PAP's so call meritocracy is compromising Singapore future?
-
Righteous men are not attracted by which side pays more, they are attracted to what is just.Originally posted by CM06:Exactly PAP hunts and Oppo Party Hunts the same. If one side pays more which side would you go? The chance to do good now vs the chance to do something when they win in forever? -
I call that a man, who has a big price to pay in the end.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Call it cunning, call it wisdom....the man who takes over your lands, buys over your house and win over your wife is more successful than you are
-
To view it in a different light. It pretty seem to me that the concurrent appointment held by Mr Lee is not without its merits.Originally posted by (human):Lee hsien loong is holding the position of PM and the position of minister of finance. Do you think through meritocracy one person can hold two such important positions at one time?
Being the PM and the Minister of Finance allows fostering a trust among the trading nations. Cross-global businesses or investments are conducted based on a variety of factor in play. One of the attraction for investors is the process of dealing with key appointment holders in the ministry, preferably someone whom they can trust and communicate with for mutual benefits and growth.
-
Only thing I can say is that you need a seperation of power between the PM and Minister of finance positions.Originally posted by TooFree:To view it in a different light. It pretty seem to me that the concurrent appointment held by Mr Lee is not without its merits.
Being the PM and the Minister of Finance allows fostering a trust among the trading nations. Cross-global businesses or investments are conducted based on a variety of factor in play. One of the attraction for investors is the process of dealing with key appointment holders in the ministry, preferably someone whom they can trust and communicate with for mutual benefits and growth.
Why? Because the seperation is to balance out the conflict of interest . You have to have the paper trail on where the money is spent , why the money is spent and how the money is spent. Even PM and his department will have expenditures like the other ministries. You cannot have one man being the PM and the holder of finances.
That scenario is like having a publicly listed company where there is only one section who has the power to take any account of money, spend it, justify and audit itself in spending without having the need to go through the board of directors for a vote.
No reputable company listed on the wall street , Hang seng, Nippon stock exchange will do that . That is unacceptable to all stakeholders unless it is a small private business where only the owner stands to profit and only the owner has the singular stake in the business. Where are the checks and balances? Is Singapore just a small private business or a public business? That is my question
Why? Because you don't want a perception of bias or a loss in confidence from the stakeholders. -
I understand your undue worry about the conflict of interest. However, noteworthy is that Mr Lee is holding the appointment of Prime Minister where by all his fellow cabinet ministers are answerable to him & not vice versa. Holding two portfolios only shoulder him with more responsibility and duties.Originally posted by fymk:Only thing I can say is that you need a seperation of power between the PM and Minister of finance positions.
Why? Because the seperation is to balance out the conflict of interest . You have to have the paper trail on where the money is spent , why the money is spent and how the money is spent. Even PM and his department will have expenditures like the other ministries. You cannot have one man being the PM and the holder of finances. That scenario is that of a firm who uses its own finance managers to be the auditors instead of independent auditors to account to the last cent.
As I am now only familiar with Australian work culture since I used to manage some project spending in my area even though it is not a bulk of my work , I can tell you that if you work in any company and you find that they use fully independent external auditing firms to account for every single cent. They use external auditors to check on compliance and accreditation issues as well.
Why? Because you don't want a perception of bias or a loss in confidence from the stakeholders. -
Undue?Originally posted by TooFree:I understand your undue worry about the conflict of interest. However, noteworthy is that Mr Lee is holding the appointment of Prime Minister where by all his fellow cabinet ministers are answerable to him & not vice versa. Holding two portfolios only shoulder him with more responsibility and duties.
First of all :
Compare Singapore to a publicly listed company because a country is very much like a company with stakeholders (public taxpayers) who are usually represented by the board of directors
The CEO or president which is probably the PM has to account to the taxpayers who hold a share in Singapore.
All money spent has to be approved by the board of directors (Parliament) and made public information.
All publicly listed companies have to explain their expenditure clearly and make it very transparent to the stakeholders (taxpayer) . This is not the case since there are complaints of transparency issues by forumners .
If I am looking to invest in a company and I come across a company that does not give a clear financial expenditure and profits in their annual report budget , I will say it is dodgy and avoid investing.
However with a country , no citizen can say that's dodgy and not pay taxes. So there has to be a check and balance going on with paper trails from Ministries to the Treasury and Finance section to account to taxpayers who actually funds the running of the government.
That system can only be waived if Singapore is a privately owned business with a few owners who have a stake in profitability .Don't tell me taxpayers want a country to be runned like a privately owned business ? It is a joke.
In Australia , I can access the budget expenditure and the federal government's guidelines for spending and procuring items easily (200+pages or so) , the financial laws that govern the Australian Commonwealth Departments ( 10-20 pages and quoted and requoted in each departmental budget books) when I came across them for the first time in the University Library to answer a question on healthcare expenditure. Those puppies are like 300 to 600 pages altogether for each department (Defence, Health , Community etc) answering for their spending and detailing what programs and policies have been spent on. The reason for their spending on a certain program/policy initiative , an overview of what they are doing, the extras they received, the spending they received their deficits and their surpluses and what has not been spent and what has been rolled over a 3 year financial period as well as on each singular policy and program they have placed out under each category they have to account for.
I found out that I could access Parlimentary Senate Estimates where senators ask questions about everything for a particular department in a private session and the transcript is published in the open in that library.
I can track the budgets and spending for the states and territories as well. Those are like 200-400 pages long.
Yes there are some classified under defence but still you know the amount went out for defence, just not the details of what has been bought. -
Singapore is run like a publicly listed company.
But without the checks and balances.
Go figure.
-
Aiya.. forget it lah...
Over time, all the locals will have eventually immigrated, leaving the PA with all their precious FTs and F-whatevers.
See if any of these Foerign bodies will fight should war breaks out...
This, I will love to see....from abroad, retired and lying in my deck chair... -
What makes you think they also don't run?Originally posted by ShutterBug:Aiya.. forget it lah...
Over time, all the locals will have eventually immigrated, leaving the PA with all their precious FTs and F-whatevers.
See if any of these Foerign bodies will fight should war breaks out...
This, I will love to see....from abroad, retired and lying in my deck chair... -
Because I believe there will some who are dumb enough to stay back...Originally posted by fymk:What makes you think they also don't run? -
more power and influence to be exact.Originally posted by TooFree:I understand your undue worry about the conflict of interest. However, noteworthy is that Mr Lee is holding the appointment of Prime Minister where by all his fellow cabinet ministers are answerable to him & not vice versa. Holding two portfolios only shoulder him with more responsibility and duties.
why did he choose to hold 2 portfolios? because he thinks he can do better? -
well he can earn more $$ with more portfolios isn't it?Originally posted by dragg:more power and influence to be exact.
why did he choose to hold 2 portfolios? because he thinks he can do better? -
i would love to see also. KnnOriginally posted by ShutterBug:Aiya.. forget it lah...
Over time, all the locals will have eventually immigrated, leaving the PA with all their precious FTs and F-whatevers.
See if any of these Foerign bodies will fight should war breaks out...
This, I will love to see....from abroad, retired and lying in my deck chair... -
The dumb ones who stay back in the country in times of need are the ones who actually do care enough about Singapore.Originally posted by ShutterBug:Because I believe there will some who are dumb enough to stay back... -
People may care about SG, but does the gov?Originally posted by fymk:The dumb ones who stay back in the country in times of need are the ones who actually do care enough about Singapore.
They only care about the economy that makes them their money. They care in a different way - financial way that is.
They may say that a robust economy will keep us all under a roof, and all that crap, but frankly, are we all feeling peachy?
We are all like a whole lot of chickens laying eggs for them!! When we're old and can lay no more eggs, we're forgotten! In fact their suggesting old folks go to a land in Malaysia to evetually die! Old floks who formerly contributed to the country's growth, are a hindrance to society's services!
Does it sound like they farking care??? -
SG has 2 mouths!!!Originally posted by ShutterBug:People may care about SG, but does the gov?
They only care about the economy that makes them their money. They care in a different way - financial way that is.
They may say that a robust economy will keep us all under a roof, and all that crap, but frankly, are we all feeling peachy?
We are all like a whole lot of chickens laying eggs for them!! When we're old and can lay no more eggs, we're forgotten! In fact their suggesting old folks go to a land in Malaysia to evetually die! Old floks who formerly contributed to the country's growth, are a hindrance to society's services!
Does it sound like they farking care???
One mouth said , u will be well taking care for!!!the other mouth said we will be sucking u dried!!!! -
Don't think so, i think people who are confused, ignorance, or dare not run away will be staying back in Singapore. Not only those who care will be staying back.Originally posted by fymk:The dumb ones who stay back in the country in times of need are the ones who actually do care enough about Singapore. -
The government is more concern about thier profits than they care more for the people? The elites were educated to be more profit minded than caring minded?Originally posted by ShutterBug:People may care about SG, but does the gov?
They only care about the economy that makes them their money. They care in a different way - financial way that is.
They may say that a robust economy will keep us all under a roof, and all that crap, but frankly, are we all feeling peachy?
We are all like a whole lot of chickens laying eggs for them!! When we're old and can lay no more eggs, we're forgotten! In fact their suggesting old folks go to a land in Malaysia to evetually die! Old floks who formerly contributed to the country's growth, are a hindrance to society's services!
Does it sound like they farking care??? -
Media Release: Singaporeans suffer under the foreign talent policy
16 Jan 07
The recent report showing that 70 percent of jobs created in 2006 went to foreigners is not a revelation.
In 2003, a group of professors from the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) reported that three out of four jobs created in the past five years went to foreigners.
Then, the Ministry of Manpower immediately issued a statement to denounce the NTU's findings and produced its own figures: That nine out of ten newly created jobs went to the locals.
The professors quickly withdrew their report, citing computational errors.
The SDP had, at that time, asked the Government to hold an inquiry to ascertain the truthfulness of the economists' report and not merely bully them into silence.
Four years have passed and it is clear that the professors were right. Worse, Singaporeans have had to continue to suffer in silence under the PAP Government's ill-conceived policy even though it is reported that a majority of people want a more judicious application of the foreign talent (Sunday Times, 14 Jan 07).
The Singapore Democrats repeat our stand: The foreign talent policy must be re-examined so that only foreigners with the requisite skills are allowed to work in Singapore.
We proposed the Singaporeans First Policy back in 2001 where we wanted foreigners to get the jobs only when we cannot find Singaporeans with the necessary skills to do them.
The PAP Government is desperately trying to make-up for the stunted population growth that resulted from its cruel and myopic Stop-at-Two family planning policy by flooding the society with foreign nationals.
The resultant economic and social consequences from such an unthinking move will yet manifest themselves in horrendous ways, if they have not already.
In addition, the Government refuses to acknowledge that the slow birthrate in Singapore is primarily due to the high cost of living and stressful lifestyle in our society which deters couples from wanting more children.
It also ignores the fact that the exodus of Singaporeans, most of whom possess talent and skills our country needs, to other countries is a result of the suffocating system created by the PAP.
It is clear that the Government not only has no intention of owning up to these problems it created, but now seeks to plaster over them by encouraging the indiscriminate influx of foreign workers.
Its main objective, of course, is to suppress the wages of working Singaporeans so that we can claim to be a “competitive” economy.
This race to the bottom is doomed to failure. It merely exploits the vulnerable to make the vulnerable even more vulnerable. It also ensures that while the rich get richer, the poor are consigned to an even bleaker future.
It escapes no one that the ministers continue to peg their salaries to the richest of the rich in Singapore, and ignore the plight of ordinary Singaporeans. The Government is able to do this only because the people have had their voices taken away.
The only remedy to this, and other problems that citizens face, is for the people to regain their political rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. Only when citizens are able to physically congregate en masse and speak freely will the Government sit-up and pay attention.
Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party -
I have a solution. As you know Lee Hsien long is not the best person to be prime minister, In PAP there are some who surpassed him. Why not let the people choose and vote for the PM among them?Originally posted by grandeur:Meritocracy means a social system or society in which people have power because of their abilities, not because of their wealth or social position. Yes Lee Hsien Loong do have certain abilities in getting certain job done, but everyone know he's not the best afterall. The best people are not in the highest place, isn't this compromising Singapore future? -
They are all the same. The other ministers less capable. The whole Cabinet need to be changed.Originally posted by (human):I have a solution. As you know Lee Hsien long is not the best person to be prime minister, In PAP there are some who surpassed him. Why not let the people choose and vote for the PM among them? -
Many people have noticed that Lee Hsien long is not the best and had proven that he is not a wise person. Therefore those who are really wise and talented refused to be under him. There's a saying "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber."Originally posted by PoRen:They are all the same. The other ministers less capable. The whole Cabinet need to be changed.
Currently those who are willing to be under him may have attracted by the sum of salaries and bonuses that had sky rocked over the recent years or for other reasons, many are still doubting thier capability to be ministers and paliament members.
When real wise and talented people are not taking the highest place, people will be suffering or compromising Singapore's future. The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.
If we have a prime minister who is really outstanding and wise, i believe true wise men and talented will be keen to take part in politic.