What Your Ministers Are Really Saying!

This coming General Election will be the 2nd time I’m taking a vote but it’ll be the first time that I’ve been intently reading and analyzing the words and moves of each political party, especially so the incumbent and the Ministers.

Judging from how the news has reported on issues that the Ministers has spoken about, I’ve come to notice that perhaps our Ministers probably lack the EQ?

A few examples perhaps will help:

Mah Bow Tan turned down a proposal by the NSP’s Goh Meng Seng to have a televised debate on housing issues but goes on to request the opposition (NSP and WP) to explain they’re strategies on reducing house prices.

IF THAT’S NOT GETTING INVOLVED IN A DEBATE I’M NOT SURE WHAT IS

But perhaps, Mr Mah just can’t do a televised debate ‘Live’ because he needs his senior execs to feed him with the answers. Maybe, just maybe… hmmmm

Lim Hwee Hua says that nationalising public transport can lead to inefficiencies.

HMMM.. I HAVE A BIG QUESTION MARK HERE BECAUSE THAT’S SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS INEFFICIENT AND WELL, THEY PROBABLY ARE SINCE TEMASEK HOLDINGS LOST SEVERAL BILLION DOLLARS IN INVESTMENT OF TAXPAYERS MONEY WHICH WERE NEVER EXPLAINED.

But this final one is my favourite!

PM Lee said that if a retired Minister supervises the new Minister, the new Minister won’t be able to do his job BUT former PMs working with the new PMs is workable.

HOW IS A PM DIFFERENT FROM A MINISTER? WHAT’S MORE LEE HSIEN LOONG HAS TWO FORMER PMs WORKING (SUPERVISING) HIM! AIYOO.. THIS GUY CMI LAA I THINK!!

If you’d like to read more on those articles.. here are the links to them in order

  1. Lowering State Land Prices Is Like Raiding The Reserves: Mr Mah
  2. Nationalising Public Transport Can Lead To Inefficiencies: Lim Hwee Hua
  3. GRC Scheme Here To Stay
I tell you, can crack up just reading all these!!

2 thoughts on “What Your Ministers Are Really Saying!

  1. Pingback: Daily SG: 18 Apr 2011 « The Singapore Daily

  2. Governments worldwide are privatising national assets and you seem to be firmly on the side of nationalisation?! I can only conclude that you are new to the debate on this topic. Either that or you’ve just stepped off a 30 year spaceship journey and have been out of touch!

    I think what Mrs Lim Hwee Hua is referring to is inefficiencies in the depolyment of state capital. Nationalisation of transport systems quite literally means that transport routes are run regardless of their profitability which inevitably results in inefficiencies . The math really is quite elementary. If too many unprofitable routes are run, the transport system becomes a cost liability with an insatiable appetite. Since its a nationalised asset, the ultimate debt onus is on the taxpayer. That means you and me in plain english.

    The only nationalised assets worlwide that are not a debt burden are those with stakes in commodity and resources. Even in such cases, the documented cases of gross negligence is overwhelming! The cost to the taxpayer in this case is more in terms of opportunity costs and revenue loss. If you’re one of those who complains about GST, then you probably won’t be too happy with a greater income tax burden that is inevitable with nationalised assets. At least with the GST, its a pay per use system. With income tax, whether you use the service or not, you still pay???!!

    The obvious solution is an equitable and well considered mix between the two. Allow the system maximum flexibility that a private commercial driven enterprise has while giving legislative oversight to the government in terms of routing. If possible, allow greater competition within transport modalities. This is of course impractical when it comes to the MRT as the capex would be entirely prohibitive for anything but the largest conglomerates.

    Temasek Holdings and GIC have been net contributors into the public coffers since inception. Their return on investment over an extended time frame has been quite laudable over benchmark indexes. Can you name me a sovereign fund that was unscathed during the credit crisis?

    Your sources of information are somewhat suspect. Even the most garlanded fund manager would have made some investment decisions that did not pan out in the way the expected. The more astute observer would have asked if they have made more good decisions than bad and in this respect, you would find few within the financial community who would wager otherwise.

    It would probably be a good idea, Abdillah, if you stopped allowing others to do the thinking for you by parroting some of the nonsense on the internet.

    Like

Share your thoughts on this post!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s