Babe Blog - Insights on News Events

Friday, October 9, 2026

Prayers cannot change your karma if you do bad things.

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSbGq5BGX/

Prayers cannot change your karma if you do bad things.

Only do good things will reap good karma.

But prayers can calm a person's mind and a reminder to do good.

Hence prayers got its merit if used in the right way.

REACH (Telegram) 163 - What are your views on LTA’s proposed changes to the COE? What should be considered to ensure the system remains fair, transparent and responsive to different transport needs?

(SK)

09 Oct 2026 (10am - 7pm)

REACH (Telegram)

[9/10/2026 9:45 am] REACH Singapore: Dear Contributors,

Welcome Back! 😊

⏰ We will be opening the chat from 10am to 7pm today. ⏰

House Rules (short version of our Terms of Use) to keep in mind:

1. Be kind and respectful. We all want to be in a safe space to share our views.

2. Any and all threatening, abusive, vulgar or racially, religiously and ethnically objectionable content is prohibited.

3. Consider the quiet ones among us and give them a chance to comment.

4. No need to repeat your comment or in different forms (including caps) - we heard you loud and clear the first time.

5. Let's protect each other's privacy and keep contact details in this group what it should always be - confidential.

Full set of Terms of Use: https://www.reach.gov.sg/Participate/reach-telegram-group/REACH-Telegram-Group-Chat-Terms-of-Use (https://www.reach.gov.sg/Participate/reach-telegram-group/REACH-Telegram-Group-Chat-Terms-of-Use/)/

We will strive to uphold these rules to ensure this is a safe space for all.

Please be assured that the points made by participants during the chat are aggregated and shared with relevant agencies.

The topic will be posted shortly.

Thank you.

Megan 😊

[9/10/2026 10:01 am] REACH Singapore: 📢 Topic 📢

On 8 October (Thursday), the Land Transport Authority (LTA) launched a public consultation on proposals to merge car COE Categories A and B, introduce a value-based rebate and surcharge system to better distinguish between mass-market and higher-end cars, and make adjustments to Category E (Open category).

💬 What are your views on LTA’s proposed changes to the COE? What should be considered to ensure the system remains fair, transparent and responsive to different transport needs?

📌 LTA's public consultation

LTA stated that:

(1) All cars would bid in a single COE category if Categories A and B are merged, with a rebate or surcharge applied based on each model’s median Open Market Value (OMV).

(2) LTA is consulting on either a three-band or five-band structure, with the maximum rebate and maximum surcharge set at $15,000 each. LTA emphasised that the proposed changes are intended to better differentiate mass-market and higher-end cars, but are not meant to lower overall COE prices, which would continue to be determined by demand and available supply;

(3) LTA is separately seeking feedback on whether Category E (Open Category) should be removed or modified, and said the public consultation will close at 11.59pm on 2 November, with findings and recommendations to be shared by the first half of 2027.

📌 Other proposals that were considered but not adopted

LTA also explained why it did not take up various suggestions that were floated during its dialogue sessions.

On allocating COEs based on family needs, LTA said doing so requires judgment about whose needs should receive greater priority. Setting aside more COEs for families with young children would mean fewer COEs for other groups such as caregivers and multi-generational households, it said, noting the difficulty of administering such a system fairly over the lifespan of a COE as household circumstances change over time.

Other ideas raised include adopting a pay-as-you-bid system for COEs, creating a separate category for private-hire cars, and imposing a surcharge on owners of multiple cars.

On creating a separate category for PHV cars, the LTA said the move will mean setting aside some COEs for the new category, and prices could rise if too many COEs are reallocated from the existing pool.

On the other hand, setting aside too few would reduce the number of private-hire vehicles on roads, leading to higher rental fees for drivers and more expensive fares for travellers.

👉 https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/merging-cat-a-and-b-rebates-based-on-car-value-among-proposed-changes-to-coe-system

👉 https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/car-coe-merge-category-fee-rebate-lta-proposal-consultation-6436626

👉https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/priority-for-families-with-children-new-ride-share-car-category-among-ideas-left-out-of-coe-review

👉https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/newsroom/2026/10/news-releases/launch-of-public-consultation-on-coe-categorisation-for-cars.html

👉 https://www.reach.gov.sg/latest-happenings/public-consultations/2026/public-consultation-on-proposed-changes-to-certificate-of-entitlement--coe--categorisation-for-cars/

----

[9/10/2026 10:07 am] Adam: It looks like the system is improving. Not perfect but better. The govt looks to be acknowledging the limitations of the current system

[9/10/2026 10:10 am] G: It is very very concerning that the covid jabs are now included in the national immunisation schedule.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/covid-19-vaccination-national-immunisation-schedule-cda-6438661

This is despite the countless harms that these jabs have caused.

Furthermore, Pfizer is being sued by the Florida attorney general for misleading safety data, misleading transmission claims for their covid jabs

https://www.myfloridalegal.com/sites/default/files/oag-v.-pfizer_filed-complaint.pdf

[9/10/2026 10:11 am] Adam: I think much of the price of the car is because of the middlemen culture our country has. Hard to buy car and bid coe differently.

What the gov should do is regulate loans and car purchases like house and bank loans. Are they selling a car or selling a financial product? Should MAS step in.

[9/10/2026 10:14 am] G in reply to G:

> ‎⁨It is very very concerning that the covid jabs are now...

Example of pfizer's own data that was used to push the narrative that their covid jab was safe (from the lawsuit):

"76. By February 28, 2021, Pfizer possessed reports for 458 pregnant women

exposed to its COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy:

a. More than half of the pregnant women (248 cases, or 54%)

reported an adverse event from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

b. More than 1-in-10 women (52) who received Pfizer’s COVID-19

vaccine during their pregnancy reported a miscarriage, many within

days of vaccination.

c. Nearly all these miscarriages occurred in the first trimester,

suggesting miscarriage rates among those receiving the vaccine in the first trimester were significantly higher than 1-in-10.

d. Six women who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine during their

pregnancy reported premature deliveries; several babies died. "

[9/10/2026 10:14 am] Adam: Are we discussing the same topic in Reach?

[9/10/2026 10:16 am] G in reply to Adam:

> ‎⁨Are we discussing the same topic in Reach?⁩

It's ok. REACH has shown us many times in this group that not staying on topic is acceptable as long as whatever is being discussed pertains to national policy

[9/10/2026 10:16 am] Daniel in reply to G:

> ‎⁨Example of pfizer's own data that was used to push the...

I thought even a normal pregnancy has a 1-5 to 1-4 chance of miscarriage in the first trimester, so 1-10 seems like it's well within normal ranges.

[9/10/2026 10:17 am] Daniel: I think these changes to the COE are good. Make the bidding a bit more predictable.

[9/10/2026 10:18 am] G in reply to Daniel:

> ‎⁨I thought even a normal pregnancy has a 1-5 to 1-4 chance of...

Pregnancy is just 1 aspect

Women's reproductive health is another:

"77. These concerning reports were reinforced by tens of thousands of

adverse events Pfizer knew about by April 2022 showing its COVID-19 vaccine was

impacting women’s reproductive systems—including heavy menstrual bleeding (27,685); menstrual disorders (22,145); irregular periods (15,083); delayed periods (13,989); absence of periods (11,363); and other reproductive system effects."

[9/10/2026 10:18 am] Daniel: Overall I wish policies would be a bit less car centric and favour pedestrians and busses more, since a bit majority of the population does not own a car. Making public transport or walking/cycling more attractive will also lead to less demand for COE and hopefully lower prices of COE.

[9/10/2026 10:19 am] Adam: We need more people centric infra design

[9/10/2026 10:21 am] Adam: Imagine if crossings were raised to pedestrian level and colored as pedestrian roadside. Instead of us stepping down to a road to cross

The psychological implication that a car is intruding into a pedestrian space will slow them down. Current state is car being entitled as walkers are intruding into the car's space

[9/10/2026 10:22 am] Adam: And if got accident, the image of someone being hit who isnt on a road

[9/10/2026 10:23 am] G: Pfizer hid adverse event data, but was forced to reveal them via the freedom of information act

"90. The Pfizer Feb. 28, 2021 Adverse Event Data document was only

obtained through FOIA litigation and at a much later date than February 28, 2021.

91. As of February 28, 2021—about 10 weeks after Pfizer obtained

emergency use authorization—Pfizer’s adverse events database already contained

158,893 adverse events (from 42,086 case reports) from its COVID-19 vaccine"

[9/10/2026 10:24 am] Daniel: As an example, I used to have my kids in two different schools (preschool and kindergarten) and we couldn't get one near my flat. So I used a bicycle with two seats to bring them. That worked okay, but there are so many obstacles (barriers made to slow down bicycle are very hard to navigate with children's seats, but also no sheltered bike parking at the train station to get to work after dropping them off). It still worked for me, but barely. We almost got a car in the end. So lowering this kind of barriers (while still maintaining safety for pedestrians from errant cyclists) would enable more people to rely on walking or cycling for this kind of last mile commute and maybe slightly reduce the demand for COEs.

[9/10/2026 10:28 am] G: Against this backdrop of questionable safety profile, at least for the pfizer jabs, it is therefore very very concerning that MOH / CDA see fit to include them into the national immunisation schedule

"ROLLOUT OF UPDATED COVID-19 VACCINES

Updated COVID-19 vaccines targeting the XFG strain will also be rolled out from Oct 12 at more than 600 GP clinics, all polyclinics and MVT sites across Singapore.

The XFG Moderna/Spikevax and XFG Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty vaccines provide better protection against current and emerging strains of COVID-19, MOH and CDA said.

Their safety profiles are comparable to those of previous versions, they added."

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/covid-19-vaccination-national-immunisation-schedule-cda-6438661

[9/10/2026 10:28 am] Adam: Demand for COE needs to be reduced for working class people. Right now public transit is too inconvenient for many jobs. Especially those that travel around singapore

[9/10/2026 10:38 am] REACH Singapore in reply to G:

> ‎⁨Against this backdrop of questionable safety profile,...

@t_l3e

Dear Contributors,

All contributors are reminded to adhere to the Terms of Use for this platform, which can be found at: https://www.reach.gov.sg/Participate/reach-telegram-group/REACH-Telegram-Group-Chat-Terms-of-Use/

It is requested that contributors refrain from making statements that are irrelevant to the ongoing discussions, or that may be considered harmful, offensive, or inaccurate. It is everyone’s responsibility to make this online space a safe and conducive one for all participants to share their views and feedback on national issues.

Thank you for your understanding and support.

REACH

[9/10/2026 10:42 am] Daniel in reply to Adam:

> ‎⁨Demand for COE needs to be reduced for working class people....

This is true. Especially busses are so slow to get anywhere.

[9/10/2026 10:54 am] G in reply to REACH Singapore:

> @t_l3e Dear Contributors, All contributors are reminded to...

Oh well, what's shared are verifiable facts (statements by MOH / CDA indicating the jabs' safety profiles being comparable to those of previous versions as reported by CNA, lawsuit by Florida AG vs pfizer highlighting numerous adverse events from the pfizer jabs)

What's not verifiable is my own opinion and feedback of concern arising from the backdrop established by facts.

Given the trend of others in this group frequently going off topic, I saw sharing my concerns and feedback on the covid jabs being included as part of the national immunisation schedule (it's a national issue) as permissible by REACH.

Thank you for your understanding.

[9/10/2026 11:00 am] REACH Singapore: [ Poll : I believe that the proposed changes will help in differentiating the prices between mass-market cars and higher-end models. ]

- Strongly agree

- Agree

- Neutral

- Disagree

- Strongly disagree

[9/10/2026 11:10 am] Daniel: I think the fact of giving a rebate on cheaper cars and making more expensive cars pay higher COE is a good way of making it cheaper for people who just need a car out of necessity. I wonder whether that approach could be calibrated a bit. Like it makes a difference whether the car is more expensive because it's a family van or a bigger vehicle to fit a wheelchair or whether it's more expensive because it's a fancy car. But obviously hard to consider all those.

[9/10/2026 11:27 am] Adam: The thing is it can be argued that everyone needs a car out of necessity. If we subsidize car usage for parents. The parents who cannot even afford a car will not benefit. Only benefit rich parents.

[9/10/2026 11:28 am] Adam: Same for disabled people. Only rich wheelchairs own a car for themselves

[9/10/2026 11:28 am] Adam: Are we gonna give credits to low income immobile people to take taxi?

[9/10/2026 11:29 am] Jun Ming: I can foresee more smaller car less big cars

[9/10/2026 11:29 am] Adam in reply to Jun Ming:

> ‎⁨I can foresee more smaller car less big cars⁩

Singaporeans will always maximise the worth of their coe if possible

[9/10/2026 11:29 am] Adam: If small car and big car is almost same price, just pay a bit more so if some guy crash into you, you will not fly

[9/10/2026 11:30 am] Adam: In the end all car take 1 parking lot

[9/10/2026 11:30 am] Adam: Perhaps sg can incentivise japanese kei cars somehow

[9/10/2026 11:31 am] Adam: Its gonna be a race to the bottom. In america, if you dont drive big car, you will barely see past the car in front of you blocking your vision

[9/10/2026 11:32 am] Daniel in reply to Adam:

> ‎⁨The thing is it can be argued that everyone needs a car out of...

Yes, that is true.

[9/10/2026 11:32 am] Jun Ming: But coe have more rebate. So I guess more people would buy smaller cars. As it's worth it

[9/10/2026 11:32 am] Daniel in reply to Adam:

> ‎⁨In the end all car take 1 parking lot⁩

You mention Kei cars. They got some tiny parking lots for those to.

[9/10/2026 11:34 am] Adam in reply to Daniel:

> ‎⁨You mention Kei cars. They got some tiny parking lots for...

K category cars with less restrictions could be done. But it will be a headache with many categories of users on the roads

[9/10/2026 11:34 am] Derek Teo: i personally think the impact of this proposal will be low. There are two problems they are trying to solve: (1) EVs that deliberately lowered their technical specifications to drop from CAT B to CAT A, and (2) the competition with PHV drivers.

The proposal only solved (1) but not (2), and you will still see a skyrocketing COE prices. I think it wont go back to the 'good-old-days' state but it can be lowered a little bit more.

On a minor point, the surcharge of 15k doesnt make a huge impact as the range of cars is too wide e.g., Mercs C-Class to Roll Royce. I understand from the CNA report that the impact of luxury class or multiple cars in a single house hold is low, which doesnt affect the overall the COE pricing when we look at it from a grander perspective. Still, i think the surcharge should be further tiered accordinly and can go way higher for those who are looking at luxury/supercars

[9/10/2026 11:35 am] Jun Ming in reply to Jun Ming:

> ‎⁨But coe have more rebate. So I guess more people would buy...

After all most people just need it to transport from point a to b fast

[9/10/2026 11:35 am] Jun Ming: Unless have big family

[9/10/2026 11:35 am] Jun Ming: Which low tfr does not justify

[9/10/2026 11:36 am] Adam: But really, it shouldnt be framed that a car is needed to do these essential things like transport family

[9/10/2026 11:36 am] Adam: The public transport should be good enough. But it isnt

[9/10/2026 11:37 am] Adam: So, if somehow the gov can fix bus such that its will always be on time. Maybe robot taxi for last mile. Are we still gonna argue about cars for family?

[9/10/2026 11:38 am] Jun Ming in reply to Adam:

> ‎⁨The public transport should be good enough. But it isnt⁩

Would you stand for 1 h in mrt in a very pack environment

[9/10/2026 11:38 am] Jun Ming: Given a choice would you want to sit in your car

[9/10/2026 11:38 am] Adam in reply to Jun Ming:

> ‎⁨Would you stand for 1 h in mrt in a very pack environment⁩

No choice. Are you implying that if mrt is crowded we need to build more roads and make cars cheaper?

[9/10/2026 11:39 am] Jun Ming: I am implying if people have a choice they will go for a car

[9/10/2026 11:39 am] Jun Ming: No matter how small it is

[9/10/2026 11:39 am] Adam in reply to Jun Ming:

> ‎⁨Given a choice would you want to sit in your car⁩

I always had a choice. I wont go for car. Because the choice is not merely transport comfort. It considers the price

[9/10/2026 11:40 am] Adam: I took a $40 grab to work last week. Why?

My company pay for it. Not my money.

Imagine if the government subsidize your car.

[9/10/2026 11:41 am] Adam: I couldve take a train that makes the transit cost 10% less yet take only 20 mins more

[9/10/2026 11:41 am] Jun Ming in reply to Adam:

> ‎⁨I took a $40 grab to work last week. Why?...

If company compensate good if no?

[9/10/2026 11:42 am] Adam in reply to Jun Ming:

> ‎⁨If company compensate good if no?⁩

Yeah. Its the buffet syndrome. If our gov did it, its the taxpayer footing the bill

[9/10/2026 11:43 am] Jun Ming: So I think gov need to expand more on public transport.

[9/10/2026 11:43 am] Jun Ming: Faster bus

[9/10/2026 11:44 am] Jun Ming: Don't run on 30km/h

[9/10/2026 11:45 am] Adam: Bus train all need to be solid. Idk how we can immigrate so much yet our infra cannot cope. If we have positive tfr how to handle?

[9/10/2026 11:45 am] Andy: I agree on public transport expansion.

But remember these come with increased public transport costs. Either way the money will have to come from somewhere.

[9/10/2026 11:47 am] Adam in reply to Andy:

> ‎⁨I agree on public transport expansion....

I'd say car usage can fund public transport building. Look at it this way too. More people using bus mean your coe is more roomy and your car can go less traffic

[9/10/2026 11:48 am] Jun Ming: Expand phv and taxi fleet too

[9/10/2026 11:48 am] Jun Ming: Everytime need to wait for long time to get a taxi

[9/10/2026 11:48 am] Andy: Overall I agree that nation should become more car lite. 1 car, fit 1 to 5 people. For the same unit size, a bus can transport more people. Car is selfish.

But then again I understand the dream of owning a car so we have our own space at our own convenience. COE definitely will continue to rise if supply drop

[9/10/2026 11:48 am] Adam: We need autonomous taxis so grab driver wont pull funny things

[9/10/2026 11:49 am] Andy in reply to Jun Ming:

> ‎⁨Expand phv and taxi fleet too⁩

People dont wanna work PHV.. haha

[9/10/2026 11:49 am] Adam in reply to Andy:

> ‎⁨Overall I agree that nation should become more car lite....

I have dream of owning a gun, and shooting for fun. But alas i live in singapore. Ill do those things overseas

[9/10/2026 11:49 am] Jun Ming in reply to Jun Ming:

> ‎⁨Everytime need to wait for long time to get a taxi⁩

Make sure if someone call a grab you can get phv within 5 min

[9/10/2026 11:50 am] Jun Ming in reply to Andy:

> ‎⁨People dont wanna work PHV.. haha⁩

Lower down the age can drive phv

[9/10/2026 11:50 am] Adam in reply to Andy:

> ‎⁨People dont wanna work PHV.. haha⁩

Hey this honorable job is reserved for singaporeans only

[9/10/2026 11:50 am] Jun Ming: I pretty sure some youngster want to drive

[9/10/2026 11:50 am] Andy: Oh, whats the age now? Didnt know got restriction

[9/10/2026 11:50 am] Jun Ming: 35

[9/10/2026 11:51 am] Adam: Lol 35 is when gov really give up hope. Cannot use the firstdate. Just hand over small hdb and drive grab.

[9/10/2026 11:52 am] Andy: I just searched is 30. But hor, yeah i surprised the age quite high

[9/10/2026 11:53 am] Adam: Wonder why 30. Feels like age is arbitrary. Maybe some people just wanna chill and drive car when grow up

[9/10/2026 11:54 am] Adam: On the topic of transport,

What if we allow ride hailing with motorcycles. Like indonesia got gobike.

[9/10/2026 11:55 am] Jun Ming in reply to Adam:

> ‎⁨On the topic of transport, What if we allow ride hailing with...

Too dangerous

[9/10/2026 12:21 pm] Andy: Back on topic, I welcome the idea of merging COE bands, and with additional fees imposed not on engize size/power, but on OMV.

1 thing I'd disagree is the flat surcharge. I'd prefer a percentage based surcharge which would really scale up the cost of luxury vehicles- these owners have money to pay it anyway, why let them off at only 15k?

[9/10/2026 12:33 pm] Andy: I'm also skeptical (not disagree, but skeptical) with the rebates for lower value cars. I don't think it is necessary to make owning cars cheaper. The additional revenue from surcharges can go back to improving public transport infrastructure.

BUT, on an adjacent topic, rebates for EV cars should continue due to environmental benefits.

[9/10/2026 12:44 pm] Adam in reply to Andy:

> ‎⁨I'm also skeptical (not disagree,...

The benefits have to be weighted. If we give rebates for evs, why not give rebates for non carowners. You burn wayy less fossil fuel by taking public transit.

[9/10/2026 12:48 pm] Adam: It would be better to simply do a fee on fuel and account that need to be maintained by electrical infra. Naturally if a car is more energy inefficient, it will be less economical to own.

Also would make less sense for someone to drive solo than as a group.

With the coe system, its a flat fee. No extra price for distance nor energy usage. so even if your cat drains fuel fast a bulk of the cost is already paid for.

[9/10/2026 12:51 pm] Andy in reply to Adam:

> ‎⁨The benefits have to be weighted....

Because they are not paying for coe? Public transport is cheap enough what rebates you mean?

[9/10/2026 12:54 pm] Andy: I mean, from my pov, rebates are given to drive a certain behaviour i.e. drive EV adoption. Rebates dont need to be given to public transport takers because well we dont have a choice 😂

[9/10/2026 1:20 pm] Adam in reply to Andy:

> ‎⁨I mean, from my pov, rebates are given to drive a certain...

But the way the rebate is structured is important. It cannot be gamed. Or applied ineffectively. Policies implemented hard to amend.

Pollution is ongoing for cars and variable. Cannot have flat amount for evs. Would you let a cybertruck get the rebate?

[9/10/2026 1:21 pm] Adam: And have to think of second order effects and perverse incentive. An ev owner at end of coe might choose to buy a whole new ev instead of maintaining current car. More wastage and environmental cost. They are gonna keep driving anyway so buy new subsidized car. Even if cost more than keeping old car, the small nudge of cheaper cost to buy and the psychology of govt footing part the cost will tilt in favor of wastage. Incentive to get new ev instead of maintaining old.

[9/10/2026 2:02 pm] REACH Singapore: 📢 Topic 📢

[9/10/2026 2:25 pm] G in reply to REACH Singapore:

> On creating a separate category for PHV cars, the LTA said the move will mean setting aside some COEs for the new category, and prices could rise if too many COEs are reallocated from the existing pool.

This is nonsense.

COE mechanism for taxis today is separated vs private cars

Prior to 2012, taxi operators competed directly with private buyers for CAT A COEs, which pushed premiums for CAT A higher, and hence the de-coupling

Why not lump PHV car leasers with the taxis operators and let these businesses compete with each other instead of with private individuals?

Furthermore, these companies are allowed greater financing flexibility compared to individual buyers

[9/10/2026 2:59 pm] LCL Danny 心 (1st HP):

1. I understand the logic of merging the Cat A and Cat B - because the advent of EV cars have increasingly make the differentiation of CC inapplicable - and hence unable to clearly differentiate the distinction of mass-market and higher-end cars.

2. I think is a good idea to introduce the rebate and surcharge cap at a maximum to distinguish between a mass-market and higher-end cars - as richer folks who want a super higher-end cars should contribute more to enjoy the prestige.

3. Having a maximum cap on the rebate and surcharge will also not overly penalise the higher-end cars - and introduce undue penalty or discrimination against higher-end cars. Hence I feel the maximum rebate and surcharge cap is appropriate.

Because my underlying philosophy is always go along the concept of "Middle Path" - not extreme at either end.

4. As for should we introduce the 3-band or 5-band structure - I feel that 5-band structure will introduce more administrative complications, sometimes can make mistake and public can be more confused.

But the following considerations - define my choice to go for a 3-band structure:--

a. 3-band structure will benefit the mass-market public more - as mass-market public have more choice and get higher rebate to a bigger pool of mass-market car.

b. Less administrative complexity (lower administrative cost), less confusing to public, less likely to make mistake.

c. Higher-end cars owners will pay higher surcharge due to bigger banding - detriment to high--end owners (but they have deeper pocket and can pay).

d. Of course these will also be less beneficial to high-end car sellers - as their high end cars will be more expensive. But high-end car purchasers will have deeper pockets - with the maximum cap on rebate and surcharge - their damage will be $15,000 - $30,000 - not open-ended.

[9/10/2026 3:13 pm] LCL Danny 心 (1st HP):

Next let us address the open Category E - should it be abolished?

1. Understand that Cat E is for those that need cars urgently to buy in the open market without waiting for the next round of bidding.

Hence I feel is useful to keep Cat E.

2. However, I want to explore whether Cat E can be exploited to better used?

a. Instead of letting PHV car owners (that use the car as public transport and personal use) to bid in Cat A and Cat B, I feel that as the PHV car is used for revenue-generating, they should bid under Cat E and not from the merged Cat A and Cat B that should be reserved for personal used.

Cat E is an "open" category as such should be used for this purpose.

b. Wonder if taxi is under Cat E open category, shouldn't PHV cars be under Cat E as well?

3. With such distinction, then our COE system will be less cumbersome, less unwieldy, less complicated, less complex to manage, administer and managed - and less confusing to public, car dealers and the Administration.

Because there will only be 2 broad categories :-

i. Merged Cat A and B (Cat Private)

a. Band 1

b. Band 2

c. Band 3

ii. Cat E (Cat Open)

- PHV,

- Taxi

- Private (that need cars urgently).

[9/10/2026 3:28 pm] LCL Danny 心 (1st HP):

Now throwing these 2 broad categories into COE bidding, does anyone think that COE prices will come down?

1. I doubt so...... because it will depends on how strong the demand is. If the demand is strong, COE will still be about the same as currently the COE $130,000 reflected - plus and minus the surcharge or rebate of $15,000 - $30,000 - or could be higher if the demand is strong that will neutralise the surcharge or rebate of $15,000 - $30,000 - to prevent high-end car bidders from crowding out the mass-market car bidder.

The surcharge and rebate - is to give mass-market bidders an even ground (handicap gain) to compete more fairly with deep pocket high-end car bidders.

[9/10/2026 3:39 pm] LCL Danny 心 (1st HP):

Should we intrude into the space of according priorities to families based on social needs - to become a "Social Judge"?

1. This evidently won't work, who is to judge :-

A family with young children (VS) a family with elderlies (VS) a family with disabled (VS) a family with large number of members (VS) a family with lesser number of members (VS) professionals or business or blue collar that need cars - has higher priorities over the other ?

2. A family with young children grow up already leh? Then unfair to others.

3. A family with elderlies - elderlies go to nursing homes leh? Then unfair to others.

4. A family with disabled - recover and become well leh? (Eg. got PMA, got artifical leg, mental disability recovered) - Then unfair to others.

5. A family with lesser number of members - suddenly breed and have more children - Then others unfair to these families.

6. Professionals or business or blue collars that need to run business, create jobs and contribute to our Economy.

Without them, our Economy fail, we got no jobs.

The last thing we want to become - is to be a Social Judge - Jamus now you understand?

[9/10/2026 4:02 pm] REACH Singapore: 📢 Topic 📢

====

Thursday, October 8, 2026

MPs proposing inheritance tax on top 1% properties and wealth tax on multiple properties ownership

[8/10/2026 8:36 pm] My comments[08/10, 1:24 pm] :

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSbgujxF7/

PAP MPs suggest inheritance tax for high value properties.

[08/10, 1:26 pm] My comments):

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSb43onan/

PAP MPs call for tax on owners that own multiple properties.

[08/10, 1:42 pm] My comments):

Top 1% of landed properties" in Singapore essentially refers to Good Class Bungalows (GCBs), though the actual inventory of GCBs is even smaller — accounting for roughly 0.6% to 3.5% of all landed and private residential assets in the country.

[08/10, 1:45 pm] My comments):

Multiple properties ownership refer to 3 or more properties.

This PAP MP say 1st property for staying should be exempt.

2nd property for rental income to finance retirement.

3rd properties and more should be taxed.

[08/10, 4:14 pm] My comments):

Source:- Google Gemini AI

AI Overview

The top 1% of properties in Singapore primarily refer to Good Class Bungalows (GCBs) and ultra-luxury detached landed homes or prime-district luxury penthouses.

EdgeProp Singapore +2

Key Characteristics of the Top 1% Properties

Good Class Bungalows (GCBs): These are the most prestigious and exclusive landed homes in Singapore.

They require a minimum plot size of 1,400 square meters (approx. 15,070 sq ft) and are strictly located within 39 gazetted GCB areas (such as Nassim Road, Bukit Timah, and District 10).

Detached and Large Bungalows: Standalone landed properties that do not share any common walls with neighbors, featuring substantial land sizes (400 sqm to under 1,400 sqm) and high privacy. Property Giant +1

Core Central Region (CCR) Penthouses / Luxury Condos: Ultra-high-end non-landed properties located in prime areas like Orchard, Marina Bay, or Ardmore Park (such as Sculptura Ardmore), fetching tens of millions of dollars per unit. Tatler Asia +1

Why They Represent the Top 1%

Scarcity: Landed properties make up only about 5% of Singapore’s total residential housing stock, and GCBs represent a tiny, tightly regulated fraction of that pool. www.landedproperty.sg +1Ownership

Restrictions: Landed properties (especially GCBs) face strict government rules, and foreign ownership is largely restricted unless special approval is granted (except for specific locations like Sentosa Cove).

Valuation: These properties routinely command multi-million to tens-of-millions or even $100M+ price tags, reserved for ultra-high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) and family offices.

[08/10, 4:54 pm] My close friend comments:

What is the purpose of taxing merely top 1% . How much contribution to tax? Or to deter gcb ownership?

[08/10, 4:55 pm] My comments):

That's why in the comments column, alot of people raise the question, are they going to chase rich people away.

[08/10, 4:57 pm] My close friend comments:

How many gcb can a person own? Can he own enough to give one gcb or even 1 landed to each child? If not, the children will fight and in the end the way to resolve is to sell the properties and divide the sales proceeds.

[08/10, 4:58 pm] My comments):

I think tax collected quite limited.

But will annoy the ultra rich.

[08/10, 5:00 pm] My close friend comments:

Then what is the difference between leaving behind properties or other types of assets like company shares? Why specifically properties. Then old man buy commercial properties but just leave them to rot. Then children sell and benefit, can or not?

[08/10, 5:02 pm] My comments):

I don't like the ideas of inheritance tax.

But they only raise by MPs.

Ministers didn't say anything.

I look see look see first.

But many netizens already expressing reservation.

So let see how.

[08/10, 5:04 pm] My close friend comments:

Current additional buyer stamp duties make more sense, tackle at purchase point. Discourage endless buying, tax vacant properties may be a better move to further discourage hoarding of precious land use will be a better argument

[08/10, 5:05 pm] My comments):

Yes.

Like GST is ok.

Wealth tax and inheritance tax I don't like.

Tax too many time.

[8/10/2026 8:36 pm] My comments

Buy - tax 1 time, inheritance tax want to tax another time?

[08/10, 5:09 pm] My close friend comments:

Then also have to consider foreign talent whom sg is attracting. They are being taxed additional 60% if they were to purchase properties in sg. No choice, they have to rent. Then gov going to provide accomodation for them? Sg need Singaporeans to own 2nd properties to rent them out to these talents. They need several years to assimilate to Singapore culture, decide to settle down in sg tog with their families and hopefully, they are granted PR ship to purchase homes. Long road. Gov want to resolve their accommodation problems?

[08/10, 5:10 pm] My comments):

I think these MP suggest that 2nd house to rent out no tax.

3rd and more houses got tax.

[08/10, 5:13 pm] My comments):

But I feel that the tax revenue from these few people - not worth the hassle because tax collected will not be alot.

It will cause these rich people to leave.

End up middle and lower income people pay more taxes to compensate.

[08/10, 5:13 pm] My comments):

因小失大。

[08/10, 5:13 pm] My close friend comments:

This is an emotive issue. Majority cannot accept other people having a windfall through inheritance, esp when sg economy has been steadily climbing for 6 decades pushing landed and gcb prices in land scarce sg to record prices. Look at our neighbours. Buy easy sell hard. Where got such problems?

[08/10, 5:16 pm] My comments):

I think let Minister respond to these MPs and see how.

Usually tax ultra rich people, Ministers are very careful as they are fearful of driving out the ultra rich.

[08/10, 5:16 pm] My close friend comments:

f they can rent out 3rd, 4th units, why tax? Means got demand. But if too rich and just buy and park money in properties, that's hoarding and gov have to look into it. It means ineffective demand on land use. Developers keep building, Singaporeans keep buying and leave properties vacant is wrong.

[08/10, 5:18 pm] My comments):

For example, recently the approval of onboarding of fund placement in financial institutions suddenly improve tremendously.

No more hassle and no need onerous submission.

Because rich people complain and some divert funds to foreign countries.

[08/10, 5:18 pm] My close friend comments:

Sometimes, they just want the bottom mp to raise the issue, let social media response, then they check ground emotions and arguments

[08/10, 5:19 pm] My close friend comments:

Make mps look stupid

[08/10, 5:20 pm] My comments): Yes.

I guess so.

That's why I didn't post immediately, because ground sentiment by rich people posting in the TikTok suddenly surge.

Many voice disapproval.

That's why I not jumping in to comment.

I want to see how Ministers respond in Parliament.

[08/10, 5:43 pm] My comments):

"Say no to hoarding homes: PAP MPs call for inheritance tax, multiple residential property tax.

"Wealth packed in housing is not flowing and building anything else," said Chen."

https://mothership.sg/2026/10/no-to-hoarding-homes/#:~:text=Say%20no%20to,else%2C%22%20said%20Chen.

[08/10, 5:58 pm] My comments):

Transport Minister Jeffrey Siow said that such topics "actually go beyond the scope of this bill", and encouraged members to file parliamentary questions at a later sitting.

Minister not responding to these MPs suggestions.

Maybe next sitting.

[08/10, 6:20 pm] My comments):

@Babe:

1. When this rich buy GCB or premium houses, they pay BSD and ABSD - tax 1 time.

2. And every year, they pay property tax. Tax 2nd time.

3. Now suggest to pay inheritance tax - tax 3 times.

As worldwide trends show, countries levying inheritance tax and wealth tax are the sure way to drive away these ultra rich people.

And the tax collection from inheritance tax are not alot in comparison.

When the ultra rich leave, usually the family office that we fought so hard to attract, our middle and lower class will have to pick up the slacks by paying more GST and income tax to compensate.

[8/10/2026 8:36 pm] My comments [08/10, 6:20 pm]:

I finally decided to comment in this MP comment section.

[08/10, 6:33 pm] My comments): @Babe:16/10, 10:58 am]:

The country’s top income tax rate stands at 45 per cent, while inheritances above 3 billion won are taxed at 50 per cent.

“That’s one reason why wealthy individuals are looking abroad,” says Lee Yoonsoo, a professor of economics at Sogang University. “When they get older, they want to pass their assets to their children.”

Their choice of destinations reflects their priorities. “Dubai is probably for asset protection,” he cites, highlighting its safe banking system and zero income tax.

Other popular destinations include Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. “Compared to Seoul, they provide better quality of life in some cases,” he adds. “The most important things are the stable tax environment and global networks.”

Indeed, following an investor backlash against plans to hike corporate tax and expand capital gains taxation, the Lee administration has rolled back on the latter proposal. Last month, the president also ordered that additional inheritance tax relief should be given.

Yet, the complexity of South Korea’s inheritance tax rules is partly why it “lags far behind its peers in attracting wealthy individuals”, says Lee Yoonsoo. “And the … visa system isn’t suitable for rich people to reside in the longer term.”

In the region, Malaysia, Thailand and Japan have introduced golden visa and long-term residency schemes, he highlights. “And Singapore leads the race with low taxes.”

“If I go back, … (with) all the wealth I’ve accumulated in Singapore, I’d have to pay half in Korea when I pass my wealth to my daughters,” he says. “I just regularly visit Korea. … I don’t think I’ll go back.”

[16/10, 11:00 am] My comments:

Inheritance tax and capital tax are the main drivers that chase away millionaires from the country.

"Singapore Inc hopes AI access will stop finance high-flyers moving to Hong Kong - as Hong Kong is introducing sweeping tax cuts.

https://www.ft.com/content/7d2969fd-85aa-43fb-ae04-97d1d0ee2463?syn-25a6b1a6=1#:~:text=Singapore%20Inc%20hopes%2

[08/10, 6:36 pm] My comments):

@Babe:"Google cofounder Sergey Brin has spent $102 million to fight California’s proposed billionaire tax—he could owe $13 billion if he loses".

https://fortune.com/article/how-much-has-google-cofounder-sergey-brin-spent-to-oppose-california-billionaire-tax-102-million-owe-13-billion-if-loses/#:~:text=WEALTH-,Google%20cofounder%20Sergey%20Brin%20has%20spent%20%24102%20million%20to%20fight%20California%E2%80%99s%20proposed%20billionaire%20tax%E2%80%94he%20could%20owe%20%2413%20billion%20if%20he%20loses,-By%20Sasha%20Rogelberg

"India should tax income, not wealth or inheritance: Economist Daniel Waldenstrom".

Many countries have abolished wealth tax and inheritance tax.

https://m.economictimes.com/news/economy/policy/india-should-tax-capital-income-not-wealth-or-inheritance-economist-daniel-waldenstrom/articleshow/134655613.cms#:~:text=India%20should%20tax%20capital%20income%2C%20not%20wealth%20or%20inheritance%3A%20Economist%20Daniel%20Waldenstrom

[16/10, 11:06 am] My comments:

If millionaires migrated, they will stop creating business and jobs. And many Singaporeans will lose their jobs. Economic growth will be dampened.

In addition when that happens, the tax burden fully falls on the middle income and the lower income groups.

This means an even higher GST tax will need to be levied for the loss of tax income - and no GST vouchers will be issue to these 2 groups as the GST tax collection can barely cover other government expenditures with lesser leftover for GST vouchers and CDC vouchers.

----

[13/11, 11:15 am] My comments: "Singapore ranked third top destination for world’s wealthy: Savills" because Singapore not levying inheritance tax, wealth tax and estate duty.

[08/10, 6:50 pm] My comments):

@Babe:因小失大。

Collect based on social justice, based on fairness - can result in dire consequences.

[08/10, 7:05 pm] My comments):

@Babe:Singapore is experiencing a K-shaped Economy.

That's 6% GDP fuel by the few ultra rich through AI growth.

If your inheritance tax chase away the top stroke of the K, the ultra rich will leave - and the rest of the bottom K stroke will plummet - and our economy will plunge straight down.

[08/10, 8:33 pm] My comments):

@Babe:Tax collection must be done skilfully, that is the ultra rich must be willing to pay.

Eg. COE, BSD, ABSD, stamp duty, GST etc - they will willingly pay because they enjoy the luxury, goods and services and won't mind paying extra tax.

The moment you levy inheritance tax, wealth tax or estate duty on them - it will make them furious and leave Singapore.

Because they think that you want to deplete their wealth, prevent them from handing over their hard earned assets to their children.

And the rest of Singaporeans will in turn have to pick up the tab and pay higher taxes that are usually pay by the ultra rich - with no excess for tax transfer by the rich.

If we want to levy tax, we cannot come in from the angle of "social justice".

We have to do it skilfully through "behavioral science", understand "human nature".

Economics are "consumer behavior" that drive "market behavior".

The moment you come in from social justice angle, you will be fried without knowing why.

[8/10/2026 8:59 pm] My comments

@Babe:If the ultra rich pull out because of the inheritance tax or wealth tax, Singapore "K-shaped" Economy become "n-shaped Economy".

Grow a bit and then plummet all the way down.

Singaporeans all suffer.

[8/10/2026 10:04 pm] My comments:-

@Babe:[08/10, 9:20 pm] My close friend comments:

Apparent exodus of super-rich suggests UK is no longer billionaires’ playground | The super-rich | The Guardian https://share.google/8rEvIA9ejHTj5DCEW

[08/10, 9:21 pm] My close friend comments:

Ultra rich leaving UK. Good or bad if that happens to Singapore?

[08/10, 9:21 pm] My comments:

Yes.

That's why I don't agree with WP Jamus Lim inheritance tax and wealth tax.

These 2 Pap MPs I also don't agree.

[08/10, 9:23 pm] My close friend comments:

Sometimes they just want to say it to make the average people happy. Can win many votes mah.

[08/10, 9:25 pm] My comments:

That's why when minister say not responding to their suggestions in Parliament until next sitting - means Nov, I then decide to put in my comments.

Don't want to let oppies latch onto their suggestions and let it fester.

Better stop it at its bud.

@Babe:1. Singapore collected an average of about S$75 million per year from estate duty before it was abolished.

2. Financial Year 2025 (IRAS / Budget): Total GST collection reached S$20.0 billion to S$21.3 billion (driven by the GST rate increase to 9% and resilient private consumption).

3. $75 million estate duty vs $21.3 billions from GST largely contributed by the ultra rich (without the benefits of tax transfer).

So if the ultra rich leave Singapore, does remaining Singaporeans willing to finance $21.3 billion GST without tax transfer versus the meagre amount of $75 million inheritance tax that can be collected from the ultra rich?

Does GST need to increase to 20%, 30% and personal income tax increase to 50%, 60%?

@Babe:1. Levying inheritance tax from social justice angle, we get $75 million.

2. Levying GST tax from a consumer behavior that drive market behavior, we get $21.3 billions.

3. The answer is as clear as a day, inheritance tax is better or GST is better?

====

[08/10, 5:18 pm] My close friend comments:

Sometimes, they just want the bottom mp to raise the issue, let social media response, then they check ground emotions and arguments

[08/10, 5:19 pm] My close friend comments:

Make mps look stupid.

[09/10, 2:14 pm] My comments:

I think Ministers deliberately don't want to respond in this Parliament sittings - because most Ministers belong to this precise targeted category that will attract inheritance tax.

Even if the Ministers explanation is logical and right to the dot, oppies will seize on it like the minister salaries hike - that ministers want to further enrich themselves.

This is politically damaging to PAP even though it's policy is appropriate.

Hence the moment I see Minister not responding to these MPs suggestions on inheritance tax - you are right, Minister wants ground sentiment to respond directly to these MPs and WPs suggestions on inheritance tax and wealth tax.

是我出手的时候了。

I cannot anyhow 出手 without understanding what strategic moves PAP are doing - in case I mess everything up.

Now, the situation is clear, I hence comments.

You are right, these 2 MPs could be PAP pawns to draw out ground sentiment.

Then my biting comments will actually fall within their game plan.

====

Wednesday, October 7, 2026

Interference against busker with busking permit is illegal.

[07/10, 4:59 pm] : https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSbq6o7ff/

Busker.

@Babe:NAC issues a busking permit in the various locations for performance.

This is authorize.

That person interference is illegal.

[07/10, 5:05 pm] @Babe:Intentionally interfering with or disrupting a legal busking performance can be illegal under Singapore law, depending on the severity and nature of the interference.

While holding a valid National Arts Council (NAC) Letter of Endorsement (LOE) (the official busking card) exempts the performer from needing a Public Entertainment License, it does not grant the busker exclusive ownership of a public space. However, members of the public cannot take the law into their own hands or disrupt peace and order.

Legal Implications of Interfering

Depending on what the person does, their actions may cross into criminal offenses:

Public Nuisance: Under the Penal Code 1871 and the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, acts that cause annoyance, danger, or obstruction to the public or lawful performers can be prosecuted as a public nuisance, carrying fines or imprisonment.

Intentional Harassment, Alarm, or Distress: If an individual verbally abuses, harasses, films aggressively, or intentionally intimidates the busker during a performance, it can constitute an offense under Section 13A of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.

Disorderly Behaviour: Shouting, creating a scene, or provoking a fight in the immediate vicinity of a public place is illegal.

What Buskers Can Do

If a member of the public disrupts a performance, the busker should:

Prioritize Safety: Avoid escalating the argument.

Contact Authorities: Call mall/venue security or the Singapore Police Force if the person becomes aggressive, refuses to leave, or harasses the performers.

Report to NAC: Document the incident (such as taking note of the time, details, or police report numbers) and inform the National Arts Council if it affects adherence to the busking scheme guidelines.

====

[10/7, 10:08 PM] @Babe:1. Lion dance in public if got permit.

2. Malay cultural gong if got permit

3. Indian cultural dance if got permit.

Bystanders cannot tell them to stop performance or lower the volume if they got permit to perform.

Harassment are illegal and will be charged for harassment.

[10/7, 10:33 PM] @Babe:If some people are bothered by the noise, just walk away because it is in a public place with a permit to perform.

====

Tuesday, October 6, 2026

Buddha entered into PariNirvana and the 1st Buddhism Council.

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSb4c3L2f/

Buddha entered into PariNirvana and the 1st Buddhism Council.

WP Jamus Lim and WP stand against CDC and GST voucher is economically flaw .

[07/10, 1:16 am] : https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSb49KBBw/

Jamus Lim against CDC vouchers.

@Babe:Jamus Lim and WP fails to understand that GST is meant to tax the rich and tax transfer as GST voucher and CDC vouchers as redistribution of wealth from the very rich to the middle and lower class.

[07/10, 1:34 am] @Babe:Jamus Lim and WP also attribute the 2% increase on GST is the cause of inflation.

But worldwide, where countries didn't raise GST, inflation are still rising due to energy crisis, tariffs war and geopolitical development.

@Babe:Many Countries which didn't raise their GST are experiencing higher inflation than Singapore which has raised GST.

The economic theory you expound cannot stand water.

@Babe:US inflation is 3.4%.

Singapore inflation is 2.3% despite increasing GST by 2%.

Your economic explanation cannot stand water.

@Babe:ASEAN inflation is 3.7%.

@Babe:EU inflation is 3.8%.

@Babe:Asia Pacific inflation is 4.2%.

@Babe:Jamus Lim also fail to understand that CDC vouchers will generate business for neighborhood - that bring about a multiplier effects of our domestic economy through circular flow of income without leading to leakage to external economy - boosting domestic business and creating jobs for SMEs.

@Babe:Since you like to flaunt your flaw economic principles - so let spar economics to see who make more sense.

@Babe:Why Singapore inflation can be so low 2.3% despite hiking GST by 2% as many parts of the world are seeing 3% to 4% inflation?

Because our great Economist here fail to understand that Singapore mainly import many goods, services, raw materials, intermediate goods for our production and consumption.

As our Central Bank, MAS maintain a good currency exchange rate via a basket of currency to help Singapore to be competitive in export and import as well as keeping our imported inflation respectable vis-a-vis other countries - that's why our inflation is cap at 2.3%.

Please check with PAP or independent Economists on my explanation whether is it accurate versus the speech you made in this video.

@Babe:Singapore’s post-tax and transfer Gini coefficient dropped to a record low of 0.379 (down from a market-income Gini of 0.452), reflecting significant fiscal redistribution.

GST voucher and CDC vouchers play an important part of such tax transfer and redistribution to ensure Singapore income inequality are kept low as reflected by the Gini coefficient.

@Babe:How Taxes and Transfers Work in Singapore

• Targeted Support: The Singapore government keeps the overall tax burden low while channeling substantial assistance, such as GST Vouchers and Workfare, heavily toward lower- and middle-income households.

• Housing and Asset Policies: Major interventions like heavily subsidized Housing & Development Board (HDB) flats and the Central Provident Fund (CPF) build foundational wealth and reduce long-term inequality outside of direct cash transfers.

• Progressive Fiscal Structure: Upper-income earners and luxury assets face higher taxes (such as tiered property and-income tax structures), which help fund these social redistributions effectively.

Source:- Google Gemini AI

@Babe:Also every Singaporeans and foreigners who consume and spend in Singapore contribute to the GST.

Rich contributes the most, foreigners who work, travel and study here but don't receive CDC and GST vouchers also contribute benefiting Singaporeans.

So when Singapore economy are doing well year after year, why you discourage Government from dishing out GST and CDC vouchers as dividends to all Singaporeans that contribute to the Singapore fiscal budget?

Just like any companies that do well every year with profit that return the benefits to shareholders as dividends.

Why are you stopping our Government for paying Singaporeans (shareholders) as dividends?

@Babe:We are not beggars that every year extend our hands to the Government for coupons or handouts.

We are shareholders, investors who pay GST for every consumption, every spendings - and if economy do well expect to collect dividends in the form of GST and CDC vouchers.

Your labeling of Singaporeans as coupon beggars belittle all Singaporeans.

Do you belittle shareholders expecting companies from paying dividends when companies make profit?

@Babe:With more local f&b and retail coming under pressure - CDC vouchers and GST vouchers will be an impetus for Singaporeans to consume and spend within Singapore and make our local f&b and retail vibrant.

So that less Singaporeans will go across the causeway to shop and dine leading to monetary leakage.

Why Jamus Lim and WP want to cannibalize our local f&b and retails?

====

@S -smart:The Workers' Party recruits the same people: all opportunists. They want to make a name for themselves politically and get a job in Parliament. So they have to tell the nation that they care about national issues.Driven by personal grudges, the Workers' Party criticized the government and sought to divide the country.The reason why the opposition party (Workers' Party) is so actively trying to win over and mislead young people is because what young people lack is not knowledge, but experience.

@mkgolf123:Still his ideas are very kiddish .. grow up Jamus .. we need to look at our macro fundamentals

@Spearman Bro:What is WP talking?

Thats how wealth is transfered from the wealthy to the lower income sinkies

@Ky Cheong:Singapore doesn't need opposition like workers party, reason because they are not honest. [Innocent][Innocent]

@沐森:Nothing wrong with the cdc vouchers, dividends to citizens to enjoy the benefits of country success and most importantly help shops under HDB neighbourhoods

@BBQle:WP definitely can change for the worst... if come into power, all things cover up....

@BBQle:why a prof oppose to vouchers when they benefit recipients, and local businesses??

typical of oppose just to oppose?

@Shhh.......Ummmm...:He talk a lot of nonsense issues make up of words that doesn’t make any sense…….😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣 another word he always dress up his words…even confused himself….😂🤣😂🤣🤣

@L33594大叔:🤣🤣🤣why you always talk something you don't understand?

@Liongjiah Wong:I sometimes don't understand what he is speaking about.

@BBQle:why a prof oppose to vouchers when they benefit recipients, and local businesses??

typical of oppose just to oppose?@Politics Factual Martin @clcheong0 @WPCanChangeSG @Brother Crow - FBA Store Owner @Saz @Chee Soon Juan

@AIYOYO:i think you better donate your mp salary since you are so capable😂😂😂

@thecredibletraveller:Vouchers give a kick to the economy. Domestic demand.

@Golden light:Now that PAP is helping Singaporeans, the WP is unhappy and wants to stop the benefits.

@Golden light:cos is benefit Singaporeans but not WP. So WP is only thinking for themselves and not for Singaporeans

@ivantohet:He actually make me feel professor are actually nothing

@owyongmak:no jamus. we like the vouchers

@ThinkToker:First of all, some Singaporeans, especially those that did not achieve much success in their lives compared to majority of Singaporeans have developed a whining culture ‘I lost my job, why government not helping me and give ti foreigners?’, ‘cost of living so high why government not doing anything’ - everything expect government to help. So now with CDC vouchers, also whine that giving CDC vouchers will inculcate a voucher culture? Look at it this way, GST applies to all including foreigners but Singaporeans are given cash to alleviate their costs. So stop whining and have some critical thinking for once.

====

[07/10, 5:13 pm] My close friend comments: Jamus now say beware of coupon culture. Thought WP wanted gov to allocate more returns from investments?

[07/10, 5:16 pm] My comments: See these transformed netizens that turn against WP and Jamus Lim.

Previously all those netizens that support WP and criticize PAP now turn against WP.

My social media postings has changed many youngsters opinions.

[07/10, 5:18 pm] : I suspect pap also actively engaging all these youth to let them participate in politics and let them see the right perspective.

Some youth say - we are knowledgeable but inexperienced.

Initially we will be fool by WP.

But as we gain experience, we can discern what is right and what is wrong.

[07/10, 6:21 pm] My friend comments:

It's critical thinking and debating skills.

Rethink, Reframe, Rebutt.

[07/10, 6:22 pm] My comments:

Yes.

People are convince by good reasons, logic, judgement and facts.

Hence our Wisdom very important.

We must convince people beyond reasonable doubts that oppies with their limited intelligent cannot win and fool the voters.

====

REACH (Telegram) 162 - What are your thoughts on the issues to be discussed in Parliament? Which topic interests you the most?

(SK)

06 Oct 2026 (10am - 7pm)

REACH (Telegram)

[6/10/2026 9:45 am] REACH Singapore: Dear Contributors,