NTUC Chief Lim says........
-
NTUC Secretary-General, Lim Boon Heng, said: "If the lower-income (groups) feel that they are being excluded from society, then there will be unhappiness and social tensions will arise. So we have to make sure that the social gap does not increase. This means the better off should help the less well off."
Click here for a further read-up.
Let's hope he means it. However, with his $70,000 a month salary and retrenchment proof job, has he even got the right to say this?
-
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
$70000 A MONTH??!?!?!?
NTUC Secretary-General, Lim Boon Heng, said: "If the lower-income (groups) feel that they are being excluded from society, then there will be unhappiness and social tensions will arise. So we have to make sure that the social gap does not increase. This means the better off should help the less well off."
Click [b]here for a further read-up.
Let's hope he means it. However, with his $70,000 a month salary and retrenchment proof job, has he even got the right to say this? [/b]
I DUN EVEN HAVE $35000 A MONTH!!!
I DUN EVEN HAVE $7000 A MONTH!!!
I DUN EVEN HAVE $3500 A MONTH!!!
heck! i dun even net 2k a month
surely he is a very capable guy right? i work everyday, long hours and i do not even own a hamster. -
Ask him if he is willing to take a pay cut and have that money distributed to the poor?
anyway, he is grossly overpaid for his only job was to organise LKY birthday party. -
some clarification maybe needed,
1. who is defined as better-off?
2. who is defined less-well-off?Originally posted by Rock^Star:
NTUC Secretary-General, Lim Boon Heng, said: "If the lower-income (groups) feel that they are being excluded from society, then there will be unhappiness and social tensions will arise. So we have to make sure that the social gap does not increase. This means the better off should help the less well off."
Click [b]here for a further read-up.
Let's hope he means it. However, with his $70,000 a month salary and retrenchment proof job, has he even got the right to say this? [/b] -
Hard to say, not wise to officially define too as it will create unhappiness among the weff-off.Originally posted by play_n_play:some clarification maybe needed,
1. who is defined as better-off?
2. who is defined less-well-off?
He's talking without setting a public example. -
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
Talk is cheap.
NTUC Secretary-General, Lim Boon Heng, said: "If the lower-income (groups) feel that they are being excluded from society, then there will be unhappiness and social tensions will arise. So we have to make sure that the social gap does not increase. This means the better off should help the less well off."
Click [b]here for a further read-up.
Let's hope he means it. However, with his $70,000 a month salary and retrenchment proof job, has he even got the right to say this? [/b]
I also can say I am taking over Lim Boon Heng's position tomorrow.
He will NEVER EVER convinced me with whatever crap he said when he is taking home $70,000 a month salary.
I, as a citizen of Singapore, cast my vote to reduce his salary to $3,500 a month. That is the truth worth a birthday party-organiser.
Who is with me with the vote? -
I would like to vote but that will neh happen
-
all talk no action no use. I also can talk. Lead by example.
-
Ya!! Confucius said, "When a prince's personal conduct is correct, his government is effective without the issuing of orders. If his personal conduct is not correct, he may issue orders, but they will not be followed."Originally posted by Rock^Star:Hard to say, not wise to officially define too as it will create unhappiness among the weff-off.
He's talking without setting a public example.
So, how? -
the govt always expect the rich to help the poor. but arent the govt and the ministers also under the rich category?
-
True.....reminds me of ah-nehs who shake their heads and say yes.Originally posted by Hogzilla:Ya!! Confucius said, "When a prince's personal conduct is correct, his government is effective without the issuing of orders. If his personal conduct is not correct, he may issue orders, but they will not be followed."
So, how? -
You are wrong, they are paid $70K to talk,Originally posted by Rock^Star:True.....reminds me of ah-nehs who shake their heads and say yes.
so their talk is very expansive
It is just that we will have to pay more to get them to act -
Well, obviously Confucius was confused! His personal conduct wasn't that flashy when he was in power, killing his political opponent with real lame excuses.Originally posted by Hogzilla:Ya!! Confucius said, "When a prince's personal conduct is correct, his government is effective without the issuing of orders. If his personal conduct is not correct, he may issue orders, but they will not be followed."
So, how?
Anyway, backed to what he said, if you reversed the logic, does that mean that if the government is effective then the "prince" or ruler's conduct is good? Cause Singapore was certainly much more effectively than during the initial stage of our independence, so does that mean that LKY's personal conduct is correct?
Furthermore, subsequently after Confucius time, his own state is annexed by Qin, the very state that conquered the entire China. Rather effective government no? Guess Qin Shihuang's personal conduct is pretty good then. And guess who took over the Qin Dynasty? A hooligan by the name of Liu Bang, don't remember that guy getting best conduct prize award.
Good Personal Conduct = effective government? BS! -
I think, the MOST well off in Singapore will be our gov.
As such, they SHOULD bluddy well come up with the funds to help the poor and needy, instead of pushing it all to public while they hoard indecent amounts of money!!!
-
Another person, by the name of Wang Meng, later in China history (North-South period, for the state of Xian-Qin) mentioned this, "Use rites and conducts to rule a state in peace time; Control a state with laws during wartimes."Originally posted by wisefool83:Well, obviously Confucius was confused! His personal conduct wasn't that flashy when he was in power, killing his political opponent with real lame excuses.
Anyway, backed to what he said, if you reversed the logic, does that mean that if the government is effective then the "prince" or ruler's conduct is good? Cause Singapore was certainly much more effectively than during the initial stage of our independence, so does that mean that LKY's personal conduct is correct?
Furthermore, subsequently after Confucius time, his own state is annexed by Qin, the very state that conquered the entire China. Rather effective government no? Guess Qin Shihuang's personal conduct is pretty good then. And guess who took over the Qin Dynasty? A hooligan by the name of Liu Bang, don't remember that guy getting best conduct prize award.
Good Personal Conduct = effective government? BS!
Although our MM's time is not in a wartime, but neither is it in peace. Extraordinary times need extraordinary peoples to do extraordinary things. So the same applies to the Liu Bang you mentioned.
Another word of wisdom from a Han scholar, "You conquered the land on horseback, do you rule the land on horseback as well?". You can't expect to use the system of newly independence Singapore to be in place in present day Singapore, do you?
Anyway, back to the saying. If he really have the intention of helping those in need, should he get the stone rolling? Or maybe it is just one of the little politic games PAP advised the WP to stop playing? Or is it possible that it is another statement made to "cover up" (I know it is not the correct word, but I couldn't think of a better word. So, no offense) on the poor man ending his life on a MRT track and/or the Triple Wee (Derek Wee, Jr Wee Shu Min and the MP Sr Wee) incident? -
When Lim's son was Sec 3, he was already getting $500/mth allowance and me? $100/mth
. That was 1994.
Ah Sia really ah sia. -
Wah piang! You guys are better than me sia!!!Originally posted by Rock^Star:When Lim's son was Sec 3, he was already getting $500/mth allowance and me? $100/mth . That was 1994.
Ah Sia really ah sia.
I only have $40 of pocket money for one month when I was in Sec 3 and that was in 1997.
(Ok lah, my school is my neighbour lah, so no transport worries.) -
My sch canteen sell one chicken rice $2 and western food $3. Then i still got to take 2 buses to sch and back. Was financially as poor as u lah........Originally posted by Hogzilla:Wah piang! You guys are better than me sia!!!
I only have $40 of pocket money for one month when I was in Sec 3 and that was in 1997.
(Ok lah, my school is my neighbour lah, so no transport worries.) -
if that is true, 500 per month was a lot for a sec student in 1994!...
almost same as the antie/uncle who is now working as a clearner in the hawker centres from 8am until 10pm..., i think for them, at most 600 per month...Originally posted by Rock^Star:When Lim's son was Sec 3, he was already getting $500/mth allowance and me? $100/mth . That was 1994.
Ah Sia really ah sia. -
Confucius again.
"The reason why the ancients did not readily give utterance to their words, was that they feared lest their actions should not come up to them."
"The superior man wishes to be slow in his speech and earnest in his conduct."
So, how? -
from tv, we can still see many poor and unfortunate pple asking for help. when this gonna end?
-
500 per mthOriginally posted by Rock^Star:When Lim's son was Sec 3, he was already getting $500/mth allowance and me? $100/mth . That was 1994.
Ah Sia really ah sia.
my mother gave me 2 buckz per day nia... somemore not every day get de..
that was in 1999 -
who ask u dun study hard?Originally posted by pinkish purple papayas:$70000 A MONTH??!?!?!?
I DUN EVEN HAVE $35000 A MONTH!!!
I DUN EVEN HAVE $7000 A MONTH!!!
I DUN EVEN HAVE $3500 A MONTH!!!
heck! i dun even net 2k a month
surely he is a very capable guy right? i work everyday, long hours and i do not even own a hamster. -
Ya lor, ya lor. Everyday $2, one week $10, one month $40. Then recess time are well spent in the library. So everyday save $2....Originally posted by shinta:500 per mth
my mother gave me 2 buckz per day nia... somemore not every day get de..
that was in 1999
Study hard also pointless.Originally posted by NT2:who ask u dun study hard?
You study hard, get what-so-ever scholarship, then slave your way through life. Finally can retire liao, then KNS, your flat cost you your CPF, then you kenna dunno wat illness (not STD har, dun think crook crook har) and you realise you have no money for funeral. Then how? -
sing song only.