Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'scheme'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Cars
    • General Car Discussion
    • Tips and Resources
  • Aftermarket
    • Accessories
    • Performance and Tuning
    • Cosmetics
    • Maintenance & Repairs
    • Detailing
    • Tyres and Rims
    • In-Car-Entertainment
  • Car Brands
    • Japanese Talk
    • Conti Talk
    • Korean Talk
    • American Talk
    • Malaysian Talk
    • China Talk
  • General
    • Motorsports
    • Meetups
    • Complaints
  • Sponsors
    • Products & Services
  • Non-Car Related
    • Lite & EZ
    • Makan Corner
    • Travel & Road Trips
    • Football Channel
    • Hobbies
    • Healthcare & Wellness
    • Property Buzz
    • Investment & Financial Matters
  • MCF Forum Related
    • Official Announcements
    • Feedback & Suggestions
    • FAQ & Help
    • Testing


  • MyAutoBlog

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Found 49 results

  1. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/electric-car-sharing-scheme-to-hit-the-roads-dec-12-9466622 Electric car-sharing scheme to hit the roads Dec 12 The first fleet of cars for an electric car-sharing scheme will hit the roads next Tuesday (Dec 12). BlueSG, a subsidiary of French transportation firm Bollore Group, said it will deploy 80 vehicles which users can book via the BlueSG mobile app. The app will be available on the App Store and Google Play from Dec 5. By Elizabeth Neo @ElizabethNeoCNA 04 Dec 2017 02:21PM (Updated: 04 Dec 2017 10:31PM ) SINGAPORE: The first fleet of cars for an electric car-sharing scheme will hit the roads next Tuesday (Dec 12). BlueSG, a subsidiary of French transportation firm Bollore Group, said it will deploy 80 vehicles which users can book via the BlueSG mobile app. The app will be available on the App Store and Google Play from Dec 5. The company signed an agreement with the Land Transport Authority and the Economic Development Board last year to develop the electric car-sharing programme, which will see 1,000 electric cars deployed in stages. Rentals will be charged based on duration instead of distance, and users can choose from two subscription plans. Under the premium yearly membership plan, priced at S$15 a month, subscribers are charged S$0.33 per minute for a minimum booking of 15 minutes. The weekly membership plan does not charge a recurring fee and users will pay S$0.50 per minute for a minimum duration of 15 minutes. Users will be able to book the electric cars via a mobile app. (Photo: BlueSG) “We are excited about the impending official launch in Singapore, as it is the world’s second biggest electric vehicle car-sharing programme after Paris," said BlueSG managing director Franck Vitte in a news release. He told Channel NewsAsia separately that the pricing is "relatively consistent" with that of other cities in which the company operates. "We are confident that it is going to be quite successful," he said. The company also has a presence in Los Angeles, London, Turin and several French cities. In Singapore, a total of 30 BlueSG stations offering 120 charging points will be rolled out islandwide by the end of this year. Of these, 18 stations will be located in public housing estates including Tampines, Bishan and Punggol, while 10 stations will be in the city centre and its fringes and two others will be within the industrial and commercial estates at one-north and the Science Park. By 2020, the company intends to have a fleet of 1,000 electric vehicles and 2,000 charging points, Mr Vitte said, adding that third-party cars will be allowed to tap on the charging points then. "If it becomes even more successful then we will discuss with the authorities, with the Government whether we have to deploy more cars or more charging points,” he added. The new car-sharing initiative was welcomed by one industry observer who said it will introduce more Singaporeans to the idea of electric cars. "What it will help is to establish a network of charging points which has probably been a prohibitor in the past, and also show the economics of owning an electric car versus a normal car," said Mr Richard Skinner, strategy leader at PricewaterhouseCoopers Singapore. He added: “A couple of reasons why we haven't seen that many electric cars in Singapore is probably the lack of subsidies we have in Singapore. So in China, in Europe, in the United States, to establish the electric cars initially, there were quite strong subsidies. And at the same time there was also help in building the connecting points." Those interested to rent an electric car can sign up and register on BlueSG's website. Source: CNA/nc
  2. An old article I came across in another forum. My apology if this has been posted before. Bernie Madoff's recent Ponzi scheme has drifted out of the world
  3. pegasi

    New VERS scheme for aging HDB

    NDR 2018: Scheme planned to redevelop more old HDB flats before leases end source: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ndr-2018-scheme-planned-to-redevelop-more-old-hdb-flats-before-10631458
  4. Interesting scheme for those Itchy Backsai.... https://www.asiaone.com/lifestyle/singapore-first-netflix-cars-lets-you-switch-between-ferraris-porsches-and-maseratis
  5. private car rental scheme http://www.lta.gov.sg/motoring_matters/mot...mes_private.htm its legal to rent out your car ?
  6. They are really really dumb. http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/two-men-jailed-roles-counterfeit-money-scheme SINGAPORE — Two men were today (Feb 3) jailed three years each by the district court for their roles in a counterfeit money scheme. They are the final two to be sentenced, following four others who have already been dealt with. Odd-job workers Adi Soffian Bakhtiar Effendi and Fauzi Mohammad — both 22 years old — admitted to being accomplices in the scheme to forge and use 24 fake S$1,000 notes. The scheme was hatched by Abdul Adziz Asmon, then an operations assistant with marine service agency Nautical Trade, who was eventually jailed six years and seven months in October last year. The court heard that in 2012, the six involved in the scheme tried to create the fake notes using a scanner, transparencies, paper and eggs. The egg white was spread onto the counterfeit notes to give them a crisp texture, mimicking that of real Singapore currency. The tasks were divided among the six involved. As for the pair sentenced today, Adi scanned the genuine currency notes and printed the counterfeit ones, while Fauzi used a paper cutter to cut the fake notes to the correct size. The notes were forged at a chalet in Costa Sands Resort at Jalan Loyang Besar. The crime was discovered when Abdul Aziz used the fakes when handing S$30,000 to a supplier, who eventually called Nautical Trade to complain. The pair could have been jailed up to 20 years and fined for the offences. CHANNEL NEWSASIA
  7. hi all, need advice from those who attended the RT sessions under the new IPPT scheme (9 months window for IPPT, then 3 months for RT). first time kena RT.. need to know if we have to go for all 20 compulsory sessions or not? Or is there an IPPT session conducted on the 1st or 4th or whichever session, after which if i pass i need not go for RT anymore? tried searching ns.sg and mindef website, they did not mention anything about this. damn sian to go RT.. sibeh waste time sia.
  8. A new Carbon Emissions-Based Vehicle Scheme (CEVS) will apply to all new cars, taxis and newly imported used cars with effect from Jan 1, 2013, the Land Transport Authority said on Wednesday. This followed announcements made by Minister for Transport Lui Tuck Yew in Parliament. Under CEVS, all new cars and imported used cars with low carbon emissions of less than or equal to 160g carbon emissions per kilometre (CO2/km) will qualify for significant rebates of between $5,000 and $20,000, which will be given as an offset against the vehicle's Additional Registration Fee (ARF) payable. Cars with high carbon emissions equal to or more than 211g CO2/km will incur a corresponding registration surcharge between $5,000 and $20,000. The CO2/km performance data for each car model will be provided on mandatory information labels at car showrooms. To encourage taxi companies to adopt lower emission models for their fleet, the CEVS rebate and registration surcharge for taxis is set at 50 per cent higher compared to cars, between $7,500 and $30,000. source: http://www.straitstimes.com/Parliament/Sto...ory_774890.html source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/sin...1187568/1/.html
  9. [author note: this topic was previously discussed at 'New Rules : Giving Way to Buses Coming Out From Bus Stop.' (Dec2008)] Mandatory Give Way to Buses Scheme Is Mr Lui Tuck Yew crazy to bend the law to suit his convenience as Minister of Transport? [Source: OneMotoring: 'Mandatory Give Way to Buses Scheme''] [Source: She claims she's a "victim" of new give-way-to-bus rule] Yes, public transport (buses) is Singapore are slow and sucks "Mrs Teo said bus speeds have gone down from 19.1kmh in 2007 to 17.8kmh, as ridership went up from 2.9 million per day to 3.45 million per day in the same time." ['Bus hubs currently the priority and good progress made: Josephine Teo': (TDY18Jan2012)], and in fact, transport by bicycle for journeys 30km and up might average 25.750kmh. [source: 'road-bike.co.uk'] Rather than the drawing up of more bus lanes, it seems that the MOT is getting lazy and thus enacting some confusing stop gap measures like the ridiculous mandatory Give Way to Buses Scheme (GWTBS)- a scheme whose logic if not legality remains both contradictory if not perplexing. It is in fact perhaps oxymoronic that the good Minister now says that the slow speed of buses exiting bus is due to the fast and continuous movement of other vehicular traffic on Singapore roads, since in stationary traffic conditions yellow boxes to provide for 'reserved' space so that exiting buses ALWAYS have right of way. [Dunearn-Newton Rd- bus bay with typical yellow box pict]. Wouldn't the provision of better public transport services cause fewer Singaporeans to demand travel by private car or taxi?- a largely carbon and road use intense mode of private transportation. Isn't the revolving door [wiki] effect of buses entering bus bays the occasion for buses to exit just the same since a bus awaiting entry to a bus bay effectively blocks off all oncoming traffic by virtue of its size? (that is if Minister Lui is adamant about saving bus-lanes painting costs). Mr Lui as Rear Admiral used to be Chief of Navy; with a cannon in front and torpedoes beneath, everyone gave way to the Admiral's ship. But road vehicular traffic is not the same, emergency vehicles get stuck in traffic jams just the same- nobody moves. Everyone needs space on the little land designated for road use: bus lanes besides allowing cyclist free passage (cycling is good for exercise (save govt healthcare costs) and good for the environment (low impact on global warming)) also allow emergency public vehicles free passage to conduct to their rightful roles, even during the heaviest traffic periods on all days. Emergency public vehicles stuck in jams remain a stain upon the efficiency that the PAP boasts its credentials by. The start stop driving by vehicles on the left lane caused by ambiguity as to whether a bus is indeed leaving the bus bay is also another cause for accidents occurring, if not a compromise in time and energy efficiency as drivers operate their brakes with unnecessary intensity. This adds to pollution if not frustration of driving on Singapore roads; foreign talents holding international driving licenses also cannot be expected to understand this paradoxical local law as it is international convention for vehicles along minor roads (bays etc) to give way to vehicles along major roads (e.g. trunk roads): wouldn't an accident due to this legal paradox result in more jams created by unnecessary traffic accidents? One side issue would be that the Minister is being unnecessary cruel to cyclist and motorcyclist in the enaction of the GWTBS law is that the poor rider/ pillion is then expected to breath in the diesel fumes of the exiting bus: not a pleasant experience nor a safe one- considering that the car driver behind might not be able to break in time, having not considered about the need to stop to give way to the exiting bus and result in the poor rider being crushed in-between- another tragic road fatality. Mr Lui's salary is one that mirrors the elite of the elite in Singapore [pict]. Surely being elite is not about just making more money? Don't the people of Singapore demand more than just hare brained stop gap measures in managing public transport and road use in hyper-efficient Singapore? Not everybody can afford a maid [pict link], nor the privilege of private transportation in Singapore [Saw Phiak Hua empress pict]. More for public transport, safer transport for motorcycles and bicycles. Good Minister, Thank you and have a nice day. References: Above: Dunearn-Newton Rd bus bay- yellow box pict. [pict source: Singapore's defense burden - Something no maid can carry] [pict source] - STOMP 29Aug09: “I gave way to bus -- and got rammed from behind”, [link] - STOMP 19Aug09: “I am one of many 'victims' unfairly fined $130 under new 'give way to bus' rule”, [link] [link] [img source]
  10. Hey everybody, I'm thinking of giving the park and ride scheme a shot on an adhoc basis. Have any of you tried it? What's your experience like? How early do you reach the carpark and is it difficult to get lots (since it's first come first served)? I'm going to be working at raffles place for a couple of months and plan to park my car either at the park and ride carpark near buona vista MRT or near queenstown MRT at about 8.15-8.25am in the morn before taking MRT to raffles place.
  11. Hi Guys, Can assist in providing the list of car dealers that offers balloon / special loan scheme ? Car dealers in the forum that offers such scheme please pm as i intend to trade in my car for next purchase. Thanks.
  12. SINGAPORE - The MediShield Life Scheme Bill tabled in Parliament on Monday gives wide-ranging powers to the administrator to access people's income and health status without explicit consent from them. Those who object to having such information accessed have the choice of opting out. However, those who do so will not be eligible for income-related subsidies for their premiums, nor can they be automatically given a clean bill of health. The Bill also gives the national insurance administrator the same powers as that of the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore to recover unpaid premiums, such as through employers or banks. Such powers are needed because defaults on premiums by people who can afford to pay them will mean a heavier load on other policy holders. Full premiums are payable even by Singaporeans and permanent residents living overseas for long periods. MediShield Life, which will replace the current MediShield when it starts at the end of this year, will cover everyone regardless of whether they are healthy or sick, for their entire life. Coverage will be higher with lower co-payments and no lifetime claim caps but premiums will be higher than the current scheme. Massive government aid, to the tune of $4 billion over five years, will make it highly affordable, the Government has assured. This includes the transitional subsidies which will be given to everyone, rich or poor, for the first four years. On top of that, two in three people will also get 15-50 per cent permanent subsidies on their premiums. The need to access incomes is to make it easy to identify people who qualify and the amount of subsidy they are entitled to. Additional help will be given to those who still can't afford the premiums. For the majority, the higher premiums will be entirely covered by Medisave, with the extra 1 per cent in Medisave contribution from employers that takes effect this month. People who are currently not covered by MediShield and have pre-existing illness will need to pay 30 per cent additional premiums per year for 10 years, after which they revert to paying the normal premiums for their age band. To simplify the procedure of identifying people with existing serious illnesses, such as cancer or heart disease, the administrator will have access to hospital data on all Singaporeans and permanent residents. The Bill also sets out the various penalties for defaulting on payments, providing false information, or wrongfully disclosing information obtained under the authority of the MediShield Life Scheme. For example, a defaulter who tries to leave the country without paying or providing security, as well as officials who wrongfully disclose information, can be fined $5,000, jailed for up to a year or both. The penalty for obstructing investigation into offences under the Bill is heavier with a maximum of $20,000 fine and a year's jail. The Bill also provides for a MediShield Life Council which can review the policy and parameters and recommend changes to the Health Minister to ensure that it continues to provide effective protection to citizens. The Council, which will likely comprise experts from people, private and public sectors, also has overview of the administration of the scheme. Dr Chia Shi Lu, head of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Health, said he supports the implied consent to verify personal details, as there is provision to refuse access. He said: "There has been quite a lot of feedback from Singaporeans, and particularly from the elderly, who are unhappy with government agencies repeatedly requesting personal and financial information from them in order to qualify for any number of government schemes." He and his parliamentary colleagues have often been asked why government agencies do not share information - as will now be done with MediShield Life. - See more at: Parliament: MediShield Life Scheme Bill gives wide-ranging powers to administrator - Singapore Health News & Top Stories - The Straits Times
  13. Lai liao, lai liao. LTA chut new pattern. Brace for impact! 'Ineffective' car emission scheme being reviewed Christopher Tan | The Straits Times | Saturday, Oct 11, 2014 THE Land Transport Authority (LTA) is reviewing a scheme that rewards or penalises motorists based on the amount of carbon dioxide their cars emit. The carbon emissions-based vehicle scheme (CEVS), which was introduced on Jan 1 last year and is slated to run till June 30 next year, has been criticised for being lax, biased and ineffective. Cars with low carbon emissions receive rebates of between $5,000 and $20,000, which are offset against the vehicle's Additional Registration Fee (ARF). But motorists have complained this lowers the residual cost of the car. Cars with high carbon emissions pay a registration surcharge of between $5,000 and $20,000. Motor traders said the main beneficiaries have been sellers of European makes with small-capacity turbocharged direct-injection engines. Experts have also questioned the effectiveness of CEVS in reducing air pollution. Asian Clean Fuels Association executive director Clarence Woo said: "You can lower CO2 and yet not lower pollutants such as particulate matter." Since Singapore plans to adopt the Euro 6 emission standard, which specifies a big reduction in pollutants such as fine particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, the CEVS could be refined towards meeting this objective, he said. LTA met motor industry representatives on Tuesday to inform them of the review and gather feedback. The Straits Times understands several industry players have suggested rewards be delinked from ARF. One dealer, who did not want to be named, said: "Often, dealers use the CEVS rebate to fatten their own margin." LTA would not comment on what changes it is considering. "We will share more details once the review is completed," a spokesman said. Government Parliamentary Committee for Transport chairman Cedric Foo said road tax is based on engine size, which is a proxy for the amount of pollution a car causes. "It would be good if we can extract the pollution element and build it into the CEVS," he said, adding that pollution should not be confined to CO2. National University of Singapore transport researcher Lee Der Horng agreed: "The current CEVS may send a wrong message that the higher the rebate, the more environmentally-friendly a car is." Motorist Leslie Chia, 49, said the CEVS in its current format is an "oxymoron". "You give a rebate, but you also reduce the scrap value of the car," the businessman said. "So actual savings as a percentage of car cost are insignificant." Motorists suggest tying rebates and penalties to road tax or income tax. Observers said the current scheme is not stringent enough as nearly two-thirds of new cars qualify for it. According to LTA, the CEVS has cost the Government about $62 million to date - nearly double the amount originally expected. http://transport.asiaone.com/news/general/story/ineffective-car-emission-scheme-being-reviewed?page=0%2C0
  14. Hi all. I plan to CPF to pay my bank loan for my new house . May I know what if my medical for Home Protection Scheme From Cpf is being rejected due to medical ? Does that mean I cannot buy the house any more or it is just that I still can proceed with the purchase but only without medical coverage that all? Anyone will encounter this?
  15. RadX

    Minimum sum scheme

    There is already one on this Still need another? Closed http://www.mycarforum.com/index.php?showto...871&hl=Cpf*
  16. Me thinks this is not a good idea. Look at how allowing HDB rental in 2003 has played a part in pushing up HDB prices. Also excessive car sharing may lead to more congestion. Instead of owner driving to office in the morning and back in the evening, car may end up on the road the whole day. To MOD: I post this first hor
  17. Report from CNA : Private Car Rental Scheme may be liberalised By Dylan Loh | Posted: 13 March 2013 1447 hrs SINGAPORE: Car owners may have an easier time renting out their vehicles in future. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will study if the Private Car Rental Scheme can be liberalised. LTA is also looking at other ways to ease the private transport situation as vehicle ownership aspirations remain. Forty-five per cent of Singapore households owned a car in 2012, compared to 38 per cent in 2004. With Singapore's land constraints, the government said the growing trend in car ownership is simply not sustainable. If the Private Car Rental Scheme can be made more flexible, it means Singaporeans will have easier access to renting private transport, without needing to own a car. The aim is to increase the convenience of door-to-door options to get around for family outings, or ferrying elderly parents, for example. While this is one way to manage the private transport situation, the government said the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system of allocating vehicle ownership will stay. Authorities are doing a longer term study on the practicality of putting aside some COE supply from the upcoming peak expected in the next few years, for the future when supply becomes tighter. Member of Parliament Hri Kumar Nair is one of many who has noted the difficulty in coming up with a fair system to allocate vehicle ownership. "Most people accept the logic in restricting the number of cars on the road in the need to keep traffic smoothing smoothly but no one likes to pay more. As a result, we have heard many suggestions on how to change the system, usually with a view to keeping COE prices low for some," said Mr Hri Kumar. Transport Minister Lui Tuk Yew said the COE system is by no means perfect, but is preferable to a balloting system. "It is a difficult undertaking to try to allocate cars based on needs, such as to raise a family, to ferry elderly family members or for work purposes. Setting aside the likely problems with implementation and loopholes, I think it would be extremely difficult for the government to decide fairly who deserves and needs a car, and who does not," said Mr Lui. To make better use scarce land space for roads, the Kranji and Pan Island Expressway stretch connecting the residential areas in the north to jobs in the west may be where a 'reversible flow' scheme will be implemented. This scheme allows roads heading one way to head the other direction according to demands of peak period travel. - CNA/fa Those who own more than 1 cars can rent it out.......
  18. Sounds familiar? http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=8321 Bernie Madoff's recent Ponzi scheme has drifted out of the world’s headlines. However, there is another even more costly and widespread scheme — "Ponzi Demography" — that warrants everybody’s attention. While it may come in many guises, Ponzi demography is essentially a pyramid scheme that attempts to make more money for some by adding on more and more people through population growth. While more visible in industrialized economies, particularly in Australia, Canada and the United States, Ponzi demography also operates in developing countries. The underlying strategy of Ponzi demography is to privatize the profits and socialize the costs incurred from increased population growth. The basic pitch of those promoting Ponzi demography is straightforward and intoxicating in its pro-population growth appeal: “more is better.” However, as somebody who has spent a lifelong career as a demographer, including 12 years of service as the director of the United Nations Population Division, I find that more is not necessarily better. As has been noted by Nobel laureate economists Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen as well as many others, current economic yardsticks such as gross domestic product (GDP) focus on material consumption and do not include quality-of-life factors. Standard measures of GDP do not reflect, for example, the degradation of the environment, the depreciation of natural resources or declines in individuals’ quality of life. According to Ponzi demography, population growth — through natural increase and immigration — means more people leading to increased demands for goods and services, more material consumption, more borrowing, more on credit and of course more profits. Everything seems fantastic for a while — but like all Ponzi schemes, Ponzi demography is unsustainable. When the bubble eventually bursts and the economy sours, the scheme spirals downward with higher unemployment, depressed wages, falling incomes, more people sinking into debt, more homeless families — and more men, women and children on public assistance. That is the stage when the advocates of Ponzi demography — notably enterprises in construction, manufacturing, finance, agriculture and food processing — consolidate their excess profits and gains. That leaves the general public to pick up the tab for the mounting costs from increased population growth (e.g., education, health, housing and basic public services). Among its primary tactics, Ponzi demography exploits the fear of population decline and aging. Without a young and growing population, we are forewarned of becoming a nation facing financial ruin and a loss of national power. Due to population aging, government-run pensions and healthcare systems will become increasingly insolvent, according to advocates of Ponzi demography, thereby crippling the economy, undermining societal well-being and threatening national security. Low birth rates, especially those below replacement levels, are considered a matter of national concern. Without higher fertility rates and the resulting population growth, the nation, it is claimed, faces a bleak and dreary future. So Ponzi demography calls for pro-natalist policies and programs to encourage couples to marry and to have more children, which will lead to the promised sustained economic growth. In addition to financial incentives and other benefits for childbearing, appeals are also made to one's patriotic duty to have children in order to replenish and expand the homeland: “Have one (child) for mum, one for dad and one for the country.” In addition to measures to increase fertility levels, Ponzi demography also turns to immigration for additional population growth in order to boost companies' profits. The standard slogan in this instance is “the country urgently needs increased immigration,” even when immigration may already be at record levels and unemployment rates are high. Among other things, increased immigration, it is declared, is a matter of national security, long-term prosperity and international competitiveness. Without this needed immigration, Ponzi demography warns that the country’s future is at serious risk. Another basic tactic of Ponzi demography is a pervasive and unrelenting public relations campaign promoting the advantages and necessity of an increasing population for continued economic growth. Every effort is made to equate population growth with economic prosperity and national progress. "Economic growth requires population growth" is the basic message that Ponzi demography wants the public to swallow. No mention is made of the additional profits they reap and the extra costs the public bears. Attempts to question or even discuss Ponzi demography are denigrated and defamed to such an extent that concerns about population growth become radioactive. Politicians, journalists and environmentalists, for example, choose by and large to sidestep the entire issue. When confronted with environmental concerns such as climate change, global warming, environmental contamination or shortages of water and other vital natural resources, the advocates of Ponzi demography typically dismiss such concerns as unfounded and overblown. And they claim there is no scientific basis, or they obliquely stress “innovation,” ingenuity and technological fixes as the only appropriate and workable solutions. Many are complicit with Ponzi demography or at least tacitly support its goals. Few politicians, for example, are able to resist promises of campaign financing, the appeal of increased numbers of supportive voters, prospects of increased tax revenues and the political backing of pro-natalist and pro-immigration lobbyists and special interest groups. Many environmental groups are also reluctant to take up or even touch the volatile subject of population growth, especially those that have been burned on this issue in the past. Such groups fear possibly offending some members and donors, which might undercut their organizations and efforts. Despite its snake-oil allure of “more is better,” Ponzi demography’s advocacy for ever-increasing population growth is ultimately unsustainable. Such persistent growth hampers efforts to improve the quality of life for today’s world population of nearly seven billion people as well as for future generations. Moving gradually towards population stabilization, while not a panacea for the world’s problems, will make it far easier to address problems such as climate change, environmental degradation, poverty and development, human rights abuses and shortages of water, food and critical natural resources. Fortunately, most couples around the world have chosen — or are in the process of choosing — to have a few children rather than many and to invest more in each child’s upbringing, education and future well-being. Nations need to make the same vital transition with respect to their populations. The sooner nations reject Ponzi demography and make the needed gradual transition from ever-increasing population growth to population stabilization, the better the prospects for all of humanity and other life on this planet.
  19. To ensure faster bus journeys, a scheme that makes it compulsory for motorists to give way to buses moving out from bus bays will be expanded to 150 more bus stops islandwide. This extension, announced by Parliamentary Secretary for Transport Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim on Sunday, will boost the number of stops on the scheme by over 70 per cent, from the existing 203. Bus bays in the scheme, started in December 2008, are marked with a large box in yellow and an arrow indicating the direction of exiting buses. Motorists who fail to give way will be fined $130. Areas where the scheme will be extended to include Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5, Bedok Reservoir Road and Mountbatten Road. In all, there are more than 2,000 bus stops with bus bays islandwide. Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/...-stops-20121022
  20. Hi anyone know if a car is under the balloon scheme can be converted to OPC to enjoy the half yearly OPC cash rebate? thinking of getting a fun car but i dont really drive it often as i already have a normal plate car and the supposed FC for this fun car is terrible. Car normal loan monthly $1300 If under balloon $890 If under balloon with opc $*** Thanks in advance
  21. Came across this and wanted to share with everybody especially if they have folks at home who previously didn't qualify due to the age limit. It has been lowered from 65 to 40. For more info, please click on link. http://www.chas.sg/page_patients.aspx?id=320#chas About CHAS What is the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS)? The Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS), formerly known as the Primary Care Partnership Scheme (PCPS), is one of the Ministry of Health (MOH)
  22. Hi all, I wonder how the 40% rebate of the Green Vehicle Rebate Scheme works..40% reduction of the car price or what? Thank you very much. Regards,
  23. My ex-senior in JC, , Mr Smark, has been making lots of money after he left school with his scheme: He promises superb returns to his customers and many of them supported him and trusted him for decades despite his high fee for the services/returns he appeared to be delivering.... he uses charts and stats to prove better years to come. He even managed to hire top talents to help run his scheme. These loyalists were paid salaries which top earners in other countries darent even dream of. Having an united family helps too, his relatives help grow his business. Soon his beloved wife was listed as one of the top 'most influencial' aunties in the mahjong kakis community. Things went rather smoothly and everyone who take part in the scheme was making money one way or another until recently the returns started to dwindle and the exclusive club house (equiped with mahjong rooms, spas, ktv) for members of the scheme started to cause small inconvenences to the members eg lift breakdown, overcrowded washrooms etc etc. The spa pools' water also overflew and flooded the mahjong rooms next door! Members started to show concerns and to make peace and buy time, Mr Smark declared a discount on his fees...... His loygalists were split: some say this is a good move, some say Mr Smark is forcing them to go hungry by doing this.... they hinted resignation. What must Mr Smark do now to survive? More importantly, what options do the members have?
  24. There is some uncertainty on the Give-Way to bus scheme. Its made worst by the Cisco personnel who set up tripod camera at the exit of bus stop to video violators. Is it WRONG/chargable offence to be stuck in the give way box due to traffice lights ahead, while a bus then subsequently arrives in the bus stop and wants to come out.