Is my English really so difficult to understand?
Written by ED on June 11, 2008 – 8:01 am - Posted in Blogosphere, Life |I thought this had better be done right, before Mr Heng-Cheong Leong continue to twist my words into something else, which isn’t the case. As some of you would have read one of my previous post here, Mr Heng seemed to have totally misunderstood where I stand regarding the issue.
I am not going to parrot Mr Heng word for word but I will just address the points he raised, and the complete *insert your own word* he is putting up in my blog. For a matter of fact, the others whom have left comments in my post clearly get the picture which he doesn’t. Whether Mr Heng is one of the mouthpieces of the Government, I ain’t sure. It’s just one of those episodes where we pose queries to our Government on a certain issue, the queries are unanswered and twisted into something else.
Mr Heng’s posted two completely inaccurate accusations in his last comment.
1. If you refuse to see this 3/4-tank-rule as a rule to reduce taxation leakage, then so be it.
I am not sure what gave Mr Heng this impression that led him to the first audacious accusation. In my post, I have clearly written “Removing the 3/4 tank rule or not doesn’t really makes a lot of difference in Singapore. When funds are lost through one avenue, there’s always something else to bank on to recuperate those revenues.”
Everybody knows the 3/4 tank rule was in place for taxation purposes. If you do not know, obviously you haven’t been staying in Singapore alot.
2. If you refuse to believe government’s line that this taxation of petrol is one method to control traffic growth, then show us why the government’s logic is wrong.
I do not deny petrol taxation is one of the various methods on top of ERP and higher road-tax charges etc.
Where has Mr Heng gone wrong then?
A. Am I discussing about whether taxation of petrol is right or wrong?
I think any reasonably educated person can understand what the post was about. At least for those whom have left comments prior to Mr Heng.
B. Is Ministry of Finance set up to manage road traffic conditions or financial policies in Singapore?
This is the funny part. What I meant is, if road traffic condition is the issue in question here, then the appropriate ministry and department to address that should be Ministry of Transport or Land Transport Authority. Aren’t these ministries designed to do all these jobs?
C. What was I genuinely discussing?
What Ministry of Finance replied to CNA, has nothing to do with affirmation of taxation requirements but instead “traffic conditions” which do not fall under the purview of Ministry of Finance. The reason provided by Ministry of Finance is not even part of their job scope. Otherwise, you will be paying your traffic fines and buying season parking coupons from Ministry of Finance counters and not HDB office.
As a simple illustration to Mr Heng, when you are robbed after drawing cash from the ATM, do you report your robbery at a police station or return to your National Service unit to lodge a case?
My conclusion
It’s not a case of whether I believe in Mr Heng or the Government, but Mr Heng, you have completely misunderstood what the post was about while pushing on such aggressive accusations that are nowhere near the truth.
Again, I highlight the fact that it wasn’t a post on whether taxation is right, but rather, which should be the correct department to respond regarding road traffic issues?
Also, in view of Ministry of Finance, whether their response should be more relevant to taxation matters?
It’s funny how most people I spoke to get the meaning of my post but just not Mr Heng. I really wonder… is it really so difficult to understand a very simple piece of writing? Are Singaporeans too attuned to Singlish until we can’t understand English?
But like I always tell my friends, I only need to explain ONCE. If after this Mr Heng still don’t get the context of my post, it’s seriously not my problem anymore.
June 11th, 2008 at 8:34 am
You wrote: “Since when Ministry of Finance began to monitor and manage road conditions and automobile issues? It’s hilarious! Who knows one day we will start seeing Traffic Police from Ministry of Finance?”
My response to this point is that: this is not an issue about monitoring road conditions and automobile issues. This is about pluging a loophole in the taxation system, so that people cannot use this loophole to avoid paying the petrol tax.
You wrote: “If the 3/4 tank rule is in place to ensure revenues for local fuel operators (which most motorists are well aware of), just say it as it is. [...] What’s the point of coming up with a complete BS which doesn’t even fall into the purview of Ministry of Finance?”
And I responded: the government’s rationale is that petrol tax is used to add to the cost of driving in Singapore, as a means to discourage people from driving in Singapore. This was one of Singapore government’s policies all along, and indeed LTA even stated this in black-and-white in the White Paper.
So in summary:
1. Why is MOF responding to this question? Well, because this *is* a taxation issue — specifically, plugging a loophole in the taxation system. So, it makes sense for MOF to respond.
Of course it will make sense for LTA to respond similarly too. But all I am saying is that it also make sense for MOF to respond too.
2. Why is MOF using the reason of traffic congestion? Because that’s what this tax is about.
For example, income tax comes under IRAS (which is under MOF), but the tax collected can be used for social purposes like funding police (MHA) or building airports (MOT) or subsidizing education (MOE). When you go and ask MOF why is it collecting income tax, you’d expect MOF to explain the various uses of income tax, and not to tell you: “I don’t know. I’m just collecting money”, do you?
Is my English so difficult to understand, too? Or are you just refusing to read what I wrote?
June 11th, 2008 at 8:38 am
My point was very specific. I am not arguing for or against the effectiveness of the 3/4-tank rule.
I am aruging that it makes sense for MOF to reply to this question, too.
This is the line that you’ve wrote that I have an issue with: “Are our Government Ministries confused with what their job scopes are?”
June 11th, 2008 at 8:44 am
In all honesty, after reading the exchanges, i don’t think Mr Heng was trying to twist your words. He was putting your thoughts into perspective which you had ironically took too big of an issue out of something so tiny.
Chill mate, Mr Heng did enlightened us with a good amount of knowledge there and we get your point just that I think you should learn to look at things from a broaded sense instead of narrowly.
PS> I’m not here to start any flaming, just my honest thoughts.
June 11th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Something here is quite obvious to most educated adults, most children and even some of our more discerning animals - i.e. there’s a (粤) 傻蟹 in our midst.
But I’ll attempt to educate dumb animals for once.
Simply put, Mr Heng, We KNOW for a fact that the MOF needs the 3/4 tank rule in place as plugging tax leakage. But would it not be more appropriate for them to say THAT instead of saying it is for traffic congestion controls which is the responsibilities of the LTA or the Ministry of Transportation?
Is that so damned hard for you to UNDERSTAND?
Stop telling us what we DON’T already know and start getting the point here!!!
* sigh *
June 11th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Well, to respond to points A to C that you bought up…
“A. Am I discussing about whether taxation of petrol is right or wrong?”
No, your post was not about this point. And I wasn’t arguing with you about this point.
“B. Is Ministry of Finance set up to manage road traffic conditions or finance poliices in Singapore?”
No, the MOF is not managing road traffic conditions. However, MOF is about collecting taxes, and the 3/4-tank rule is about collecting taxes.
“C. What was I genuinely discussing? [...] “Traffic conditions”… do not fall under the purview of Ministry of Finance.”
No, traffic conditions do not fall under MOF’s purview. However, collecting tax to manage traffic conditions falls under the purview.
If you fail to see that I am not arguing the effectiveness of the 3/4-tank rule, that I am only arguing the job scope of individual ministries, then, really, “it’s seriously not my problem anymore.”
June 11th, 2008 at 8:52 am
xizor2000,
Let’s see the logic here.
1. 3/4 tank rule is to plug tax leakage.
2. The tax is used to discourage people from driving in Singapore.
3. Discouraging people from driving in Singapore is for traffic congestion controls. (The bigger picture: to ensure roads are smooth.)
Doesn’t this all three points, when taken together, implies that 3/4 tank rule is for traffic congestion controls?
June 11th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Good, you are getting closer to the point. So now this is the question.
Is it the Ministry of Finance’s job to regulate traffic congestion or regulate taxation matters? In this case, on petrol taxation.
Which department is directly in charge of traffic congestion? Ministry of Finance or Ministry of Transport / Land Transport Authority?
These two answers will solve the “misunderstanding” here.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:01 am
“So can you tell me that MOF has responded in relevance to their tax-collection role?”
MOF did not respond about their relevancy in tax-collection. (Chances are, CNA did not even ask about the relevancy in tax-collection.)
MOF did explained why they need to continue to plug this hole. (”Traffic congestion control”)
Would you rather MOF, when asked by CNA, say: “We don’t know why we collect this tax. You go ask somebody else”?
MOF is responding on behalf of the government, not on behalf of MOF. This is a good thing. We should encourage that. We don’t want a situation in our government where the left hand do not know what the right hand is doing. We don’t want a situation in our government where each ministry plays tai-chi, and ask the reporter to go “ask someone else”.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:07 am
“Is it the Ministry of Finance’s job to regulate traffic congestion or regulate taxation matters? In this case, on petrol taxation.”
“Which department is directly in charge of traffic congestion? Ministry of Finance or Ministry of Transport / Land Transport Authority?”
Of course LTA, under MOT, is responsible for drawing up and implementing policies for managing land traffic flow. I am *not* arguing with you about this. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Collecting tax on petrol, so that it helps to manage land traffic flow: now, this involves MOF too.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:14 am
“You have already understood my context, that is good enough. Thank you.”
Throughout the entire conversation with you, I am arguing about one thing and one thing only.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Huh?
I’m losing your train of thought again.
So, when CNA ask MOF this question, what should MOF respond?
Surely it is not: “I am only collecting money. I don’t know why, and I don’t care why. You go ask LTA.”
MOF has to respond, 1) because they are involved too, since this is also a taxation matter, and 2) the Singapore government believes in not playing tai-chi.
And if MOF were to respond (which they did), MOF cannot claim ignorance on why the tax is there, since (most likely) MOF is the agency who approved LTA (more likely MOT, since this tax has been around for such a long time) idea of having this tax.
So, to me, MOF’s answer is entirely logically.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Endoh : He was trying to explain to you the rationale behind it. Instead you insist on your right of refusal to listen than to counter him with any valid points.
As i see it, Mr Heng was very patience in broadening your perspective but you were very persistence in disallowing him to.
Your views are not wrong just that many things in this world are intertwine and should be looked at from all possible angles instead of focusing on one.
Just like it’s easy to say red light district is bad and if you’re looking at it as an individual issue then yes it’s downright bad but if you look at it from a broader perspective, like it can curb crimes etc, then it can have it’s social benefits too. I hope you learn to take feedbacks more like an adult.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:37 am
You mean what he explained had nothing to do with what you had mentioned in your post? Not even an iota? If you believe so, so be it. You’re really a stubborn person, i feel sad for the people living with you under the same roof.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:42 am
All in all, you had turned defensive more than anything else. You had taken a disagreement on a topic as a personal attack against you, which was not the case. I’m not sure the constitution of your background but your reaction/behaviour had exhibited a kind of symptom where you possesses great energy of refusal to look beyond a point and infact such an act could do more harm than good to you as a person in the long run.
I hope you’re not married because people like you are not suitable for it.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Insults? I have not even. SEE how you twist my words.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:49 am
There is such a thing called give and take in life. You were being ’stingy’ over the points you want to allow into the discussion. The way you draw your lines towards any differential of points, i can see you are a person very low in EQ. You don’t have to tell me did i judge you correctly because i know i had.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:57 am
“Answer accordingly to what their field is, the need to preserve taxation. That’s all to it.”
That is so wrong on so many levels, I’m glad that MOF didn’t simply do that.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what MOF’s job scope in Singapore government. MOF’s job scope (or “field”, as you put it) goes beyond just collecting money, and it is the *other job scope* that comes into play in this particular scenario. (In particular, MOF’s role in formulating Singapore government’s tax policies.)
Even if you discount the other job scope of MOF (you shouldn’t, by the way
), it will still be wrong for MOF to answer the way you want them to answer *because MOF is, and should be, answering on behalf of the Singapore government*.
June 11th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Mr Heng, are you from the MOF? If you are speaking for the ministry, then perhaps you should leave a number and your title behind, so that interested parties can call you directly to address the issue.
Anyway, you are out of point. Traffic controls is a matter of the LTA. You can argue that tax leakage and fuel tax being a deterrent but I disagree. So you can shove it up the other end of the alimentary canal where the sun never shines.
Simply put, I suggest you stop speaking as if you have the authority or that you know so much and let the ministry speak for itself. And if you really are from the ministry and you actually have the authority to speak for it, then perhaps, I will need to speak with your boss about your attitude.
June 11th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
xizor2000, I’m not from MOF. I do not claim to be speaking as authority, but merely based on my observations and experience. (It’s not a big secret how the Singapore government works, you know.)
Read my earlier arguments. You are confusing with “traffic congestion control”, and “taxation for traffic congestion control.”
June 11th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I hope that nobody is wishing for the government to say things like “I don’t know and I don’t care why I collect this tax. I just collect the money,” or “I don’t know why and I don’t care why I am enforcing this law. I just enforce the law.”
June 11th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Xizor: Do you wish any interlocution here to be based on logic or reasoning or what? You can’t beat the logic and threaten to complain Heng’s behaviour? To who? MOF? How do you know they’re even affiliated?
Do you need to even stoop that low? Heng’s point is absolutely valid. Endoh was looking at something from a very narrow point of view and he was enlightened, the rest is up to him. Of course after following Endoh’s blog for awhile now, his perception and persistence, i can recognise, that’s his traits, his characteristics, whenever he bite onto something he doesn’t let go. I admire his courage but not emotional intelligence.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:41 am
Hey mate. Thanks for inviting me to read ur website
June 12th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Nidzam and Heng:
You both obviously still don’t get it do you? So now let me put this to you.
I get your point already and it’s a different point of view here that I (along with Endoh) believe that since this matter was a matter of traffic congestion control, then it is the MOT or LTA’s responsibility to talk about it.
You felt otherwise and you have made your point. I and Endoh have both also made our points. It’s perfectly alright and you both don’t agree but this is obviously going nowhere now.
What I am asking you to do is agree to disagree and what I am saying here is the behaviour of both of you is completely unbecoming. Cut that crap about reasoning et al to justify your loads of shit.
SO, SHUT UP AND MOVE ON.
Geddit, you vociferous fumb ducks?
June 12th, 2008 at 8:34 am
And that will absofxxkinglutely be my last comment in this matter. Now I am removing this from my cocomments tracking and I ain’t coming back to look at you two lame charlatans continue with this mental masturbation in English vocabulary and twisted logic.
So long, and thanks for all the fish, you two wild men of the horse and deer.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:00 am
You are right to deduce that Heng was trying to “twist my words into something else”. That is so typical of their lot. The most recent example is when LKY went from the issue of accountability for Mas Selamat’s escape to “complacency” of the populace. Even Vivian Balakrishnan used the same line to lay blame for the drowning of the 5 dragon boat rowers to the “complacency” of the “Singapore mentality”. In time, they will find that, instead of being clever, they are being unwise.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Let’s see if I can understand the two point Endoh is talking about.
1) The MOF reply on the CNA queries stated that the objective of the 3/4th tank is to “moderate vehicle usage and reduce traffic congestion”.
I believe that Endoh’s point is - why is the MOF commenting on matters of vehicle usage / traffic congestion control?
If the MOF statement was : “the 3/4-tank-rule is one method to ensure there is no leakage on taxation of petrol”, then there will be no confusion.
The MOF is qualified to comment on matters of taxation, but not on matters of traffic control – that is the point being made.
2) There are many possible disincentives that could be introduced to discourage car usage. What is needed are effective measures that can control traffic growth while not impacting too severely on the lives of citizens - these measures have to be a calculated approach balancing effectiveness with tradeoffs.
Tying the 3/4th tank rule to the reduction of traffic congestion begs the question of whether there is statistical evidence of any effectiveness to begin with.
If there are no statistical evidence of the effectiveness of the 3/4th tank rule in reducing traffic congestion, then it should not be used as justification for the application of the ¾ tank rule..