Government determined to increase population to 7 mil in 2030.

(16-02-2013, 08:02 PM)Contrarian Wrote: I believe they are riding on the wave of asset buying during the low interest rate era, to influence voting behaviour through vested interests. Some home owners who have a lot of physical assets based here, will vote based on the value of their hard assets, rather than based on which party they believe serve their interest best for the long term. That is why I see many condos sprouting up in different estates... And is one reason Potong Pasir was won back by Sitoh YiPin (the other reason was Chiam See Tong nominating his wife for election...

PAPies is the biggest landlord and land owner of Singapore.
Capland, Kepland,Sembland, JTC, HDB, URA, LTA, aiyo countless lar... so who benefit most?

Those 'CLB' ministars bonuses are pegged to GDPgrowth, so 6.9 milo benefit whose most....oops cbl means "chaik leow bee"

is our tasty NEWater enough for 6.9m bo?

(17-02-2013, 01:15 AM)pianist Wrote: is our tasty NEWater enough for 6.9m bo?

Not enough but our liquid discharge will be recyle to produce NEWater for our dear future foreign immigrants/workers in order to become Sustainable Inclusive Nation.

sure, pricing strategies differs for each type of residencies...

fr wangsayso blog

Shocking Statistics About the Poor in Singapore
Holy cow. Singapore is doing much worse than I thought. An excerpt from the TODAY newspaper:

Acting Minister for Social and Family Development Chan Chun Sing gave figures to show that incomes at the bottom continue to rise but said the Government will do more to help low-income Singaporeans.
He was responding to Nominated MP Tan Su Shan's question on social mobility.
The real median gross monthly income for employed residents increased 1.3 per cent a year from 2002 to 2012, after rising 2.7 per cent a year from 1996 to 2002, Mr Chan said.
For the lowest 20th percentile of employed residents, their real gross monthly income rose 0.1 per cent each year from 2002 to 2012 and 2.2 per cent a year from 1996 to 2002.
0.1 per cent? That's effectively zero. Especially if you are in the bottom 20 percentile.

Imagine if your real gross monthly income was $1,000 in 2002. Ten years later, your real gross monthly income would have risen to about $1,010 in 2012.

So after one full decade of "national progress" under the PAP government, your quality of living has increased by the value of 2 packs of toilet paper at NTUC Fairprice.

I wonder if Chan Chun Sing managed to keep a straight face, when he said in Parliament that "incomes at the bottom continue to rise".

(17-02-2013, 09:50 PM)pianist Wrote: fr wangsayso blog

Shocking Statistics About the Poor in Singapore
Holy cow. Singapore is doing much worse than I thought. An excerpt from the TODAY newspaper:

Acting Minister for Social and Family Development Chan Chun Sing gave figures to show that incomes at the bottom continue to rise but said the Government will do more to help low-income Singaporeans.
He was responding to Nominated MP Tan Su Shan's question on social mobility.
The real median gross monthly income for employed residents increased 1.3 per cent a year from 2002 to 2012, after rising 2.7 per cent a year from 1996 to 2002, Mr Chan said.
For the lowest 20th percentile of employed residents, their real gross monthly income rose 0.1 per cent each year from 2002 to 2012 and 2.2 per cent a year from 1996 to 2002.
0.1 per cent? That's effectively zero. Especially if you are in the bottom 20 percentile.

Imagine if your real gross monthly income was $1,000 in 2002. Ten years later, your real gross monthly income would have risen to about $1,010 in 2012.

So after one full decade of "national progress" under the PAP government, your quality of living has increased by the value of 2 packs of toilet paper at NTUC Fairprice.

I wonder if Chan Chun Sing managed to keep a straight face, when he said in Parliament that "incomes at the bottom continue to rise".

And they still refuse to implement a minimum wage because they claim we will lose our competitiveness... Yet the salary of the ministers must be pegged to the top few high-paying jobs to attracts talents to join.. Double standard

On the topic of minimum wage.... Just sharing an observation...

I was dining in a busy dim sum restaurant in HKG two months ago with some locals. It was clearly understaffed during the lunch peak, and we were not in the city but out in the New Territories. We had to get our own baby chairs and chopsticks and sauces... I asked the locals why such a busy restaurant as this had so few staff. I was told since implementation of min wages, the restaurants couldn't afford hiring more. And those on the job did not have much motivation cos firstly, they were on the min hourly wage hence unlikely to be replaced, and secondly, they could easily switch to another similar job without fear of any loss of income.

I've no strong views on min wage policy. As with most things, there's no right or wrong, just choice of trade-offs. In my view, One is pro-enterprise, the other pro-social.

As I posted in another thread......I asked.....where is the real gross monthly income from 2006 to 2012.....why 2002 to 2012? Think about it.....

(17-02-2013, 09:50 PM)pianist Wrote: fr wangsayso blog

Shocking Statistics About the Poor in Singapore
Holy cow. Singapore is doing much worse than I thought. An excerpt from the TODAY newspaper:

Acting Minister for Social and Family Development Chan Chun Sing gave figures to show that incomes at the bottom continue to rise but said the Government will do more to help low-income Singaporeans.
He was responding to Nominated MP Tan Su Shan's question on social mobility.
The real median gross monthly income for employed residents increased 1.3 per cent a year from 2002 to 2012, after rising 2.7 per cent a year from 1996 to 2002, Mr Chan said.
For the lowest 20th percentile of employed residents, their real gross monthly income rose 0.1 per cent each year from 2002 to 2012 and 2.2 per cent a year from 1996 to 2002.
0.1 per cent? That's effectively zero. Especially if you are in the bottom 20 percentile.

Imagine if your real gross monthly income was $1,000 in 2002. Ten years later, your real gross monthly income would have risen to about $1,010 in 2012.

So after one full decade of "national progress" under the PAP government, your quality of living has increased by the value of 2 packs of toilet paper at NTUC Fairprice.

I wonder if Chan Chun Sing managed to keep a straight face, when he said in Parliament that "incomes at the bottom continue to rise".

(18-02-2013, 02:51 AM)Behappyalways Wrote: As I posted in another thread......I asked.....where is the real gross monthly income from 2006 to 2012.....why 2002 to 2012? Think about it.....

(17-02-2013, 09:50 PM)pianist Wrote: fr wangsayso blog

Shocking Statistics About the Poor in Singapore
Holy cow. Singapore is doing much worse than I thought. An excerpt from the TODAY newspaper:

Acting Minister for Social and Family Development Chan Chun Sing gave figures to show that incomes at the bottom continue to rise but said the Government will do more to help low-income Singaporeans.
He was responding to Nominated MP Tan Su Shan's question on social mobility.
The real median gross monthly income for employed residents increased 1.3 per cent a year from 2002 to 2012, after rising 2.7 per cent a year from 1996 to 2002, Mr Chan said.
For the lowest 20th percentile of employed residents, their real gross monthly income rose 0.1 per cent each year from 2002 to 2012 and 2.2 per cent a year from 1996 to 2002.
0.1 per cent? That's effectively zero. Especially if you are in the bottom 20 percentile.

Imagine if your real gross monthly income was $1,000 in 2002. Ten years later, your real gross monthly income would have risen to about $1,010 in 2012.

So after one full decade of "national progress" under the PAP government, your quality of living has increased by the value of 2 packs of toilet paper at NTUC Fairprice.

I wonder if Chan Chun Sing managed to keep a straight face, when he said in Parliament that "incomes at the bottom continue to rise".

Yes! WHY?
Why the last election still 60 % leh?
i think i know.
But your Q is too cheem for me leh.
Only have O level basic maths, you know.
So since you highlight again, can you share leh?

(17-02-2013, 01:15 AM)pianist Wrote: is our tasty NEWater enough for 6.9m bo?

Our NEWater is mainly for non-domestic use and cannot be drank directly!!!