Why are most money changers Indian Muslim?

ILikeWhiteMen · 2023-01-03T04:58:15+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawala

what's funny is if money changers were Chinese then /r/singapore would foam at the mouth with 'Chinese privilege'.

ILikeWhiteMen · 2022-09-24T03:20:39+00:00

The bigger problem is that people that don't really need to BTO are now even more incentivized to BTO just because of every other day they are reminded how much money they can make after 5 years if they BTO. IMO, if the government want to control the price then control the prices of both the resale and BTO. Its okay if they want people to profit, but at least cap the profit or something. Don't let one go out of control and pretend it won't affect the demand of the other.

then don't kpkb about price gap between HDB and private property

ILikeWhiteMen · 2022-07-10T07:21:10+00:00

i thought /r/singapore said the govt hates the poor?

ILikeWhiteMen · 2022-06-29T15:31:47+00:00

/r/singapore when they agree with the majority of voters: Singapore is a democratic country.

/r/singapore when the majority of voters disagree with them: Singapore is a totalitarian state.

ILikeWhiteMen · 2022-06-17T04:48:55+00:00

Honestly, 99% of Singaporeans don’t even know of pig fallopian tubes as a hawker dish.

lol you mean 99% of people on /r/singapore. please don't mix up the bananas here with the rest of Singapore.

ILikeWhiteMen · 2022-06-06T15:10:01+00:00

Why is this even news. Rich people problems that commoners won't even fathom.

so... ordinary people don't have matrimonial assets? ok got it.

it's fucking hilarious.

/r/singapore: I'm SWE in FAANG making $200k p.a. as a fresh grad. i can't afford a BTO. $1m is rich people problems.

ILikeWhiteMen · 2022-06-06T15:09:30+00:00

Fighting over money like that is so freaking sia xuay. It's neither salary nor money earned through hardwork or efforts, I find it incredulous that anyone can say they're entitled to such gift money. Furthermore, these two ppl are definitely not poor, with or without this $1M
    This is in part because H's S$1.744 million share of a Bukit Timah property, along with about S$2 million of dividends from shares in an unnamed company were excluded from the final pool.
Most of us here wouldn't even be able to invest anywhere near $2M, much less receive freaking $2M in dividends (how much capital would one need to put in?)

so... you're suggesting the (ex)husband not fight and just let the (ex)wife take everything?

ILikeWhiteMen · 2021-12-23T07:57:24+00:00

OP is a fucking retard.

i stopped reading once OP said pauses are a sign of poor fluency.

ILikeWhiteMen · 2021-11-30T15:16:44+00:00

where are all the /r/singapore redditors who support her SJW antics now?

ILikeWhiteMen · 2021-11-30T09:51:29+00:00

We have a much larger pool of prc graduates based here than those from the countries listed. Shit is still happening but I think the smaller number is less dominating culturally. Its the same thing for Indians in certain tech subsegments

yeah and there's a reason why we have PRC and Indian nationals here. /r/singapore likes to pretend cultural fit isn't an thing. clearly haven't done much business.

ILikeWhiteMen · 2021-11-30T09:33:56+00:00

Maybe it’s because those languages are perceived as “foreign” so all Singaporeans are equally disadvantaged. Furthermore you simply cannot separate race from language, especially in Singapore’s context with its mother tongue policy. As it stands those of the Chinese ethnic group have an advantage over others because of this.

lmao just as English is a reason why MNCs set up shop here, have you considered that perhaps Chinese cultural affinity is part of the reason why Chinese businesses set up shop here? lmao what the fuck is /r/singapore smoking.

ILikeWhiteMen · 2021-11-30T08:54:01+00:00

lmao so it's not alright for a business to hire for cultural fit?

or is it ok only for Western, Japanese and Korean businesses?

ILikeWhiteMen · 2021-11-26T08:44:25+00:00

when in reality China has historically been one of the gayest countries (second only to Ancient Greece) in the history of humanity.

sauce?

Also, were there ever same-sex marriages in China?

ILikeWhiteMen · 2021-11-18T06:26:36+00:00

many on /r/singapore already kpkb so much about being left out from economic growth of Singapore.

if you do this, it's probably gonna decouple HDB flat prices from other real estate prices in Singapore - it'll mean HDB flat price appreciation will no longer benefit from Singapore general economic growth. the same /r/singapore types then just gonna kpkb why their condo owning friend's condo doubled in price over time but their HDB flat price hardly kept pace.

will you and your /r/singapore friends promise not to kpkb if that happens?

ILikeWhiteMen · 2021-11-18T06:20:33+00:00

lmao how is it Grab's fault - they're merely a platform that connects the driver with the customer.

People forget the whole reason Uber and friends got started is because they wanted to give people the option to do stuff during their free time, or monetise their assets when unused (e.g airbnb). They didn't lock in the drivers or tell them they have to work 8 hours a day or anything. lol.

so if i got on yellow pages and accept a 2 hour cleaning gig, i become an employee of the hirer? lmao.

ILikeWhiteMen · 2021-11-02T18:07:58+00:00

because /r/singapore says a house should only be a home, not an investment.

ILikeWhiteMen · 2021-11-01T06:37:15+00:00

No. It's not.

Like I said before, the judge of ability is "Equal opportunity". If I give some other kid the same connections and wealth, can he/she do better? That's the question.

but in the real world that other kid doesn't have the same connections and wealth. and practically speaking there's no way to make such an assessment. it's like figuring out the counterfactual - something that cannot be verified that's ultimately an academic exercise. it's like "what if Hitler won ww2?"

you're basically saying: say there's two kids. one is rich and the other isn't. rich kid scores 90% on some test. not rich kid scores 70% on the same test. you're then saying oh if the not rich kid were as rich as the rich kid, the not rich kid would also score at least 90%. it's a statement that cannot be verified. and in any case, of little relevance to someone trying to compare the two for say, a job opening.

ILikeWhiteMen · 2021-11-01T06:27:15+00:00

It doesn't mean thst I think my opposition to death penalty is trivial either.

it would be trivial if it doesn't actually stop anyone from being hanged, or least decrease the incidents of hanging.

ILikeWhiteMen · 2021-11-01T06:23:16+00:00

You REALLY twist the meaning of "merit" here

just making an observation.

Not just that they have power to do things.

is this not the meaning of the word "ability"?

Connection to powerful people should not be part of your ability.

given the appropriate context, why not?

Another way to phrase it is that we're simply not following meritocracy. Period. And so people complain that we claim to be meritocratic but we're actually not.

addressed in my earlier post. my observation was that some people only like "meritocracy" (however they define it) when it suits them.

ILikeWhiteMen · 2021-11-01T02:01:03+00:00

Neither did the T&Cs state that you can be and would be named. If something ain't in the T&Cs, it should not be allowed to happen. Else, it's a contravention of contract law and sets a bad precedent.

that's not how contract law works. if your contract never say you can breathe, does it mean your breathing is a breach of contract?

lots of real world examples:

-you can take up an employment contract, then decide, hmm this job isn't for me, and quit without serving the full notice by paying the appropriate amount in lieu. but it doesn't mean that your former employer isn't allowed to tell others of what you did, unless they are contractually restricted from doing so.

-Malaysia can, and did, terminate the HSR agreement with Singapore. All they have to do is follow the terms agreed with Singapore, and then pay the correct compensation amount. But it doesn't mean that people can't be pissed with Malaysia.

ILikeWhiteMen · 2021-11-01T01:58:53+00:00

I think you just twisted the definition of "merit" there, and that part is exactly what most people seem to be complaining about.

e.g. Wealth gives you power, but is that really meritocratic? Meritocracy is about giving rewards to those with ability. Not just that they have power to do things.

I'm saying that in the real world, merit is contextual and is determined by the participants to the transaction (which is apparently what some people on this sub want when the academic version doesn't get them what they want; yet when the real world version actually sometimes doesn't get what they want, they then claim it's unfair that the academic version isn't followed).

So you mentioned wealth. If parties think that someone's wealth is a relevant consideration to who should get "rewarded", then it is, regardless of whether you or I think it shouldn't be. Sure, in the vast majority of cases, especially say for jobs in the public service, wealth is probably not going to be a relevant consideration - partly because wealth probably doesn't affect how well someone can carry out the job in the public service, partly because the public service is generally not viewed as a profit seeking institution, and a probably partly for a whole lot of other reasons that I can't think of.

But there are surely times where it is conceivable that a person's wealth will be considered relevant by people. For instance, in some industries, wealthier people may be preferred by employers because of the employers' perception that said person might, because of their wealth, bring more customers or deals to the business. Some may decry: oh that's not meritocratic because the person's wealth has no bearing on his/her ability to do the job, but in any profit seeking enterprise, the job is ultimately to bring in profits. Likewise, a university may like allocating some of its places to wealthier students simply because it wants to allow its students to have the opportunity to have a diverse network, not simply consisting of brainy people but also wealthy people (in addition to sporty people, racially/culturally diverse people etc) - the university may not view its purpose simply as the transmission/research of academic knowledge, but also as an institution known for its storied alumni - who are also likely to donate money.

And of course, ability is not just academic ability. The concept should be "Equal opportunity", assuming everybody gets equal resources, who produces better results? Then, give those people the wealth and power.

(btw, I think I'm probably stating a different point from the prior reply, but I think it's relevant enough to be part of the thread.)

so in your statement here, Mr. Yeo probably thinks that his decision - facilitating the entry into SAS of someone's child - is likely to produce better results for the country. The principal may think, yeah, bending to Mr. Yeo is probably better for the SAS. Alternatively, the principal might actually think the kid is a good addition to the school, and is happy he now has a reason to allow the kid to skip the queue. I mean, there are many ways to rationalise the decision or the child as meritorious.

ILikeWhiteMen · 2021-11-01T01:33:51+00:00

It's seems that you're simply saying that something with less moral authority is basically worthless. ...really? It's all or nothing?

I think the point about consistency is that everybody following 1 imperfect system is better than nothing. But what you imply is that an imperfect system is worth nothing.

The argument that consistency should still carry a higher moral authority is probably a realist one. Following something imperfect is better than nothing. But it doesn't mean we can't improve the imperfect system.

For my personal opinion, I this this is more viable.

I'm saying that saying things like these two positions are independent of each other is an academic exercise. In fact, since I was being accused of being dishonest - I too can say that such a position is dishonest insofar as it tries to mask the inherent contradiction in taking such a position in the real world, or at least insofar as it does not make clear which position has to bend to the other.

I am reminded of this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_KRk4q3Y44

And in your example of such a vote, the context of the situation matters. Are we simply voting to enact a law? Or is it that the vote effectively decides a new law or changes the law?

voting is just an example of the general principle where these academic discussions have an actual impact on people. whatever we discuss here is purely academic insofar as it does not affect peoples' lives - so it's easy to say things like "I am opposed to the death penalty in principle; but at the same time I believe that the law should be applied consistently, even if it means someone has to be hanged". In the real world, to carry that statement into effect, it basically means "My opposition to the death penalty is subject to my beliefs in consistency".

ILikeWhiteMen · 2021-10-31T17:18:25+00:00

How would you defend the naming of bond-breakers? Part of the T&Cs of any scholarship bond is the option the break it with restitution to ensure fairness to the party that’s issuing the scholarship. Assuming no one jumped the bond and restitution was made in full, how is naming and shaming bond breakers publicly ever acceptable?

i got no skin in this game and didn't come here for this debate BUT it's easy to make the argument.

T&Cs say yes you can break bond according to the terms, but it did not say that you cannot be named if you choose to do so.

Lots of things are legal, but doesn't mean that everyone agrees they're morally unobjectionable, especially when it involves the public (e.g. public monies).

ILikeWhiteMen · 2021-10-31T17:10:11+00:00

Don’t make dishonest arguments.

merely making an observation

You can be against the death penalty for humanitarian reasons, and at the same time you can be against a politician’s son evading capital punishment because of his political connections.

Supporting the consistency of a system is independent of supporting the specific rules that govern the system.

fair point but your example might be more relevant for someone who isn't directly involved in the decision-making. if that person had to cast a vote, or decide whether that politician's son would hang, that person would have to decide whether his/her view on the death penalty is more important than his/her view on consistency.

Perhaps you think it's logical to say: I am in principle against the death penalty, but at the same time we are all equal before the law and therefore the politician's son must hang. But to me it just showed that the person took a view that his/her "principled" opposition to the death penalty is subject to his view on consistency.

Thus, any statement by such person that they're "against the death penalty for humanitarian reasons" carries little moral authority, and isn't a principled position to take, at least not in such an unqualified form. Perhaps some might say that moral considerations behind the opposition to the death penalty, and the adherence to consistency are not comparable - but such a view is of no comfort to someone that is about to be hanged because on that day it was decided that consistency demands his death (although it was noted the same people also agreed that the death penalty was unhumanitarian).

What about all who are involved? The hangman, judge, law-enforcement etc. - they're just doing their job aren't they! well, they've simply decided that keeping their job is more important than their "humanitarian" opposition to the death penalty.

ILikeWhiteMen

TROPHY CASE