CPF was "100 per cent safe''

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
#71
(26-06-2014, 04:41 PM)freedom Wrote:
(26-06-2014, 04:22 PM)Temperament Wrote: i wonder too. But from different angle. Singapore being a little RED DOT i wonder why can't most of the opposition parties combine to form a strong, viable party that can at least replace 1/3 of the PAP member in Parliament. Until that happens in Singapore, i think there is no chance for the people of Singapore to have a real voice in Parliament.
i suppose everyone want to be the leader, sub leaders of the opposition party is one of the reason.

Let's see how many % of vote for PAPY in this coming GE.
i think PAPY doesn't care or worry too much.

Till then PAPY WAN SUI, WAN, WAN SUI.
Do i really have a choice?

You don't sound like people of your age. How could you make such statement that "Until that happens in Singapore, i think there is no chance for the people of Singapore to have a real voice in Parliament."? This is a big accusation of more than 50% of voters who votes for PAP not being the voice of the people of Singapore.

I can understand your frustration, but your statement does no good to you, or the people you vote for.
i simply mean after the five year one man one vote, does it means all the people who voted for the G has to accept everything the G "rubber stamp" in Parliament for the next 5 years?
And what about the people who didn't vote for PAPY?
Also better KWAI KWAI for the next 5 years?
Or else.....?
( i mean whoever is the G (not necessary PAPY) can't or shouldn't just roll over the citizens with rubber stamping in Parliament for the next 5 years after GE).

Right now we only has the Speaker Corner to KPKB.
And then what?
Who can veto the PAPY from "rubber stamping" in Parliament?
Nobody - for coming to 50 years already.
To me is Singaporeans manifesting 4 Ks characteristics at it's peak already.
WB:-

1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.

Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.

NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Lancelot - 23-06-2014, 01:54 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by specuvestor - 23-06-2014, 02:18 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by GPD - 23-06-2014, 03:25 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by weijian - 23-06-2014, 04:00 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by DP28 - 23-06-2014, 04:08 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Freenasi - 23-06-2014, 05:05 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by tanjm - 23-06-2014, 11:21 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by LionFlyer - 23-06-2014, 05:33 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by weijian - 23-06-2014, 10:26 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 24-06-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by kagemusha - 23-06-2014, 03:20 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by GPD - 23-06-2014, 03:28 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by touzi - 23-06-2014, 11:34 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 24-06-2014, 09:39 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 23-06-2014, 05:37 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 24-06-2014, 09:46 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 24-06-2014, 09:38 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by corydorus - 24-06-2014, 11:06 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by specuvestor - 24-06-2014, 12:29 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by investor101 - 24-06-2014, 03:05 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by izam - 24-06-2014, 07:38 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Zelphon - 24-06-2014, 07:58 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by WolfT - 24-06-2014, 08:13 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by izam - 24-06-2014, 10:53 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by corydorus - 24-06-2014, 11:37 PM
CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by ksir - 24-06-2014, 12:37 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by specuvestor - 24-06-2014, 03:03 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 24-06-2014, 03:35 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by ksir - 24-06-2014, 04:05 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 24-06-2014, 04:29 PM
CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by ksir - 24-06-2014, 03:21 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 24-06-2014, 03:30 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by kagemusha - 24-06-2014, 04:43 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Lancelot - 24-06-2014, 04:55 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 24-06-2014, 04:58 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by GPD - 24-06-2014, 05:04 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 24-06-2014, 05:10 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by GPD - 24-06-2014, 05:29 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 24-06-2014, 08:46 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by egghead - 24-06-2014, 09:17 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Freenasi - 25-06-2014, 02:42 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by kagemusha - 25-06-2014, 01:30 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 25-06-2014, 10:08 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by ksir - 24-06-2014, 05:07 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by thefarside - 25-06-2014, 08:00 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 25-06-2014, 10:34 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 25-06-2014, 10:52 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by chialc - 25-06-2014, 04:30 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 25-06-2014, 04:34 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Freenasi - 25-06-2014, 08:13 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 26-06-2014, 11:34 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 02:07 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 26-06-2014, 03:02 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Freenasi - 26-06-2014, 03:27 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 26-06-2014, 03:37 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Freenasi - 26-06-2014, 04:19 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by corydorus - 26-06-2014, 02:23 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 03:30 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 26-06-2014, 03:43 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by specuvestor - 26-06-2014, 07:08 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 03:54 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by kagemusha - 27-06-2014, 02:01 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 27-06-2014, 04:12 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 26-06-2014, 04:03 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 04:22 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 26-06-2014, 04:41 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 05:02 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 26-06-2014, 04:33 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 04:40 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 26-06-2014, 04:49 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 05:14 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 26-06-2014, 05:40 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 05:58 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 27-06-2014, 09:42 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 27-06-2014, 02:20 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 09:33 PM
CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by chialc88 - 26-06-2014, 10:35 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 10:56 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by egghead - 27-06-2014, 08:31 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 27-06-2014, 08:40 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by egghead - 27-06-2014, 09:33 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 27-06-2014, 09:45 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Freenasi - 27-06-2014, 09:54 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 27-06-2014, 10:06 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by egghead - 27-06-2014, 10:22 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 27-06-2014, 10:26 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by egghead - 27-06-2014, 11:13 AM
CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by chialc88 - 27-06-2014, 12:21 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 27-06-2014, 09:56 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CY09 - 27-06-2014, 10:47 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 27-06-2014, 10:52 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 27-06-2014, 11:02 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 27-06-2014, 11:03 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 27-06-2014, 11:21 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by egghead - 27-06-2014, 11:40 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 27-06-2014, 11:58 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by egghead - 27-06-2014, 11:46 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by yeokiwi - 27-06-2014, 12:58 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by corydorus - 27-06-2014, 01:20 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by egghead - 27-06-2014, 01:23 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by tanjm - 27-06-2014, 10:35 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 27-06-2014, 02:00 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 27-06-2014, 02:30 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 27-06-2014, 02:42 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CY09 - 27-06-2014, 10:44 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by tanjm - 28-06-2014, 12:10 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by egghead - 28-06-2014, 09:43 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by specuvestor - 28-06-2014, 11:35 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by corydorus - 28-06-2014, 12:08 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by NTL - 28-06-2014, 12:27 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by corydorus - 28-06-2014, 12:35 PM
CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by chialc88 - 28-06-2014, 12:35 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by NTL - 28-06-2014, 12:59 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Porkbelly - 28-06-2014, 01:57 PM
CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by chialc88 - 28-06-2014, 02:33 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 29-06-2014, 11:43 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by NTL - 29-06-2014, 12:08 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Fish Head - 29-06-2014, 12:10 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Freenasi - 30-06-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by corydorus - 09-07-2014, 09:27 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 09-07-2014, 09:32 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by HitandRun - 09-07-2014, 09:39 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 09-07-2014, 10:10 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by HitandRun - 09-07-2014, 01:27 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by specuvestor - 09-07-2014, 01:35 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by HitandRun - 09-07-2014, 01:53 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by specuvestor - 09-07-2014, 11:03 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 09-07-2014, 03:45 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Freenasi - 09-07-2014, 04:32 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 09-07-2014, 05:04 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 09-07-2014, 04:49 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by nsengkia - 09-07-2014, 05:15 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by tanjm - 09-07-2014, 06:14 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 09-07-2014, 06:50 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by aspeed - 09-07-2014, 05:25 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 09-07-2014, 05:35 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 09-07-2014, 05:46 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 09-07-2014, 05:54 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 09-07-2014, 06:01 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by specuvestor - 09-07-2014, 06:49 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 09-07-2014, 06:05 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 09-07-2014, 06:40 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by SincereKen - 26-03-2015, 01:15 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by NTL - 27-03-2015, 04:23 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by vesfreq - 27-03-2015, 11:36 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by SincereKen - 01-04-2015, 05:49 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Porkbelly - 26-03-2015, 08:41 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 27-03-2015, 05:22 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by tikam tikam - 27-03-2015, 05:50 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by SincereKen - 01-04-2015, 06:01 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)