Govt far richer than it makes itself out to be - Steve Chia
-
Anyway the lack of transparency of the government may cause incident like NKF. As many singapore citizens would like to see finiance in government can be clearly known to the public.
The transparency in salaries of the Ministers is also crucial for people to know how the government keep themselves clean as to restore confidence. From over all view i would say many singaporean are ignorance about how government is handling the huge amount they are taking charge of.
Lets push the government for more transparency!!
-
Maybe they are afraid that if they reveal their salaries, other governments might lan lan and complain to the people they SERVE that they are grossly underpaid and demand for a wage increase to match Sg's salaries.Originally posted by grandeur:Anyway the lack of transparency of the government may cause incident like NKF. As many singapore citizens would like to see finiance in government can be clearly known to the public.
The transparency in salaries of the Ministers is also crucial for people to know how the government keep themselves clean as to restore confidence. From over all view i would say many singaporean are ignorance about how government is handling the huge amount they are taking charge of.
-
Tts great. then there will be chaos and SG will prosperOriginally posted by charlize:Maybe they are afraid that if they reveal their salaries, other governments might lan lan and complain to the people they SERVE that they are grossly underpaid and demand for a wage increase to match Sg's salaries.
-
What has NKF got to do with the government?
-
NKF's incident is caused by lack of transparency. If government also lacked of this transparency this mean that there are chances that this incident might occur in government.Originally posted by Yi Peng:What has NKF got to do with the government? -
pls....its a well known fact that our ministers are among the most highly paid in the world....even comparable to the president of US...
if u thk...a SMALL country which is just a DOT on the map of the world...do we need 84 pple in 1 parliment???
if u look at china...shanghai alone has more population than SG...how many pple they have to rule that state...definetely less than 84... -
As of the info published few years ago, our miw's pay were already higher than the president of US...... These few years, the miw are keeping mum about their pay.Originally posted by giggs011:pls....its a well known fact that our ministers are among the most highly paid in the world....even comparable to the president of US...
-
NKF is not part of the govt goondu.Originally posted by grandeur:NKF's incident is caused by lack of transparency. If government also lacked of this transparency this mean that there are chances that this incident might occur in government. -
how r u related to the govt?Originally posted by Yi Peng:NKF is not part of the govt goondu. -
i buy it. pap sux0r.
-
Did i say NKF is part of govt? I don't think i have say that.Originally posted by Yi Peng:NKF is not part of the govt goondu. -
PAP has been and will always be the most experienced in the running of our government. Right from the 1960s when MM Lee Kwan Yew lead PAP to win in our general elections and singapore's seperation, we have had a string of successful years.
I would say mostly the people who are anti PAP are mainly the lower income and incomepetant people who are easily swayed by the opposition. They are people who always feels that things are too expensive, and trys to cheat on parking coupons or get their girlfriends to pay for their outings. The opposition are always trying to bang on this particular group to vote for them.
The opposition knows that the rich, or middle classed Singaporean would never vote for them. Rich and middle class treasure economic stability and would always vote for a governement who would give them just that. Its the incompetent and lazy people whom the opposition can appeal too by offering lower taxes and free money.
I would never sell my vote for $10k or more. Singaporeans have alot more to lose if our government becomes corrupt or inefficient. As far as my own opinion is concerned my vote will always till the day i die go to PAP. -
Originally posted by Thailand_Hero:
Ermm... dun u think you are being too offensive to call less well off people lazy and incompetent?? Not everyone is blessed with high income even they worked hard for it. And there is alot of competent and capable people out there who are still in the lower income group, I think its wrong of you to judge most supporters of other parties to be low income and especially to list them as incompetent and lazy.
PAP has been and will always be the most experienced in the running of our government. Right from the 1960s when MM Lee Kwan Yew lead PAP to win in our general elections and singapore's seperation, we have had a string of successful years.
I would say mostly the people who are anti PAP are [b]mainly the lower income and incomepetant people who are easily swayed by the opposition. They are people who always feels that things are too expensive, and trys to cheat on parking coupons or get their girlfriends to pay for their outings. The opposition are always trying to bang on this particular group to vote for them.
The opposition knows that the rich, or middle classed Singaporean would never vote for them. Rich and middle class treasure economic stability and would always vote for a governement who would give them just that. Its the incompetent and lazy people whom the opposition can appeal too by offering lower taxes and free money.
I would never sell my vote for $10k or more. Singaporeans have alot more to lose if our government becomes corrupt or inefficient. As far as my own opinion is concerned my vote will always till the day i die go to PAP.[/b]
I know of rich people who are really useless, lazy, good for nothing too... and actually Singapore doesnt have that many self-created rich people. Most of the supposely rich people or higher income people are from families that were already well off.
Dun mean to offend u, but just hope u dun pull in lower income people and brand them as useless and incompetent. -
omg, you would sell it for less then?Originally posted by Thailand_Hero:I would never sell my vote for $10k or more. Singaporeans have alot more to lose if our government becomes corrupt or inefficient. As far as my own opinion is concerned my vote will always till the day i die go to PAP. -
Unfortunately, when MM LKY first entered politics, he was just an INEXPERIENCED young lawyer, DISLIKED by the many businesses for his NON-CHINESE characteristics, behaving more like an Englishman than a Chinese.Originally posted by Thailand_Hero:PAP has been and will always be the most experienced in the running of our government. Right from the 1960s when MM Lee Kwan Yew lead PAP to win in our general elections and singapore's seperation, we have had a string of successful years.
His persecution of Chinese educated students, who were largely influenced by political events in China, resulted in the large Chinese business community despising the early Government of LKY - as the Singapore Chinese businesses maintained strong links to China since the Colonial Days.
In the immature and inexperienced days of the 1950s, LKY lost to Ong Eng Guan, David Marshall and Lim Yew Hock; and he was able to win only by using and allying with the populist Trade Union agitators - who were largely Left Wing in their politics.
Was it a string of successful years from there on ?
The biggest disaster was Singapore's entry into Malaysia - despite all the alternative voices that were against the idea, which were suppressed, and attention diverted by a "once-in-a-Lifetime " referendum that were loaded heavily in favor of a merger with Malaysia - to fulfill the willful desire on LKY.
What about Family Planning, CPF, "Nationalisation " of Private Enterprises ?
Are we not living in the final results of a Four Decade long of permanent ignorance that is finally awaken with some candid admission by MM LKY during his mellower years ?
Your assumption is not entirely incorrect but probably based on speculation or perhaps living in their midst cause you to have a dose of "familiarity breeds contempt ".
I would say mostly the people who are anti PAP are mainly the lower income and incomepetant people who are easily swayed by the opposition. They are people who always feels that things are too expensive, and trys to cheat on parking coupons or get their girlfriends to pay for their outings. The opposition are always trying to bang on this particular group to vote for them.
Those who are anti-PAP are surprisingly those from the educated lot, the Tertiary Educated - whom LKY had feared since the politics of 1950s, WHICH explains for Singapore having only a SINGLE University for a long time, until Nanyang University was revived - after a long period of closure - as part of an extended NUS, and later to become a separate NTU.
If you believe correctly that "the lower income people are easily swayed by the opposition" - because "they are people who always feels that things are too expensive, and trys to cheat on parking coupons or get their girlfriencs to pay for their outings. " - surely this must be indicative of the true state of affairs for those poor people living in this sham First World called "Singapore " that you have the privilege of encountering.
Middle Class Singaporeans would never vote for the Oppositin ?
The opposition knows that the rich, or middle classed Singaporean would never vote for them. Rich and middle class treasure economic stability and would always vote for a governement who would give them just that. Its the incompetent and lazy people whom the opposition can appeal too by offering lower taxes and free money.
Do you know that Potong Pasir has constantly voted for Chiam See Tong, while the Higher Income Group or the High Class of Cairnhill did not support him when he first entered politics in Singapore ?
The Middle Class are the most affected by the policies of the Ruling Party, who have left the Middle Class out of ambiguous policies that benefit the poor, and other specific policies that benefit the very rich amongst the Higher Class or Upper Income Group.
The Middle Class is slowly shrinking in its size, with many people downgrading from 4 and 5-room flats to 3-room flats; selling their private terrace homes and condominiums to live in 3, 4 and 5-room flats - all due to the economic hardships that are being experienced.
Corruption has already set in, when the service in High Office for the sake of the country can be bought only with high wage levels for the political leadership.
I would never sell my vote for $10k or more. Singaporeans have alot more to lose if our government becomes corrupt or inefficient. As far as my own opinion is concerned my vote will always till the day i die go to PAP.
Corruption has set in, when everyone who holds public office must bend their personal conscience and principles for the sake of the Ruling Political Party, and the views and principles of the POWER OF ONE. -
I did not brand the incompetent and lazy people together. But i refered to them in 2 seperate groups. I meant that opposition's strategy based on their writeup for the pre general election mandate were to sway this particular group into their favor.Originally posted by zictool:Ermm... dun u think you are being too offensive to call less well off people lazy and incompetent?? Not everyone is blessed with high income even they worked hard for it. And there is alot of competent and capable people out there who are still in the lower income group, I think its wrong of you to judge most supporters of other parties to be low income and especially to list them as incompetent and lazy.
I know of rich people who are really useless, lazy, good for nothing too... and actually Singapore doesnt have that many self-created rich people. Most of the supposely rich people or higher income people are from families that were already well off.
Dun mean to offend u, but just hope u dun pull in lower income people and brand them as useless and incompetent.
Lower income are basically the bread and butter of out society. They are not necessarily lazy. but under singapore's educational system, they obviously had to be lazy somewhere along the line as not to 'make it' in this life. Probably during their growing up years. They are the ones who are paid to ensure cooperations can survive and thus investors and rich people who own the businesses at the end will just keep gettting richer and richer.
In singapore opportunities abound. There will always be whiners and people who bitch their lives away. Its not a case of familarity breeding contempt but rather something that i really detest like a pest or coachroach.
PM has already said. As long as you work hard and strive for it, no one will be left behind in this new economy. -
Can lamers get anymore lamer?Originally posted by tiggersgd:haiz...i still hope you will not take the financial handout.
you just like to bash the ruling party and for whose sake are you speaking out? if you are truely so capable, do join the opposition and make some sense over at that camp.
otherwise, thank for your comments on thousands of readers of TODAY etc. it clearly showed that you are "widely read" indeed.
have a nice day in your own world of bitterness.
BYE
PS: edited to let u know that i didn't bother to read your replies.
By your own admission, you refuse to read the response of others to your arguments. Is that contempt, arrogance or both, common facets of the ruling party themselves?
What's the use of hearing yourself speak while dismissing counter-arguments without so much as a glance? It's like talking while wearing a set of ear muffs.
And once again, like any typical critic, you coin the 'if you're so good join the opposition' phrase, a phrase that admittedly has no answer from politically non-aligned critics of the ruling party.
Perhaps already swimming in loads of propaganda, you fail to realise how stifled the political atmopshere in SG is.
Can a civil servant realistically join an opposition party without watching out for their rice bowl? By the 'fear factor' evolved, the govt has effectively rendered a full 50% (maybe more) of the population either PAP-aligned or apolitical entirely.
And if you ply your trade in the private sector, anyone with plans to go political with opposition parties have to be sure their bosses are not PAP-sympathetic. That probably takes out another 15% or so.
So where does that leave us?
Refusing to rebut economic figures raised by opposition party members head-on is a dangerous precedent, and gambling on the PAP's usual character assasination attacks will not fool the educated masses for long, especially with these numbers swelling.
In the past, it was the opposition members who refused to respond to figures presented by the ruling party head-on, leading to quick and sure dismissals during elections.
It would now seem the roles are slowly being reversed.
The ruling party can continue to play this game, but at their own risk entirely. -
Originally posted by Thailand_Hero:
Is it not ingenious thinking to accuse the Opposition "writeup for the pre-general election mandate to sway this particular group into their favor" ?
I did not brand the incompetent and lazy people together. But i refered to them in 2 seperate groups. I meant that opposition's strategy based on their writeup for the pre general election mandate were to sway this particular group into their favor.
Did you not mean the Opposition Election "Manifesto" ?
Being educated, we should judge the worth of the Election Manifesto by its honesty in stating solutions for existing problems, and the practicality in the proposed solutions based on the current state of affairs in Singapore.
Election is a battle and competition of ideas from opposing political parties as expressed in Election Manifestoes.
By your statement, should we not blame the Ruling Political Party for implementing "Singapore's educational system" that "they obviously had to be lazy somewhere along the line as not to 'make it' in this life" .
Lower income are basically the bread and butter of out society. They are not necessarily lazy. but under singapore's educational system, they obviously had to be lazy somewhere along the line as not to 'make it' in this life. Probably during their growing up years. They are the ones who are paid to ensure cooperations can survive and thus investors and rich people who own the businesses at the end will just keep gettting richer and richer.
Who do you think is are paying these lower income people to make them continue to be lazy, and "paid to ensure cooperations can survive and thus investors and rich people who own the business at the end will just keep getting richer and richer" ?
Why did you not ask - "at whose expense " - who is paying the price for these people to continue to be lazy and for the rich to become richer ?
Is it not the policy of the Ruling Political Party to create a society that is forever dependent on the economic machinery that is created by the Ruling Political Party - beginning with NTUC 'Fairprice' and the rest of GLCs - all of which has snuffed out Private Enterprise and Entrepreneurship ?
Yes, there will always be whiners, who bitch their lives away - as there will always be 'carpet-begging' bit- ches, who will whine to the tune played by the Ruling Political Party.
In singapore opportunities abound. There will always be whiners and people who bitch their lives away. Its not a case of familarity breeding contempt but rather something that i really detest like a pest or coachroach.
If you are not familiar with the issues, how can you form any opinion ?
When you feed the pigs often enough, they can hardly differentiate the mud and stench that they enjoy being in.
When a huge elephant can be frightened of a tiny mouse, what should we make of your strong psychological "detest " towards things that you see as pest, and towards the venerable co-ckroach - which manage to survive a million years in its present form ?
Yes, when local Singaporean Bank Managers have to be retrained to wash toilets and become housekeepers in Hotels that are managed by junior managers of Foreign Talent origins - that is called working hard and striving for it.
PM has already said. As long as you work hard and strive for it, no one will be left behind in this new economy.
Easily said by someone whose PAPa ensured that he gets the top job over every and any threats to become the King of the heap. -
I curious to know when this case such as local bank manager trained to be housekeeper? Newspaper?Originally posted by Atobe:Yes, when local Singaporean Bank Managers have to be retrained to wash toilets and become housekeepers in Hotels that are managed by junior managers of Foreign Talent origins - that is called working hard and striving for it.
Easily said by someone whose PAPa ensured that he gets the top job over every and any threats to become the King of the heap. -
I think he refers to the economic turn down in 2003. During the time when PM Goh asked us to brace ourselves for the new economy. Jobs that were once here are now gone. We have to retrain ourselves and stop asking ourselves where those jobs that were once available have gone?Originally posted by will4:I curious to know when this case such as local bank manager trained to be housekeeper? Newspaper?
During those times cooperations had to downsize in order to survive. Departmental heads and CEOs were given certain amount of 'heads' to chop and they had to meet that quota. As usual during the selection process the most incompetent had to go first. Some staff who had been in the line for 20 to 30 years were also given their hong paos and sent packing.
As these people did not exercise proper financial planning during their long term in office, they were thus 'forced' to work as housekeepers, or petrol kiosk...u have it. If they had invested their money to build up a strong passive income during their youth, they would not be so bitter about life then. -
I thought these people had high qualification? He mentioned some forced to downgrade to stay in HDB flat. Nothing wrong about it.Originally posted by Thailand_Hero:I think he refers to the economic turn down in 2003. During the time when PM Goh asked us to brace ourselves for the new economy. Jobs that were once here are now gone. We have to retrain ourselves and stop asking ourselves where those jobs that were once available have gone?
During those times cooperations had to downsize in order to survive. Departmental heads and CEOs were given certain amount of 'heads' to chop and they had to meet that quota. As usual during the selection process the most incompetent had to go first. Some staff who had been in the line for 20 to 30 years were also given their hong paos and sent packing.
As these people did not exercise proper financial planning during their long term in office, they were thus 'forced' to work as housekeepers, or petrol kiosk...u have it. If they had invested their money to build up a strong passive income during their youth, they would not be so bitter about life then. -
IMF and economists also said something similar to Steve Chia:
Feb 27, 2006
> NEWS ANALYSIS
> Near $3b Budget gap sparks fresh debate
> Govt's accounting is conservative and S'pore is not really in
> deficit, say economists
>
> By Narendra Aggarwal
> Economics Correspondent
> AS PARLIAMENT sits today to consider Singapore's Budget for 2006-07,
> weighing heavy on its mind would be the fact that the huge $2.9
> billion deficit projected by the Finance Ministry will be the largest
> in at least 20 years.
>
> Yet private-sector economists, academics and public-finance experts
> will remain, as in previous deficit years, totally unflustered by the
> figure.
>
> The reason for their indifference is that many argue that the rather
> gloomy picture painted of the Government's finances is not the result
> of unsustainable fiscal largesse, but rather the result of the
> Government's rather conservative accounting methods.
>
> It's an old chestnut of a problem that has bugged everyone from the
> humble economics undergraduate to economy watchers at the
> International Monetary Fund (IMF).
>
> The numbers, this time around, look like this: Aided by what is
> expected to be strong economic growth, a surplus of about $0.7
> billion is expected for the year ending March 31, 2007.
>
> But because of a handsome $3.6 billion worth of giveaways in the
> new 'Progress Package' Budget, an overall deficit of $2.9 billion is
> estimated instead.
>
> Economists have been quick to point out that there really isn't any
> red ink at all.
>
> For example, long-time Singapore economy watcher Song Seng Wun, a
> senior economist with CIMB-GK Research, says there is 'under-
> reporting' of government revenues by what he thinks is a sum of about
> $10 billion.
>
> 'So in fact, by my estimates there should be a surplus of about $7
> billion,' he concludes.
>
> Whether there is a deficit boils down to 'really a definition issue',
> says Standard Chartered Bank (Stanchart) economist Joseph Tan.
>
> 'And Singapore takes a very, very conservative view of revenue
> compared to other governments,' he explains.
>
> In this conservative approach, two major items, typically regarded as
> current-year government revenue, are not included in full in
> Singapore's income statements.
>
> The first is capital receipts, and in particular, land sales. This is
> totally omitted.
>
> According to an appendix that accompanied the Budget numbers released
> last week, capital receipts for the coming financial year 2006 are
> estimated to weigh in at a whopping $4.08 billion. Land sales will
> account for the lion's share of this at $4.04 billion.
>
> The second item is net investment income (NII). Only up to 50 per
> cent of NII from the investment of past reserves are 'available for
> use by the government of the day', says the Finance Ministry. For the
> coming year, 'investment and interest income' is estimated to be
> $7.65 billion, but only $2.39 billion has been budgeted in the
> accounts.
>
> Both of these accounting moves are problematic, say economists.
>
> IDEAglobal senior economist Nizam Idris says 'not including land
> sales revenue is one glaring omission'. He adds that going by
> international standards, money from all land sales should be included
> in government revenue.
>
> Like other economists, he also points out that the return on
> investments made from past savings of the state shown in the Budget
> are very small.
>
> The new Budget includes $2.39 billion as NII contributions, but Mr
> Nizam notes that even if Singapore's near $200 billion foreign
> reserves were invested in United States Treasury bills with a 4 per
> cent yield, the state's investment income would be much higher.
>
> CIMB-GK's Mr Song says that if IMF standards are applied, Singapore's
> financial position is quite strong.
>
> This hypothesis was put to the test in a study presented at an
> Institute of Policy Studies conference in 2002.
>
> Using IMF conventions, public finance guru Mukul Asher of the Lee
> Kuan Yew School of Public Policy estimated the excess in the state's
> total revenue over total expenditure to be between 6 and 17 per cent
> of gross domestic product (GDP) between 1991 and 2001.
>
> If one uses last year's GDP figure of $195 billion and applies the
> low end of his findings, Singapore would have had a Budget surplus of
> more than $10 billion for the year just gone by, instead of the $0.43
> billion reported.
>
> In the past, the Finance Ministry has defended its conservative
> accounting, arguing since capital receipts from land sales could be
> highly volatile as a result of changing market conditions. Since it
> is not a steady stream, it is not prudent to include land sales as a
> revenue item.
>
> In an e-mail response to the Straits Times, the ministry emphasised
> again that this accounting method is designed to produce an overall
> Budget balance that includes all the regular income and revenue
> available for expenditure by the current government.
>
> 'The portion of the NII that is not used for expenditure and all
> proceeds from land sales are therefore not included in the Budget.
> Otherwise it will mislead Singaporeans on how much revenues are
> available for expenditure.'
>
> Not everyone, however, is totally convinced. 'Everybody else does it,
> so there is no reason why Singapore should also not do it,' says Mr
> Song of CIMB-GK.
>
> Referring to the point about volatile land sale revenues, Stanchart's
> Mr Tan says that 'this is not a valid argument as the market will be
> able to adjust to the fluctuations of revenue'.
>
> He adds that the market has its own ways of adjusting to reality.
>
> 'Just consider this: the Budget deficits in recent years has not hit
> Singapore ratings. We have been able to sustain our triple-A rating.
> Clearly the market thinks that the country's fiscal position is
> stronger that what it appears to be.' -
BRavo to all who able to see the light... and not swayed by the one sided media in Sg...
And for those who are short - sighted... please spare a consideration for the people who are not benefitting anything at all over all these years under the PAP... empty promises and made up stories. -
Originally posted by will4:
Yes, Thailand_Hero is correct in his post, which was widely written about during 2003 but somehow could not be retrieve from the archive.
I curious to know when this case such as local bank manager trained to be housekeeper? Newspaper?
Try this piece amongst the many postings widely discussed in this Speakers' Corner in March 2005:
Retraining: from Engineer to Gardener. More good years ahead -
Originally posted by Atobe:
The person mentioned in the article told the reporter he happy in the new position instead of the engineering position he used to occupy. I think is a blessing in disguise.
Yes, Thailand_Hero is correct in his post, which was widely written about during 2003 but somehow could not be retrieve from the archive.
Try this piece amongst the many postings widely discussed in this Speakers' Corner in March 2005:
[b]Retraining: from Engineer to Gardener. More good years ahead
[/b]
If he happy in the engineering position, he will not quit in the first place already.