Late David Marshall: Genuine Humble Minister of SG
-
Had he not vowed to RESIGN should he not gain independence for Singapore, Perhaps LKY wun even get the chance to be the PM at all. David's party had very strong support from the people, rivalling the PAP..Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:David Marshall was a passionate man. He had his heart in the right place, but sometimes he just let his emotions control him too much. But overall I agree with him regarding the issue of ministers' pay. -
it would be interesting to chart a what-if scenario, with Prime Minister David Saul Marshall as the first PM of independant Singapore.
Independance might have come later in the 1970s, but I think we might have had more time to build up our insititutions before we were given this gift of sovereignty. -
After reading all these comments, i really feel disappointed of not being able to see david marshall in action today.
-
I see a lot of criticism on greed and corruption, which is morally encouraging but intellectually challenging. Intellectually challenging not because it is stupid to say something like that, but that solving the issue requires intellectual capability currently beyond us.
Mr David Marshall mentioned of the Chinese race, and since Singapore is ruled majority by ethnic Chinese, I shall start my argument with the Chinese. Through out China's history, I have not been able to find a single dynasty or era where there's no or little corruption. Traditionally, the pay of Chinese official had always been around the middle class income, but they are living the life style of the super class. Culturaly, it also seems to be the expectation of Chinese for officials to be rich. I guess this is the cultural dilemma and conflict of the Chinese, at one end, when someone become an Official, we expect him/her to Yi Jing Huan Xiang (return home in glory), but on the other hand, we praise people who Bu Wei Wu Dou Mi Er Zhe Yao (refusing to give in to monetary gain). We give praises to the historically poor such as Yan Hui but enjoy showing off our present wealth. Perhaps one can argue that its due to our twisted culture that through out the entire history of the Chinese civilisation, nobody can bring forth a body of officials that are clean. Even at present days, the corruption level in both Taiwan and China leaves much to be desire.
One might argue that this is due to what Marshall called confucianism authoritarian. What about Taiwan then? Its demoracy is very much modeled after the US, and still there is no end to the corruption scandals.
Speaking of US, the world's leader in democracy, is its corruption well under control? How often is a politician's action being interfered by those who sponsered their political campaign? By the rich Churches, NRA and other enterprises empires. Has Dick Cheney's position in the Defence industry anything to do with him advocating war?
We speak of putting the morally superior in our parliament and government, are there indeed so many morally superior persons? How many can retain their moral superiority when they are in the position to be tempted? Is cutting the pay of our ministers going to solve the problem of corruption? How many of them will stay in the political arena? If they leave, people may jeer at them, but who's going to take their place in Parliament and Cabinet? Can we be sure that there actually exist enough morally superior people with the required capability to occupy the positions?
How many countries in this world has a clean government in the first place? Perhaps not a lot. Of course the argument can go into the line of "what should" instead of "what is", but if the model of "what should" does not exist other than in Utopian stories and our imagination, what will happen to us when we implement it?
Greed does not equal to corruption, but many had drawn them parallel. Some one earlier said that greed is worse than corruption, because greed is unsatisfiable. This would probably be where we draw the line. Lets face it, reality is, the majority of the population has greed, each has a different level, if its not satisfied and one is in the position, chances are, corruption will occur. The extremely greedy, as the extremely not greedy, are extremely rare, and the former will be the ones that we can, will and must get rid from our governmental bodies. The latter are those we desire, but their lack in numbers and perhaps abilities do not make up the required numbers we need. So we need to draw from the bulk of the normal greed people in the society and satisfy these's people greed to the extend that the society can bear. At this stage, I think that their pay is still sustainable by our society. Cutting their pay will not necessary free up a lot of money for the rest of us, and I would not predict a good outcome. -
such bloody high pay to fight corruption??
i pity george bush... he's doing so much more, yet so much underpaid.. -
Your are out of point here....Originally posted by wisefool83:I see a lot of criticism on greed and corruption, which is morally encouraging but intellectually challenging. Intellectually challenging not because it is stupid to say something like that, but that solving the issue requires intellectual capability currently beyond us.
Mr David Marshall mentioned of the Chinese race, and since Singapore is ruled majority by ethnic Chinese, I shall start my argument with the Chinese. Through out China's history, I have not been able to find a single dynasty or era where there's no or little corruption. Traditionally, the pay of Chinese official had always been around the middle class income, but they are living the life style of the super class. Culturaly, it also seems to be the expectation of Chinese for officials to be rich. I guess this is the cultural dilemma and conflict of the Chinese, at one end, when someone become an Official, we expect him/her to Yi Jing Huan Xiang (return home in glory), but on the other hand, we praise people who Bu Wei Wu Dou Mi Er Zhe Yao (refusing to give in to monetary gain). We give praises to the historically poor such as Yan Hui but enjoy showing off our present wealth. Perhaps one can argue that its due to our twisted culture that through out the entire history of the Chinese civilisation, nobody can bring forth a body of officials that are clean. Even at present days, the corruption level in both Taiwan and China leaves much to be desire.
One might argue that this is due to what Marshall called confucianism authoritarian. What about Taiwan then? Its demoracy is very much modeled after the US, and still there is no end to the corruption scandals.
Speaking of US, the world's leader in democracy, is its corruption well under control? How often is a politician's action being interfered by those who sponsered their political campaign? By the rich Churches, NRA and other enterprises empires. Has Dick Cheney's position in the Defence industry anything to do with him advocating war?
We speak of putting the morally superior in our parliament and government, are there indeed so many morally superior persons? How many can retain their moral superiority when they are in the position to be tempted? Is cutting the pay of our ministers going to solve the problem of corruption? How many of them will stay in the political arena? If they leave, people may jeer at them, but who's going to take their place in Parliament and Cabinet? Can we be sure that there actually exist enough morally superior people with the required capability to occupy the positions?
How many countries in this world has a clean government in the first place? Perhaps not a lot. Of course the argument can go into the line of "what should" instead of "what is", but if the model of "what should" does not exist other than in Utopian stories and our imagination, what will happen to us when we implement it?
Greed does not equal to corruption, but many had drawn them parallel. Some one earlier said that greed is worse than corruption, because greed is unsatisfiable. This would probably be where we draw the line. Lets face it, reality is, the majority of the population has greed, each has a different level, if its not satisfied and one is in the position, chances are, corruption will occur. The extremely greedy, as the extremely not greedy, are extremely rare, and the former will be the ones that we can, will and must get rid from our governmental bodies. The latter are those we desire, but their lack in numbers and perhaps abilities do not make up the required numbers we need. So we need to draw from the bulk of the normal greed people in the society and satisfy these's people greed to the extend that the society can bear. At this stage, I think that their pay is still sustainable by our society. Cutting their pay will not necessary free up a lot of money for the rest of us, and I would not predict a good outcome.
Of course greed is not equal to corruption. But ''Greed'' is a major disruption to Mother Earth's nature and its environment.
Not too ago, our sg GoD had mentioned about our Earth is depleting in resources in dunno how donkey years if we are not....................................
Now, here again. If he made this kind of statement, don't you think he and his cabinet mini-stars will feel remorseful in drawing ridiculous super salaries that will cause disruption to the nature.
Do you how many hectares of land or forests and disruption to environment will be done and sarcrificed to yield just a few million of dollars for profits and converted into their salaries eventually? -
Don't pity him. He's laughing all the way to the bank, while the blood of innocents drip from his hands.Originally posted by I.M.ME:i pity george bush... he's doing so much more, yet so much underpaid.. -
In those times when he was Chief Minister, 8k in 1955 to 1957 is worth how much now? I not supporting the govt of LKY but isnt it is the same kind of high salary that minister get in these days?Originally posted by Lowclassman:Quote of Late David Marshall:
I've got nothing against money. I'd like to have money myself! I'd like to have a house and a garden and dogs and a car and a chauffeur but, look, I've got a flat. I've got a swimming pool attached to the flat.
I've even got a car but I use taxis. I have a dignified way of life without being wealthy.
I don't see the necessity of owning a Mercedes-Benz and a swimming pool and a couple of mistresses. I think we've got our values all wrong.
You know $96,000 a month for a Prime Minister and $60,000 a month for a minister . What the hell do you do with all that money? You can't eat it! What do you do with it? Your children don't need all that money.
I never earned $60,000 a month or $90,000 a month. When I was Chief Minister, I earned $8,000 a month.
Look, what is happening today is we are encouraged to and are becoming worshippers of the Golden Calf.
Today,
The cabinet are full of greedy people.
Mind you, a commoner get his salary about 30 dollars on average those days. So 8k is alot of money in those days.. the salary is same as now due to inflation.
-
This reminded me that their salaries were peg against average trend of Gold Price. In late fifties to early sixties, gold price was at about S$3.00 to S$4.00 per gram. Now, gold price is at S$30.00 to S$38.00 per gram. THis is ten times increase to price....so likewise the salaries for the sg mini-stars.Originally posted by Urroh:In those times when he was Chief Minister, 8k in 1955 to 1957 is worth how much now? I not supporting the govt of LKY but isnt it is the same kind of high salary that minister get in these days?
Mind you, a commoner get his salary about 30 dollars on average those days. So 8k is alot of money in those days.. the salary is same as now due to inflation. 
I'm worried the price of gold might shoot up to S$60 per gram...wow...that means sg mini-stars' salaries will go up S$120K to S$180K per month!
Dirty politicians...Politicians are making tremendous good $$$$$. No wonder....politicians will kill one who is against his / hers will.