Search the Community

Some one is obviously of the opinion that the 4th Tan is unsuitable.. From ST Forum: http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/...ory_692473.html Puzzled by Tan Jee Say's presidential promises I AM curious about the reasons behind Mr Tan Jee Say's motivation to serve Singaporeans ('Another Tan enters the fray'; last Saturday). The investment adviser has resigned from the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). Yet he continues to promote his five-year $60 billion National Regeneration Plan, which he lobbied for as an SDP candidate at the hustings for the recent general election, in his presidential bid. Has he confused the role of Singapore's head of state with that of an opposition MP? If he is elected president, Mr Tan is reported to have stated that he plans to turn the grounds of the Istana into a central park. As far as I know, no country in the world, including the United States, has done this for the official residence of its titular head. Security is a key consideration. There is also the dignity of the office. Imagine a foreign dignitary being met by sweaty joggers on his way to an official meeting with our president and prime minister. Singaporeans may want a president who is not merely a rubber stamp for government policies, but it is just as important that we do not elect someone who rolls out populist schemes to appeal to the masses. Toh Cheng Seong

If elections were held today, who will you vote for? Note I never break down the opp party by name since if elections were held now you would be lucky if you could vote, not to mention choosing the party of your choice.

P*P : We increase GST to have more money to help the poor. P*P : No, we cannot increase welfare, otherwise all people become lazy. P*P : We have to increase ministerial pay to stay market competitive. P*P : You have to accept lower pay to stay market competitive. P*P : We're helping you to safeguard your money for retirement. P*P : There's no such thing as retirement. http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?t=69586

Recently I bought a relatively large ticket item from a megastore chain that I will decline to mention as of now On the invoice in black and white written by the salesman was that item collection was to be within 2-4 weeks. i am now in my 4th week of waiting and have nothing to show for it still. Yesterday night I called the store up and spoke to the staff they told me at first the salesman who sold it to me was on leave and they had no way of checking the item status despite the promised timeframe. (wtf?) but nevermind, I asked them so when would I be able to get it. They told me they had no idea. So i said ok and i called the megastore officer in charge that evening. This guy was very responsible and went to speak to the higherups and 30mins later the store guys told me that the stock wasnt even in singapore yet due to a "sudden" shortage and i would have to wait a total of 6 weeks which is 2 more weeks than written in black and white. So i asked the fella why wasnt this mentioned to me during the purchase? Why was it only written 2-4 weeks on black and white. I based my purchased decision of that particular item from that particular store instead of another source based on this fact. The salesman then LL say sorry but maybe that the salesman who sold it to me was new and didnt know. Yet i spoke to many other salesmen in the same store before purchasing who told me the same timeframe 2-4 weeks. Now is this fair to a customer? The fact that he made the decision based on advice from an informed source on deferment to a subject matter expert's knowledge and assurance. I would think there are 2 key problems with this company 1) They could not or were plain lazy to give me an answer why they couldnt deliver until pressed 2) My decision was based on the prescribed timeframe which was written in black and white and suddenly they have a delay who has to pay for this? What do you bros think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/automobiles/06GIZMO.html August 6, 2006 Technology Simply Amazing! (The Promises, Not the Gas Savings) By TIM MORAN THE federal Environmental Protection Agency maintains a full laboratory where it will gladly test a miraculous fuel-saving device for $30,000. But so far, the biggest customer of the lab has been the Federal Trade Commission, which uses it to debunk false advertising claims. Such claims of astounding mileage gains have increased as gizmos promising gas savings