL voters

If the opposition of today fancy itself as already capable of being an alternative government, then it will be useful to know which opposition party we are talking about: WP, NSP, SPP, RP? If so, what viable and better alternatives have they espoused? And on what credentials?

To-date, the opposition cannot even function in the checks-and-balances role. Except for the WP and SPP, the others are struggling to make a dent in the PAP armour. As for WP and SPP, what checks-and-balances or alternative government activities had they been performing?

But the point in the immediate last paragraph is to use the same yardstick on the parties who actually got into parliament. And if that is done, the opposition parties block each other.
​

(3) The PAP had set the elections machinery into motion. Today newspaper reports said that the government definitely will not bail out Sands. The PAP has started to show its value to the voters. Soon carrots and sticks will come out.

Hopefully the opposition parties and their supporters will also start to prepare their own ground.

And if they cannot agree with each other, to keep out of each other's hair.

Collectively, it is hoped that they can meet the challenges of convincing the marginal voters as well as the newly minted citizens, who i believed, will make all the difference to the Election 2009/2010/2011.

Otherwise it will all end up in another exercise in futility, blaming the sinkies, fence sitters, PAP, electoral process and boundaries, the money politics, etc, etc, everyone and everything, except themselves for not wanting to be in the public's mind, constantly and consistently.

​

Just as voters have a responsibility to themselves and their nation to vote for a better PAP and a better opposition, the opposition themselves have a responsibility to help the voters make good decisions.

I hope the opposition parties and their supporters will start their groundwork soon and if they cannot co-operate, at least to stay out of each other's way. There are enough GRCs to go around.

 

[The_Latest_H]

Bro, this is the most relevant point that Singaporeans must understand. Glad you brought it up.

Singapore cannot operate in a vacumn. HK has been our main competitor in many ways - tourism, financial hub, entrepot and consultancies. HK has Disneyland all we have got is a 30 years series of failures with Sentosa. We needed a big hit. We sat on our hands, then came Macau. We can't sit around and watch the world go by.

We don't have much of an option. We either attempt to retain our share of the tourist dollars or pay the price.

SDP and Chee have a poor record of assessing the needs of Singaporeans and it just show their consistency in this regard.

I saw Macau in its seedy days and the transformation now is rather remarkable. I have no doubt that there will be social issues and lives lost and this where we need to pressure the govt to act fast and quickly

Well, Macau had next to nothing; the casino option, that is to liberalise and remove Stanley Ho's monopoly was the best and last option.

And Macau is not an independent state; its self-governing, but belongs to China. It has a Big Daddy.

We however, don't have next to nothing. We are one of the financial hubs of the world, and a well-known trading port. Money is our business. As such, we have many options, and the IR should only be part of it, but not the front and centre of it. And as for Disneyland, do you honestly think that a built tourist resort can solve everything?

Don't forget the reason on why tourists still flock to HK is not because of Disneyland, but mainly because of cheap shopping, culture & entertainment, and good cheap street food. Things that Singapore are lacking slowly as costs goes up, and variety goes down.

Small businesses selling affordable, fashionable clothes, and shoes and good dim-sum are many of the main reasons why HK is also a touristy place, in addition to being a financial/trading hub.

 

[cleareyes]

Btw Dr Chee/SDP desperately need to attract a sound practical economic adviser, because as it stands their economic policies do not appear to pass muster. The real world does not fit in with manichean ideology, the sooner Dr Chee/SDP realise this the better.

going by what is happening to sdp, i think they need not just to attract a gd sound ecomoic advisor, they need to attract solid PR and marketing personal as well as the general public aint buying anything they been putting up.

 

[scroobal]

going by what is happening to sdp, i think they need not just to attract a gd sound ecomoic advisor, they need to attract solid PR and marketing personal as well as the general public aint buying anything they been putting up.

No need for so many. Just one politician is required.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Yes, then the electorate would have another rational reason to vote oppo at the next GE.

[/I]

Put this aside, PAP will screw up big time if the IRs don't generate the revenue as promised.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

I suggest you go visit Vegas and the Atlantis in Bahamas. Not Macau though, Macau appears to be a different biz model, heavily linked to mainland PRC.

Wait, why would anyone makes the assumption that we are really in the position to "fight for tourist dollars"? In my view, apart from being a transportation transit hub, we do not have any tourism assets or resources to depend on. Casino resorts will do the magic? I seriously doubt so.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

This is exactly what I told certain moral religious groups who rabidly opposed the IRs/casinos during the preliminary debates. No choice, now with a globalised connected world. Bottom line we need to preserve and create reasonably good paying jobs for the average Singgie. Hopefully the IRs/casinos shall be a success in the long term.

We don't have much of an option. We either attempt to retain our share of the tourist dollars or pay the price.

Dr Chee's apparent manichean ideology just does not cut it in the real world.

SDP and Chee have a poor record of assessing the needs of Singaporeans and it just show their consistency in this regard.

To me I think Macau is a bit different from what Singapore appears to be aiming for, as Macau is heavily reliant on mainland PRC. But you are right about the transformation. I too saw this happen to Vegas, from my visits there in the 70s/80s and in the late 90s/2000s. Also Atlantis in Bahamas. Generally very positive dynamic transformation.

I saw Macau in its seedy days and the transformation now is rather remarkable. .

I have always been neutral on the issue of gambling and not much of a gambler myself apart from the odd flutter, same goes for my family. However the social concern was first brought home to me when I had an informal discussion on the IR/casino issue with my secretary, where she mentioned the affects on family life as her father used to be a habitual heavy gambler. Afew other women later also brought this up to me, and I got the impression that quite afew women were against the casinos based on family values, although I note that gambling per se is gender neutral. Well then yes, hopefully something can be done about this, but I think at the end of the day individual responsibility is key, because gamblers always have other avenues to gamble, same as most other addictions.

I have no doubt that there will be social issues and lives lost and this where we need to pressure the govt to act fast and quickly

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Again with the "front and centre" assertion. Is this really true?

As such, we have many options, and the IR should only be part of it, but not the front and centre of it. And as for Disneyland, do you honestly think that a built tourist resort can solve everything?.

HK is a relatively more expensive place to visit compared to Singapore, even after the recent hotel hikes in Singapore. Perhaps the main difference between HK and Singapore is the so called "buzz" factor, with Singapore playing catch up.

Don't forget the reason on why tourists still flock to HK is not because of Disneyland, but mainly because of cheap shopping, culture & entertainment, and good cheap street food. Things that Singapore are lacking slowly as costs goes up, and variety goes down.

Small businesses selling affordable, fashionable clothes, and shoes and good dim-sum are many of the main reasons why HK is also a touristy place, in addition to being a financial/trading hub.

 

[The_Latest_H]

Again with the "front and centre" assertion. Is this really true?





HK is a relatively more expensive place to visit compared to Singapore, even after the recent hotel hikes in Singapore. Perhaps the main difference between HK and Singapore is the so called "buzz" factor, with Singapore playing catch up.

1. Look at all of their actions and words. Its arguable that the IRs have been portrayed as their main pill for economical growth, and now survival.

2. Your assertions are most likely true, but it also shows the effect of a government which allows a degree of social, economical and cultural freedom. This has allowed HK to be growing in all three areas, letting Hongkongers open up their own small businesses, and eateries, become a better financial hub and also become an entertainment/cultural hub.

A government that is pragmatic and governs on common sense, and not ideology often helps the country grow. A government that micro-manages may be to help the country grow very fast initially, but will later slow down because many people become dependent on top-down approaches by government. And if not because of the financial bubble earlier in the decade up to now, Singapore wouldn't have grown so fast- and crash down even faster.

We don't need to start another one that depends on financial bubbles. Doing the same thing over and over for the last twenty years won't bring us a different outcome- because as long as we repeat the same mistakes that we have done the last 20 years, the outcome would be the same.

Address the fundamentals, then we can start building the 2nd level. The blueprint must be right in most areas before we can proceed.

 

[angry_one]

If the SDP weren't there to point out the faults of this regime, would the PAP be on their toes to account for issues? Sure, they've given half-answered and shafted responsibility, but without parties like the SDP it'll be worse - the PAP won't even give a reply.

I don't think the SDP finds pleasure in this - that's PAP anti-opp propaganda. The SDP must call attention to the poor judgement and greed of this regime, so we all "walk in with eyes open."

Next agenda, draft a plan to govern sg a different way.

 

[scroobal]

To me I think Macau is a bit different from what Singapore appears to be aiming for, as Macau is heavily reliant on mainland PRC. But you are right about the transformation. I too saw this happen to Vegas, from my visits there in the 70s/80s and in the late 90s/2000s. Also Atlantis in Bahamas. Generally very positive dynamic transformation..

The Singapore model is a combination of Macau and Atlantis. The revenue stream is expected to come from rentals and MICE (Meetings, Incentives, Conventions and Exhibitions) with gaming taking a back seat. The Atlantis angle is to focus more family entertainment. The reason Macau came profitable was the locked rentals. For some reason, the press keeps on focusing on mainland PRC as natural born gamblers. The word that I got was that PRC mainlanders prefer anywhere outside PRC controls to avoid getting hanged for unaccountable funds used for gaming. Its also the reasoin why the whales cross continents to gamble.

I have always been neutral on the issue of gambling and not much of a gambler myself apart from the odd flutter, same goes for my family. However the social concern was first brought home to me when I had an informal discussion on the IR/casino issue with my secretary, where she mentioned the affects on family life as her father used to be a habitual heavy gambler. Afew other women later also brought this up to me, and I got the impression that quite afew women were against the casinos based on family values, although I note that gambling per se is gender neutral. Well then yes, hopefully something can be done about this, but I think at the end of the day individual responsibility is key, because gamblers always have other avenues to gamble, same as most other addictions.

Agree on the individual responsibility for those having trouble controlling themselves, this where the PAP has to bring on their legendary controls, high hurdles, excessive conditions which they apply wrongly in other society's fucntions.

 

[myfoot123]

This is where I take issue with Dr Chee/SDP, why appear to take delight in the Sands IR problems? .

Why pappee only willing to start casino biz two years ago while other countries have it long long time ago. If we have casino earlier, we wouldn't be in this stage of dilemma now, right? Is this another oversight of not wanting to have casino in the past?

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Don't think so. A sector no doubt, but not THE ONLY sector for Singapore's future growth and survival. If anything, the PAP government's main approach if any is to try and turn Singapore into the one of the "world's most liveable cities". Now whether it is going about doing it the right way and whether it succeeds remains to be seen.

1. Look at all of their actions and words. Its arguable that the IRs have been portrayed as their main pill for economical growth, and now survival..

Oh you have a point, no doubt. What you say is nothing new and numerous Singaporeans and foreign advisers have been giving such advise to the PAP government for years on these issues. To me I think the move should be towards a more centre approach i.e. combination of both government and private sector, due to Singapore's circumstances. At the moment the approach is still too Government centric and should move much more towards the private sector.

Btw I don't think the PAP government operates on any "ideology" apart from $$$ and retaining political power, appears to be pretty "pragmatic" to me.

2. Your assertions are most likely true, but it also shows the effect of a government which allows a degree of social, economical and cultural freedom. This has allowed HK to be growing in all three areas, letting Hongkongers open up their own small businesses, and eateries, become a better financial hub and also become an entertainment/cultural hub.

A government that is pragmatic and governs on common sense, and not ideology often helps the country grow. .

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Casinos have always been a hot potato moral social political issue in many countries, Singapore included. Why the sudden change? I stand corrected, but I get the impression that the PAP government came to the uncomfortable inevitable conclusion that if they wanted to keep afloat the important tourist and MICE revenue, something had to give, and the IRs appeared to be the best of a worst thing. Could it have been done earlier? Yes, but rightly or wrongly the PAP government declined for obvious reasons. Personally I would have gone ahead with the IRs/casinos earlier because I am neutral on gambling, but I do not have to account to the relatively conservative Singapore electorate.

Why pappee only willing to start casino biz two years ago while other countries have it long long time ago. If we have casino earlier, we wouldn't be in this stage of dilemma now, right? Is this another oversight of not wanting to have casino in the past?

 

[The_Latest_H]

Don't think so. A sector no doubt, but not THE ONLY sector for Singapore's future growth and survival. If anything, the PAP government's main approach if any is to try and turn Singapore into the one of the "world's most liveable cities". Now whether it is going about doing it the right way and whether it succeeds remains to be seen.

Can't really see it succeeding, since they are doing the same way that has failed numerous times. They are repeating the same mistakes as in the past, building 2nd floors on foundations that are made of poker cards, and unless there's a God-given miracle, chances of succeeding are not high.

As long as the fundamentals aren't addressed, top-down approaches often sputter in the long run. And there's a long list of PAP initiatives that have sputtered simply because they were all almost top down and had no natural grassroot supports and cooperation.

Simply put when its the same guys who pursue the same old policies and politics of the past for the last 49 years, there won't be a different outcome.

Barack Obama was right about his Republican opponent, and of the Republican party in the US presidential GE recently. It can be reflected back on the PAP, who are essentially doing the same thing.

Btw I don't think the PAP government operates on any "ideology" apart from $$$ and retaining political power, appears to be pretty "pragmatic" to me.

They are pursuing Reaganomics to the maximum, which is essentially what neocons have done in their economics recently, and that by itself is an ideology- a faith that markets will solve everything, and social darwinism will help everyone. Besides if anyone hasn't understand the concept yet, government expanded and intruded on people's privacy during the Reagan era.

Its not about common sense policies or politics; strong, hardcore allegiance to "markets will solve everything; and everyone will benefit when we follow through hardcore to the concept of social darwinism" is itself an ideology. Money-minded governments who want to profit financially is itself an ideology.

Being loyal to money, and being blinded by money and riches is itself an ideology.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Perhaps the next 5 years are key. We shall then get a clearer picture as to whether PAP has succeeded or stands a reasonable chance of succeeding or whether PAP has failed. Oh and how pragmatic PAP is.

Can't really see it succeeding, since they are doing the same way that has failed numerous times. .

I am non partisan and no fan of PAP but I don't think that is true. If it was PAP would not even have initiated Comcare, Workfare and Medifund.

They are pursuing Reaganomics to the maximum,

 

[The_Latest_H]

Perhaps the next 5 years are key. We shall then get a clearer picture as to whether PAP has succeeded or stands a reasonable chance of succeeding or whether PAP has failed. Oh and how pragmatic PAP is.





I am non partisan and no fan of PAP but I don't think that is true. If it was PAP would not even have initiated Comcare, Workfare and Medifund.

Oh those three are just to switch and bait. Give you $500 in all these stuff individually in April but take away thousands away from you at the end of the year, through GST increases, transport and utilities increases, in the petrol tax and ERP.

Don't even mention the banks and CPF and their interest policies in terms of loans and mortgages for cars and HDB flats.

In the end these initiatives are what it is: lip service and superficial. And its highly political in nature and in a highly partisan manner. And in my opinion, I wouldn't even give them 5 years. Jack Welch of GE once said in his book Winning that he judges people by 2 years, and if they fall short, by 2 years they will be finding another job in another company.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Again not really true.

Comcare, Workfare, Medifund, Utilities rebates etc. these are quite good schemes in themselves, to help and assist those at the lowest bottom end, the bottom 10%. No doubt more can be done, should be done and a permanent structure should be set in place, but I can still see the positive aspects.

The problem as I see it arises from the fact that the average folks are the ones in the pickle being squeezed, the apparent "sandwich class". Long term the answer lies in creating reasonably good paying jobs for the average folks. Short term, well I guess the PAPs have to think carefully but quickly as this group appears to be hurting and the pain looks to be only getting worse before it can get better.

Perhaps PAPs should consider what Leslie Fong wrote in 15/11 ST, give out $$$ in form of vouchers to this specific group to help create domestic demand and boost the sagging economy, follow what GCT said about "paradox of thrift" but help the average folks at the sametime.

Btw 2 years is too short a time frame. Let's be realistic here. Saying that I am not saying that one should not be constructively critical over the 5 year timeframe as things slowly become clearer.

Oh those three are just to switch and bait. Give you $500 in all these stuff individually in April but take away thousands away from you at the end of the year, through GST increases, transport and utilities increases, and in the petrol prices.

Don't even mention the banks and CPF and their interest policies in terms of loans and mortgages.

In the end these initiatives are what it is: lip service and superficial. And its highly political in nature and in a highly partisan manner. And in my opinion, I wouldn't even give them 5 years. Jack Welch of GE once said in his book Winning that he judges people by 2 years, and if they fall short, by 2 years they will be finding another job in another company.

 

[The_Latest_H]

Again not really true.

Comcare, Workfare, Medifund, Utilities rebates etc. these are quite good schemes in themselves, to help and assist those at the lowest bottom end, the bottom 10%. No doubt more can be done, should be done and a permanent structure should be set in place, but I can still see the positive aspects.

The problem as I see it arises from the fact that the average folks are the ones in the pickle being squeezed, the apparent "sandwich class". Long term the answer lies in creating reasonably good paying jobs for the average folks. Short term, well I guess the PAPs have to think carefully but quickly as this group appears to be hurting and the pain looks to be only getting worse before it can get better.

Perhaps PAPs should consider what Leslie Fong wrote in 15/11 ST, give out $$$ in form of vouchers to this specific group to help create domestic demand and boost the sagging economy, follow what GCT said about "paradox of thrift" but help the average folks at the sametime.

Btw 2 years is too short a time frame. Let's be realistic here. Saying that I am not saying that one should not be constructively critical over the 5 year timeframe as things slowly become clearer.

1. The schemes in order to work well, must be depoliticised completely. Otherwise, it'd be ineffective, even if they are good ones.

2. Vouchers won't work long term until the government realises that all good jobs, especially professional ones with higher wages, and with high requirements for the education criteria and without glass ceiling are the best ways to get people involved in the broader economy and in the business sector.

3. You say 2 years is too short. Well, for your info, 5 years is way too long in the business world. 5 years in the tech sector is like a hundred years. Why should Singapore do any different, especially when we are heavily linked with business, and our economy is basically about capitalism? We don't run on our own schedule when it comes to business; we run to the world's schedule, and that's how HK, New York, London, Tokyo and Frankfurt operates.

 

[cleareyes]

No need for so many. Just one politician is required.

I m not refering to politicans, i m refering to specialist who could work magic, give the proper advice on getting trhe best thing done and not walk onto potholes and claim it to be the fault of their opponent.

I have yet to see any form of economic suggestion made by SDP as workable or even a solution to any of our present problems. where was SDP when govt raise GST? where were they when govt anyhow change the contribution rates for CPF? where was SDP when govt goive temasek free hand in moving our money in anyway they want?

it seems to me that in their blind quest for freedom, they have ignored the basic needs of singaporeans in general. they cant even feed singaporeans, y should singaporeans give them any support?