Playing with numbers

In page A4 of the States Times, the article on inflation puts a positive spin on rising inflation rate. It says...

Some relief expected as July price rises ease to 6.5% after 26-year high

But on page B5, coverage of parliament news in the article 'Feisty exchange over aid for poorest households' at the bottom of the article it says...

The exchange took place as the Trade and Industry Ministry released figures that showed rising prices in the first half of this year had hit the bottom 20% per cent of Singaporeans the hardest. They faced an inflation rate of 7.4 per cent in the first half of this year, as compared to 6.9 per cent for the middle 60 percent and top 20 percent of households by income.

So in other words the bottom 20% of household by income suffered 7.4% inflation while the rest suffered 6.9%. So how is the earlier 6.5% derived?

But this is the States Times, very credible one according to the PAP. So who am I to doubt the numbers haha..

(Btw the 26-year high inflation number is 7.5% according to Bloomberg. So a drop from 7.5% to 7.4% must be credited to the unique and extraordinary competence of the PAP garment lah hehe..)

Also on page B5, news on upcoming public transport fare hikes changes.

The distance-based system will cut transport bills for four in 10 commuters who make transfers on their journeys now.

While MPs welcome this, they remain concerned that commuters who take direct services might end up paying more.

Isn't this a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul? The other 6 pays more, and end result you can bet yet more revenue for the transport operators. Once again what the pap garment has shown itself to be very good at is to keep the money within a pool, like the compulsory annuities like that. The garment itself does not come out a single cent, yet end up skimming a little for itself hahaha! sibei lan jiao sia!

Bus and train ridership are up like never before, but fares have been increasing every year whereas service standards have declined. Already twice this month i encountered two train disruptions on the East-West Line. One of which all the commuters had to vacate the train and wait for the next service. At all times of the day now, even 11pm on weekday nights, the trains are packed like sardines, and everyone i speak to tells me the situation is getting worse. Sometimes it is so packed until the aircon like not working, hot and stuffy... maybe the aircon really not working! The transport operators are making profits like never before, and they have the cheek to raise fares? KNNBCCB!

i started off writing this post in a cheery mood.. but now lim peh hot liao.. KNN!

SG lawyers pwned! LOL

The legal profession gets a little Uniquely Singapore treatment.

Aug 4, 2008
Why Law Society should not join political debate

IN HER column last Friday, 'Move politics beyond a spectator sport', Ms Chua Mui Hoong argues that in the game of politics, the Government should just be the groundsman who maintains the sports field, and allows others free access to play the game.

That is not how the government works in any country. In a democracy, when voters elect a political party to form the government, they are choosing the leadership team and its policies to take the country forward. Naturally, citizens are still free to participate in political debate, and to organise themselves into interest groups or parties to do so. But when views differ on important issues, the ultimate test of which should prevail has to be who can win the support of citizens for his point of view. This means political parties have to contest elections, put the issue to voters, and settle the matter through the ballot.

Ms Chua advocates empowering the Law Society to comment publicly on legislation, whether or not referred to it by the Government. Laws, however, are the tools to achieve social, political or economic objectives, and these objectives themselves are not the prerogative of lawyers, but should be decided in the political arena. Lawyers who want to join this debate, or promote their political views, are free to get together and form associations to push for these views, just like other citizens.

But to argue for the Law Society to join the political debate, as Ms Chua does, is to misunderstand its nature and role. The society is a statutory body created by Parliament for a specific purpose, namely to oversee the governance and discipline of the legal profession. There is no reason to give it a special status beyond this to play a political role, especially when no other professional body has such a right.

The council of the Law Society is elected by lawyers to oversee the profession. On political issues, the views of the Law Society, as expressed through its council, will not necessarily reflect the views of the profession as a whole. If the Law Society could participate in politics, we would in effect be licensing its council members to push their personal political agendas, using the resources, status and cover of the Law Society. This is in the interests of neither the legal profession nor Singapore.

S. Radha
Press Secretary to the Minister for Law

Ooooh... nothing like a little subtle reminder to make those lawyers tremble and know their places hahaha! And most Sg lawyers will not have the courage to speak the truth to PAP gahmen.

.