２０１１ 新加坡大选讨论区

kcchiew

...真的让我想了又想也不明白
当我们说『A建立在B下』，应该就是说『有了B才有A』或『B造成A』吧...
野火 发表于 17-5-2011 11:35 AM

我不知道，为何每次我提出数目和论据的时候（如：增长也有负数，PR是流失的），你为何总喜欢又扯上另一些“感觉”出来的事情呢？ （或用英文秀一大堆无聊话） 这样就会表示你有论点吗？



以下这些都是你的猜测：

....我一直在想为什么『大量的PR申请被批准』会造成『一万多人的流失量』，会不会有这样的情况？
1）大量PR被批准，不但造成新加坡公民难找工，PR也难找工，没有工作的PR的ReentryPermit不被Renew。
2）大量PR被批准，造成HDB屋价5年来升了S$150k，很多PR卖了HDB，放弃PR拿了钱走了。
3）大量PR被批准，造成PR人数太多，当了很久PR的老PR被要求成为公民，不愿意的PR的ReentryPermit不被Renew。...

野火 发表于 17-5-2011 11:35 AM

不管在什么情况之下，都是新加坡人力的流失， 无论是1万，还是3万，可能我们明年还能看到5~10万的PR流失，都不会是件好事。除非新加坡人能填补那些空缺，或急速增加自己的生产力。

新加坡有1万，3万或更多的人力资源能填补那些空缺吗？ 我很怀疑。

（这几个星期我部门的面试，听说应征者都差强人意，虽然说各国人都有，唯独少了。。。。新加坡青年。）

小3

我不知道，为何每次我提出数目和论据的时候（如：增长也有负数，PR是流失的），你为何总喜欢又扯上另一 ...
kcchiew 发表于 17-5-2011 12:40 PM

    你们公司里得都是高人，尤其是你们那层的，最喜欢强调自己搞设计的，楼上的都不叫engineer，哎呀，只有mit毕业的才有资格加入你们的团队啦。

野火

我不知道，为何每次我提出数目和论据的时候（如：增长也有负数，PR是流失的），你为何总喜欢又扯上另一些“感觉”出来的事情呢？ （或用英文秀一大堆无聊话） 这样就会表示你有论点吗？
以下这些都是你的猜测：
kcchiew 发表于 17-5-2011 12:40 PM

为什么每次你用来形容他人的话，我都会觉得很适合来形容你{:2_80:}
我不知道，为何每次大大们提出数目和论据的时候（如：新加坡人口没有负增长，PR也没有纯流失），你为何总喜欢又扯上另一些“感觉”出来的事情呢？ 这样就会表示你有论点吗？
以下这些都是你的猜测：
1）2009年新加坡PR流失了1万了，2010流失3万人
2）可能我们明年还能看到5~10万的PR流失

你这样厉害猜，我倒想请你猜测一下那些流失了的大大，是为什么流失的？

laugh2c

12. 小新反对党美女候选人Nicole Seah,大马有吗?不要跟我说Anwar女儿hor (180#)
martin515 发表于 17-5-2011 09:51 AM

各有千秋，各擅胜场啦。若要人像我除非两个我。

野火

重新看了长颈鹿对于新加坡的经济，GDP和未来发展的因素的几个贴，我尝试整理一下这个人的思维：
1）GDP是新加坡发展的唯一指标，GDP上的越多就越好。
2）新加坡的GDP是靠人维持的，所以人口不能下降（流失）。
3）人口下降的话，公司请不到人，会撤离新加坡，很多MNC也会因为找不到人而不来这里开分行。

我不是念经济学的，可是根据我对经济的有限了解，我会觉得这个人虽有第一世界的公民权，却有第三世界的思维。
1）GDP上的越多就越好，可是对谁越好呢？这也是本届大选反对党的重要论点，普罗大众并没有因为GDP的上升而受惠，比较5年前和现在就好了，GDP上了40%，可是普罗大众的生活有更好了40%吗？对我而言，我倒觉得5年前比现在好，可以回到5年前的话更好。
2/3）增加自己国家的人口，然后希望别的国家来这里设厂/分行，这不是第三世界的思维吗？为什么不读一读TanJeeSay的论文？我婆婆都懂得生10个儿女来提高家庭的GDP，所以通过提高人口来提高GDP简单易懂，可是局限在那里？新加坡可以无止境的让人口增长来提高GDP吗？新加坡可是第一世界国家啊。

紅慧星馬沙

回复 1325# 野火


    有後悔成為以 GDP 為唯一目標的國民嗎﹖

AhSengSg

[/url]


‘No one wants to join an unpopular party’






Many years ago when the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was on a visit to a developing Asian country, he received a last hour request for a meeting with the host leader.
As an accompanying journalist, I was alerted to it by the screaming police sirens when Lee returned an hour later.
This was in the 70s.
I asked the PM later what that was about, and he said, off the record, that the host PM had wanted to hear first-hand how Singapore — the world's new nation — had organised itself from scratch.
Lee had told him that a nation of three million people would need at least seven or eight like-minded capable leaders for the Cabinet.
And it had to be supported by an outer ring of at least 20 or 30 top civil servants who were dedicated and corruption-free, such as permanent secretaries, police chief, etc, Lee added.
Since then, he has seldom stopped talking about good leaders.
A few years later, several of us journalists were discussing a related subject — what would be the tell-tale signs that portended the People's Action Party (PAP) going into decline.
A veteran reporter replied: "A decline will start if fewer and fewer people turn up for its (recruitment) 'tea sessions'."
That was the Golden Era of the 70s, when the PAP was an inspiring party and shortage of talent seemed a far distant possibility — even before Lee tried to build it around sky-high salaries.
He granted scholarships to the crème de la crème students, monopolising them for the government — and, of course, keeping them away from rival parties.
The talents came. Many had a passion for public service. They obviously did not join for the money, since there was not much of it to talk of.
(The recent outflow of talent from the PAP to its opponents surprised many people, including myself.)
I remember the era of gotong royong (self-help) in which thousands of volunteers armed with shovels and changkols dug drains and paved roads free of charge.
Soldiers, civil servants and students toiled under the weekend sun; businessmen contributed sand and cement and hawkers offered food and drinks.
I was touched to see Lee and his ministers — in short-sleeves — leading these ant workers.
Lee, Goh Keng Swee and their colleagues never gave themselves large salaries or promised anyone the easy life.
Yet voters loved them and flocked to the call for sacrifice.
I think that was the magic of nationalism that was in all of us — even now with society so badly divided.
It needs a great leader with a bugle to revive it.
Today, Lee's son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, knows that to restore the PAP's former glory, he would need to attract a fresh crop of talented young leaders who have fire in their bellies.
When the government unveiled some candidates who appeared to be less impressive than their rivals, I marked it down for a poorer election showing.
Between now and 2016 (and beyond) if the PAP fails to gather people more capable and passionate than its rivals, it will be eventually replaced.
In recent times, Singaporeans have regularly lamented that the quality of political leadership since Lee's generation has declined — despite higher education and richer rewards.
Would Singapore have a better standard of living today if it were governed by the first generation leaders?
To this question, I generally get mixed answers.
Yet, when the question is reversed — Will the present leaders have done better had they been in power during the 60s and 70s?— almost everyone I met replied "No."
Fortunately, the seniors have left behind enough infrastructure and achievements to give us all a continuing lift upwards.
Lee Jr has a tough time ahead assembling a dedicated group of Cabinet leaders and bureaucrats with stout hearts, not just a propensity to earn top dollars.
Secondly, this search must be extended to the grassroots system for people who can make or break the PAP's image.
Most people don't deal face-to-face with the PAP.
They do, however, have dealings with people in Town Councils or with community representatives.
(I understand that constituencies are short of as much as 20 percent grassroots workers, which need to be filled by foreign permanent residents).
In the face of the PAP's tremendous resources, it seems like an easy task, but far from it.
Attempts to lure private sector talent fared poorly in 2011, possibly because of the wide public resentment against the PAP.
No one wants to join a party he thinks is unpopular.
What it failed to do in 2011, it will be even harder to achieve in 2016, especially with the political contests getting tougher.
With winning becoming more uncertain, talented Singaporeans may decide to give the PAP a wide berth in the next election.
But good Cabinet ministers, top-rate permanent secretaries and dedicated community leaders are needed by every party.
They are the backbone of a successful national entity, something the ruling party once had in abundance.
During the weeks before the election, it became apparent that the co-founder of Singapore was becoming more pensive than ever before about the long-term survival of his party.
Lee Sr probably knew his party's "tea sessions" were drawing a poorer response.
The future will depend on how the Prime Minister carries out his pledge to move closer to the younger electorate.
If he can pull it off, it could once again sweeten the ground for this political party that still possesses significant strength.

A former Reuters correspondent and newspaper editor, the writer is now a freelance columnist writing on general trends in Singapore. This post first appeared on his blog [url=http://www.littlespeck.com/]www.littlespeck.com on 14 May 2011.

kcchiew

......
1）2009年新加坡PR流失了1万了，2010流失3万人
2）可能我们明年还能看到5~10万的PR流失

...
野火 发表于 17-5-2011 01:06 PM

（1）我可没有猜测，我用的是数字推算；

（2）这是我估计的，但还是以2010年三万名PR申请批准的数据推测，不是凭空猜测。

kcchiew

你们公司里得都是高人，尤其是你们那层的，最喜欢强调自己搞设计的，楼上的都不叫engineer，哎呀 ...
小3 发表于 17-5-2011 12:56 PM

我这部门只需要理工学院毕业生，成绩中上，肯在面试前温习自己在学院学过的理论就行（多数来面试的，都以忘记了自己去年学的课文为理由，应答我们最基本的问题。 ）

kcchiew

。。。
1）GDP上的越多就越好，可是对谁越好呢？这也是本届大选反对党的重要论点，普罗大众并没有因为GDP的上升而受惠，比较5年前和现在就好了，GDP上了40%，可是普罗大众的生活有更好了40%吗？对我而言，我倒觉得5年前比现在好，可以回到5年前的话更好。
2/3）增加自己国家的人口，然后希望别的国家来这里设厂/分行，这不是第三世界的思维吗？为什么不读一读TanJeeSay的论文？我婆婆都懂得生10个儿女来提高家庭的GDP，所以通过提高人口来提高GDP简单易懂，可是局限在那里？新加坡可以无止境的让人口增长来提高GDP吗？新加坡可是第一世界国家啊。 ...
野火 发表于 17-5-2011 11:41 PM

1）我现在的月薪，比五年前高了34%，要我回到2006年？对不起，除非我退休，或被裁。

2）你以为现在当工厂工人可以申请当PR吗？ 荒谬！那些都是有专业文凭的知识份子，新加坡不要，大把国家要。（今天是我部门一位菲利宾同事的最后一天，她全家都将会移民美国，对新加坡来说，又损失好几位PR了。）

atchek

回复 1328# kcchiew


   我还在等你 为我提供的数据进行推论

AhSengSg

新加坡大选成绩会影响柔佛选民吗？

以前很多人说柔佛选民大多数投 BN (MCA, UMNO，MIC), 喜欢投执政党，有一点受到小新影响；但这次小新大选，有大幅度倾向反对党；很多人看到投反对党的好处，柔佛也看到了；这次大马大选，会影响到柔佛选民的投票吗？

atchek

回复 1332# AhSengSg


   我觉得 不会变天咯。。。 看看近来国家对柔佛的发展就知道。

AhSengSg

回复  AhSengSg


   我觉得 不会变天咯。。。 看看近来国家对柔佛的发展就知道。
atchek 发表于 18-5-2011 11:14 AM

   pap 在小新的发展不是更神速？
不会变天 -> but lose 1/3 of the seats?

也许忠叔比较了解柔佛民情。。。

kcchiew

回复  kcchiew


   我还在等你 为我提供的数据进行推论
atchek 发表于 18-5-2011 10:34 AM

请看1264#，我不重复了。

（补充：还有1301#。）

atchek

pap 在小新的发展不是更神速？
不会变天 -> but lose 1/3 of the seats?

也许忠叔比较了解柔佛 ...
AhSengSg 发表于 18-5-2011 11:21 AM

最多也是那样罢了咯。 柔佛人 虽然也面对通胀， 但好像没有新加坡够力

atchek

请看1264#，我不重复了。

（补充：还有1301#。）
kcchiew 发表于 18-5-2011 12:44 PM

   图表现实， 外国人 是PR 几倍哦。

卖华＄发達

新加坡大选成绩会影响柔佛选民吗？

以前很多人说柔佛选民大多数投 BN (MCA, UMNO，MIC), 喜欢投执政党， ...
AhSengSg 发表于 18-5-2011 11:03 AM

古来，柔佛州最多华人的其中一个选区，华人占了６０％，一直以来却是国阵的堡垒．
主要原因如下：
１）小园主居多，害怕投了反对党会被对付，此为马华５０年来连同乌桶努力的出卖华社，为选民洗脑的愚民政策居功不小！
２）小新工作者居多，近２．５的兑换率，他们（部分）不介意国家烂，自己过的好就好，除非自己被打抢或遇到罪案后才会反思寻求改变！
３）马来人的票也很重要，柔佛是全马唯一享有１５％房屋折扣的州；其它州５％－７％．
   

当然，还有部分选民因为单纯，被某些为了自己利益的东西，既是新闻出来了，还是睁着眼睛说瞎话，卖力的来新坛出卖族群！
－－－＞新加坡恐怖分子隆市落網 ...23 ．．．结果，就傻傻的把票投给了魔鬼！



结论：汉奸少一点，人民聪明一点．．．柔州，要变天指日可待！




ＳＩＧＮＡＴＵＲＥ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


一个马华，一个马国，一个舍身护华的细历马总，一个廉政爱民的纳吉总理．
马国，宇宙第一强，超级繁荣又富裕！

AhSengSg

PAP 大选成绩如此，现在必定修改政策，以后申请/renew PR，可能更难了。。

atchek