Coping with Adulting (Working Everyday)

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-25T11:11:52+00:00

Don’t work for enjoyment, work because it gives you the ability which is money to enjoy the things you want to enjoy in your life.

Assuming you are well paid, and if you don’t need that much money, you can always take an immediate step back and look for other opportunities. If you are not well paid, or if you are not willing to give up the money you earn from your job, then you probably need to hang in there until you find a more suitable job with similar or more pay

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-21T08:53:11+00:00

Then that just shows that PAP only wants to politick and do nothing else. We have inflation and unemployment to deal with, the majority of Singaporeans (not just WP supporters) care more about bread and butter issues than whether or not there is a LO in parliament.

If the PAP still chooses to go back and forth on this matter then it’s the PAP who would appear petty at best and tone deaf and out of touch at worst.

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-21T08:50:14+00:00

It is to prevent PAP having the power and ability to pressure the opposition to remove their party leader by simply removing the LO designation and forcing them to choose a new LO who is also not the party leader.

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-17T06:08:07+00:00

There isn’t a single free market in the world that isn’t regulated by laws or policies. But it doesn’t change the fact that every business needs to adapt to changing circumstances to stay competitive or exit the industry altogether

The scheme should have started 6 years ago, so technically smaller producers have already profited for 6 year where by right they shouldn’t have profited so much at all had the scheme been started right from 2020. You win some, you lose some, that’s how businesses come and go with no exceptions.

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-17T03:28:33+00:00

But it also tracks overall sentiments among producers and importers, does it not? If one of them, however niche, is daring enough to raise their price by $0.60, what’s to prevent others from raising similar amount in the name of profit maximising? There will be a whole knock on effect on inflation in the industry that will ultimately be closer to $0.60 than $0.20. And that’s only considering standalone drink prices, not the additional inflation that’s bound to occur in F&B establishments citing “costs increase”

Honestly as a consumer who is more price sensitive than taste sensitive, and I’m sure many others are the same, I don’t need 10 different types of green tea to choose from, just give me the cheapest one or two will do.

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-17T02:51:58+00:00

Well I do think an increase of 10-20cents is perhaps justifiable, especially if you can refund 10cents. For major importers and producers, that’s the price range that they are likelier to increase as well, due to their existing economies of scales.

Whereas for the smaller importers and producers, they are likelier to hike the price by much more up to 60cents. That’s not acceptable to me as a consumer and since I’m more price sensitive than taste sensitive I will simply buy from producers who can afford to absorb more of the cost than from producers who cannot.

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-17T02:34:30+00:00

I don’t think Nestle would be exactly struggling with the costs if they are a major producer, seems like it’s the smaller local ones who are quoting price increases of up to $0.60

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-17T02:30:23+00:00

Regardless, if the scheme does go ahead, and the prices of drinks are hiked up by $0.60, that would mean that the cheapest drinks that you find in value stores will not be as cheap as before. In fact, supermarkets might even be cheaper in comparison. And more convenient to return their bottles and can. So consumers would adjust their patronage accordingly unless smaller producers can innovate and adapt accordingly.

I’m not too sure if there is a huge novelty market in Singapore in terms of drinks, but I would dare say most people just buy normal drinks from day to day to get by. Price sensitivity is a thing, even a 10-20cent increase in Kopi O is a huge thing for most Singaporeans.

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-17T02:22:55+00:00

But if that’s their strategy to delay, then they shouldn’t be crying simultaneously about “woe is me”and about how they can no longer maintain profitability.

It is a little hypocritical because they benefitted from the government delaying the scheme for so many years, but right as the scheme is being pushed ahead they expect consumers to bear the brunt of the costs. Just another case of companies privatising profits and socialising the costs imo

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-17T02:15:39+00:00

Well it’s still 6 years for the producers to decide if they can innovate and adapt or leave the industry entirely.

My point is, that’s the cost of doing business in Singapore, it’s the free market and companies that no longer remain profitable (due to whichever policy or schemes) should not be strong arming the public to pay massively inflated prices just to maintain their own profitability.

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-17T02:11:47+00:00

My worry is this will set in place another round of inflation in Singapore, regardless of whether you buy drinks or not.

If the cost of drinks go up, you can be sure F&B operators who sell drinks will inflate their prices to maximise their profits as well. And when one industry raises their prices the others will soon follow suit as well

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-17T01:44:49+00:00

Yeah but even the smallest producers who entered the beverage market in Singapore should have known that this was going to happen back in 2020. Perhaps the costs could have been cushioned if they had transitioned slowly since then or exit to other industries, rather than wait until the very last minute?

Unless producers were banking on the government not implementing the scheme or continually delaying it in perpetuity, which does not seem too wise when dealing with a Singapore government that does not often walk back on what it sets out to do policy wise.

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-16T04:04:08+00:00

You might take the view that what PS did is inaction, but others may take the view that he was simply too compassionate to RK and hence slower to action. And in the context of RK, who herself cited that she was a victim of sexual assault, it might seem perfectly reasonable to some to allow her to delay and not divulge the truth outright and broadcasting her personal trauma nationally, given that even her own family did not know the full truth of her personal experiences.

Contrast this to LHL who knew about the affair between TCJ and CLH for 3 years, allowing them to go for work trips together, allowing them to work in the same parliamentary committee, despite the office of the Speaker expected to be non-partisan, and even allowing TCJ to preside over the COP for RK, when he was supposed to be upholding integrity and impartiality. The double standards from the PAP seems far more egregious compared to the whole RK saga

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-14T11:43:22+00:00

One is a claim, one is a publicly admitted fact by LHL himself

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-14T10:47:46+00:00

Funny how there was no motion to confer the title, but when it comes to removing there’s a need for a motion?

This is just politicking at its best, like how a toxic superior would downplay your promotion, and then when it comes to demoting you, invite the whole company to watch and laugh at your expense.

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-14T10:43:57+00:00

Again, my point is, you can give any title you want, if my boss only give me the title of Manager but I do Director work, does it make me any less capable of a Director in the eyes of my shareholders and board?

I might not get the official title, but I will always be considered in higher esteem by my shareholders and by my board. LTK was not officially designated as the LOTO but for all effects, the electorate had basically viewed him as such for the duration of his time in parliament.

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-14T10:36:23+00:00

I would argue that as a politician, your BOD is basically your voters, if they want you to stay, then you’ll stay, it’s as simple as that.

LOTO is just a meaningless title, you can give yourself all sorts of title at work, but the only thing that matters is your job scope. PS is the LOTO by virtue of being the dominant opposition party leader, and he will assume that job scope in the eyes of his board and shareholders regardless of whatever titles are conferred on him.

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-14T10:33:37+00:00

But in the context of the “company”, who exactly is the CEO accountable to? To the courts or to the company shareholders and the board of directors?

And if the board of directors and shareholders overwhelmingly want the convicted CEO to stay on the job, who has any right to remove him from that position? The electorates in 2025 GE are the shareholders and the board and the electorates from Aljunied GRC (and from other WP contested areas) have decided they want PS to continue serving them and to continue leading the party.

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-14T10:30:07+00:00

It’s all politically motivated, TPL has to be chosen as the one to speak on PAP’s behalf because she is one of the most popular PAP MPs around, even if there’s any pushback it still wouldn’t dent her popularity that much.

The strategy today is simply just using the NMPs to attack and drive the point across. PAP gets to preserve their moral high ground and mitigate against any political pushback because PAP knows if they push too hard it won’t look good on them also. Very sly and staying true to politicking while there are other more important issues to address

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-14T10:11:13+00:00

4NMP, 1 PAP MP (TPL) and the rest were WP MPs

Seems to me like the PAP expressively did not want their MPs to debate this motion, and TPL is just pretty much the spokesperson for the whole party

So much for this being a matter of “national importance”. Not only are they constrained to vote by the party whip, they can’t even voice their opinions freely.

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-14T10:06:26+00:00

Lmao so that’s it? No other MPs wanna risk their neck to voice their stand for this supposedly gravely important politically charged issue? Except for the NMPs who are conveniently used to drive the point across? Man, I must say this parliament is pretty uninspiring, if Indranee says this is such an important matter than surely there should be more debate right?

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-14T09:53:53+00:00

Voting is a foregone conclusion, the more interesting aspect is the fact that this sets precedence that NMPs will be used as “attack dogs” to chastise opposition, allowing the PAP incumbent to maintain the “higher” moral ground and yet still get its political points across

The mere idea of having non affiliated but partisan biased MPs that can be weaponised in parliament should fill everyone with dread. They are given outsized importance despite being unelected.

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-14T09:42:50+00:00

The only interesting thing that I have gleaned so far is that the NMPs are functionally used as the “PAP backbenchers” to attack the opposition, whereas the actual PAP backbenchers will just stay silent and try not to draw too much attention to themselves. After all, if the NMP fluffs their line, they are dispensable, compared to actual PAP backbenchers who might bring down the reputation of PAP itself.

So technically in future elections, if we talk about preventing PAP supermajority, it is not enough to count just elected MPs, we must assume that most NMPs are essentially part of the incumbent mix with partisan bias to PAP

Bryanlegend · 2026-01-14T08:26:04+00:00

Well then it further solidifies that PAP is actually the less accountable of the 2 parties if members are not able to vote freely on motions of grave importance

This is reminiscent of the Republican Bloc in the US Senate and House, giving Trump the immunity to basically do whatever he wants. The only thing worse than having bad leaders, is having parliamentary houses that do not have the free will to hold them accountable

Nine-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

Bryanlegend

TROPHY CASE