PAP moves to counter criticism of party, govt in cyberspace
-
Yes.Originally posted by LinYu:"counter insurgency" - ring a bell? -
(Reposted from youngpap site0
Elfred,
What case? NKF is NKF... You know politics? Gahmen won't take it as what case... Last time all support and defend and celebrate NKF, Durai salary cheong-ed like bullish bubble for 4cts every dollar to patients... People even talked in this forum how come Malaysia charge so much lower... Now gahmen all quiet. Wait open mouth another groundnut drop out then how?
You cannot think like this. If first batch leaders, Durai probably hanged with what new hanging laws oredi.
I tell you, NKF thing we no talk directly say Gahmen like NKF and all that... Just keep quiet, f**k Durai, f**k those simpletons. People got eyes to see... not everything must say "NKF you know so much problem... eh? Similar to gahmen... ok, got case gahmen must change..."
You think you tell Durai like that back then, he'd change? He maybe even sue you, understand?
You invite Lui for what? He agree with you, he finished. He no agree with you, he also finished. If he nobody member, maybe he say something if righteous enough... now he kena minister, you say he got virtue or not? He got virtue you are wrong, he no virtue you invite him also you wrong...
Robert... u never change abit... Useless one lah... This is the time to idle.
BTW, whether you right or wrong is not my issue here.
Anyway... which virtuous leader will have a bunch of clueless leaders... ...? Robert... Robert... You ever endorse begging robbers not to rob will stop robbers from crime? Or telling angels to go to hell and heaven will shut doors?
If you assume who-and-who no virtue... such asking to offer virtue is like asking for miracle from empty air. Aiyah...
I can understand your frustration for you have expressed them here many times and you want to get out.
I am sure from your experiences in dealing with them, you have seen evern more injustices from the insider perspective.
It is up to you to convince them or not to convince them of the tsunami situation their self-centred policies and doings are leading to taking into account your experiences.
For now, the citizens are now growing up and the internet is the unstoppable medium of their expressions of unhappiness with policies and NKF ways of doing things to suit themselves.
But I am sure with better travel and education they can tell the truths from untruths and they can judge for themselves whether the past hypocrisy of promoting ministers' own self-rewards and the self-centred taxing and cost-recovering system of government is good for them.
Citizens can only express their views as they have no political power to make the change. They will be able however to tell the truths and one day the truths will prevail.
Leaders must consider for themselves whether they can carry on telling half-truths like unpopular policies being bitter medicine or good for the long-term interest or the no-free-lunch excuses should be given all the time to justify more tax and fee increases. The current narrow system of taxing and recovering all costs against citizens have driven up costs to beyond S$1,000.00 per household and job losses by the thousands.
These are the wrongs citizens will need to speak up on and government will have to consider whether these feedbacks are the truths or mischiefs. If these feedbacks are not the truths, they have to debunk them or else they will have to overhaul their present self-serving elitist protectionism and nkf way of doing things which put them on a tight spot now because they have been supported openly by our political leaders and their spouses. -
The Current Constitution has failed to provide for the basic rights of citizens or established the role of government and its component branches.
Without such provisions, we cannot evolve a system of government which will respect the rights of citizens and protect our citizens from being unjustly persecuted by the government leading to instability of the country.
It should define larger aspects of nation building, it is essential to provide appropriate safeguard to prevent abuse and motivate all citizens to participate in social and cultural and all aspects of nationhood.
A forward-looking constitution will motivate citizens to participate in all aspects of nation building.
As it is because of the lack of commitments towards protecting the citizens' rights against abuse, people are treated as digits and number with hardly any respect and all sorts of laws are being passed which increase their hardship and burden.
There are also a great deal of complexities and uncertainties in areas of administration of justice because of lack of such basic guarantee of citizens' rights leading to conflicts and instability.
There should be a proper balance between the need for law and order and fulfilling of citizens' needs for protections against abuse of power against the state and the citizens.
The lack of such provisions has led to over-controls, over-regulations and over-legalistic passing of laws and enforcement resulting in autocracy and stifling of creativity and enterprises of society.
In the long-term interest of the state or the people, the constitution will need to be upgraded to one which provides not only law and order but protections of citizens and ensuring the greatest good for the greatest number.
To begin with we need to approach the constitutional upgrading to cover the following major areas of governments:-
(1) Systematic decentralized institutionalized administration,
(2) Independence of the judiciary and administration of justice,
(3) Upholding the democratic one-man-one-vote election process.
(4) implementation processes to ensure all component branches of government are permitted to exercise their respective roles and funcations with accountability and responsibility so as to uphold citizens' rights, freedoms to participate in nation building from greater social, cultural and economic opportunity without discrimination through class, elitism, creed of any kind.
Specifically the constitution would establish the component branches of government so that each will be able to exercise its role effectively without any domination or influence by the executive and its supervisory civil service in the interest of all citizens.
When such a constitution is established, it will then be possible to rally behind the executive and support all the government policies and decisions as such an executive will be working to safeguard the interests and wellbeing of the people.
The existing constitution is too general leaving the executive too much power to work on its own agenda without accountability and transparency and many policies, appointments of government etc are not working in the interest of the people e.g. "20 major policy errors of governemnt" as posted to the feedback unit.
It is not sufficient for the government to work on conceptual leadership-centric system as it will lead to abuse window dressing, creative accounting and look-good justifications of policies and presentations.
There is a need to recognize people needs and aspirations through the constitution as a compact between the government and the people in the long-term interest and any persistent legalistic wrangling of the current constitution will lead ultimately to instability.
It is essential if the government wants to engage the people in understanding its policies and decisions for the government to revise the inadequacies and shortcomings in the current constitution and upgrade it to one which will motivate the citizens' collective talents, to work together with the government with coordination, knowledge applications and innovation in every field, the key to the people's vibrancy and competitiveness. -
C.S. Lewis said that it's no point going to the other extreme from a mistake, for it's simply being wrong in the opposite direction.
If OM really seeks to be constructive in here, it would help if he actually takes sensible positions on certain matters given many of his exploits seem to be taken to "demolish" the "opposition spirit" with equally ridiculus and laughable positions given a pseudointellectual slant.
If anything one understands the venom coming from some of the unbalanced opposition, but one reacts to OM's post more with disgust if anything else, given how they come across to people and a rather ignorant and arrogrant at the same time.
It seems to me that OM, as opposed to helping to "rectify" the view of moderate people who may be "decieved" here, is actually helping many of these to be the very persons he is trying to "save" them from. In any case his time here must then be judged a rather dismal failure given the reception from even moderate quarters. Once can understand to take the words from an angry, anti-establishment person with a pinch of salt, but unfortunately OM's words are more often then not totally rejected given he tries to pass of many rather curious and funny positions as absolute and closed to debate.
I shall reserve comment on the caning thread, which is another bizzare example of this.
Yes OM, it would be good to actually hear something sensible from you for once... that is if you are really above opposing-the-opposing-for-the-sake-of-opposing-for-the-sake-of-opposing... -
If OM had expressed his views with clear logic and without deriding others, one could perhaps even grudgingly accept his uniquely controversial points of views.Originally posted by LazerLordz:You can't blame them because OM stands strongly, many times, too strongly, on one side of the fence.
Unfortunately, he prefer to judge others with his PhD qualification, which somehow does not click with his thought process nor his views expressed - all of which bring into question the credibility of his claim to the rolls of PhD, and the value of his credentials.
A PhD spending his time in SgForums to debate with all the non-PhD, and doing it with so much fervor; and with no one giving any two cent worth of recognition to his PhD boast by besting his views with more cogent and sensible thinking - can we believe that a PhD will react by insulting everyone as 'hypocrites' for opposing him and his pet-Government ?
Should OM harbor dreams of being invited to join the next Tea Party at the Istana - by being controversial in SgForums coming to the defense of the Men-in-White - he will need to try much harder. -
If the rabble plying their trade in PAPforums is anything to go by, Lui Tuck Yew better send people with less emotional tandrums and buckets of cold hard facts.
The seriousness of humiliating failure at such a campaign will certainly backlash the govt in more ways than one, more so if their drones type in the wrong things.
-
(Another topic worth debating with Rear Adm Lui Tuck Yew)
With the government heavily involved in business, it is becoming a different government from one which is supposedly elected to serve the people.
Many of us will remember that many insurance companies together with government linked insurance companies were at one time protected by the government being allowed to form cartel to prevent people from inviting competitive quotations. As a consequence from such cartel, many people were made to pay exceptionally high and punitive premium especially after a claim has been made.
Owing to recessions, opening up of the market, finally the government was pressured to give up such self-protectionism.
However, government today is getting into banking and finance businesses.
Now after the Asian Financial crisis government was given the excuse to restructure the financial system. It took advantage of the situation to protect its own banking privileges by similar cartel-like protectionism allowing banks to charge loan-shark interest rates against the working people so that its own government banks like DBS could charge penalty fees and loan-shark interest rates.
Because of government own self-interests are at stake, citibanks and american express continue to be sheltered in protectionism being allowed together with DBS to charge penalty interest for late payment and card interest rates at 16-20%.
This is the sort of self-interests which are now affecting all our people. Like the insurance cartel being forced to give up their premium protection, eventually people must again rise up to the occasion and be vigilant against such protectionism of self-interests and ask government to stop all its own malpractices to protect their own business and other related interest which is basically wrong doings which must be changed by opening up to market practice. -
The YPAP is a bloody sham and totally chaotic now and without any form of systematic debate. YOu have tantrums, you have clowns, and you have morons who one would wonder if they had even a neuron in the brain.Originally posted by BillyBong:If the rabble plying their trade in PAPforums is anything to go by, Lui Tuck Yew better send people with less emotional tandrums and buckets of cold hard facts.
The seriousness of humiliating failure at such a campaign will certainly backlash the govt in more ways than one, more so if their drones type in the wrong things.
The most disturbing fact is not just the Govt's heavy involvement in the business sector but the very fact they control essentially the dynamics of the Singapore market at almost every corner. Essentially, the Govt control of Singapore is near absolute and the Govt can manage us like employees of a nation and retrench us at will etc. etc. The term "Singapore Inc" takes a whole new meaning when one considers the overarching arm of the Govt.Originally posted by robertteh:(Another topic worth debating with Rear Adm Lui Tuck Yew)
With the government heavily involved in business, it is becoming a different government from one which is supposedly elected to serve the people.
Many of us will remember that many insurance companies together with government linked insurance companies were at one time protected by the government being allowed to form cartel to prevent people from inviting competitive quotations. As a consequence from such cartel, many people were made to pay exceptionally high and punitive premium especially after a claim has been made.
Owing to recessions, opening up of the market, finally the government was pressured to give up such self-protectionism.
However, government today is getting into banking and finance businesses.
Now after the Asian Financial crisis government was given the excuse to restructure the financial system. It took advantage of the situation to protect its own banking privileges by similar cartel-like protectionism allowing banks to charge loan-shark interest rates against the working people so that its own government banks like DBS could charge penalty fees and loan-shark interest rates.
Because of government own self-interests are at stake, citibanks and american express continue to be sheltered in protectionism being allowed together with DBS to charge penalty interest for late payment and card interest rates at 16-20%.
This is the sort of self-interests which are now affecting all our people. Like the insurance cartel being forced to give up their premium protection, eventually people must again rise up to the occasion and be vigilant against such protectionism of self-interests and ask government to stop all its own malpractices to protect their own business and other related interest which is basically wrong doings which must be changed by opening up to market practice. -
Our govt cannot take criticism?
I tot all they tell us that their understanding of the world is mee siam got hum and to get out of their uncaring elite face if we have problem.
They should post comments as themselves using their real identity.
Using anonymous accounts smacks of cowardice.
Why are they so defensive if they had done nothing wrong? -
The big ass of a problem is that the Govt believes in not justifying why their face matters but believes in crushing any opposition questioning why they should have face.Originally posted by mistyblue:Our govt cannot take criticism?
I tot all they tell us that their understanding of the world is mee siam got hum and to get out of their uncaring elite face if we have problem.
They should post comments as themselves using their real identity.
Using anonymous accounts smacks of cowardice.
Why are they so defensive if they had done nothing wrong?
It's the case where the Govt is held as the holiest authority in Singapore and no one must doubt it but have faith. It's a freaking religion I tell you. -
redbean wrote:
I thank you for your playing an active role in this matter - debating on government policies and actions.
what robertteh said deserves a good counter argument. would we be seeing the counter insurgents coming here to rebut robert's statement? this will be very meaningful for everyone to read. or are they going to keep quiet and let this become the truth?
this is a good forum to clear up all the myths and misinformation and to help the people understand the rationale of what robert has said.
i also post at www.redbeanforum.com
I am not against paying our ministers their dues but this has to be done carefully and objectively and not done in a high-handed manner as found in NKF - artful arguments and lacking accountability and transparency.
If we have to pay some ministers a few millions because they are like Dr. Goh Keng Swee or Lim Kim San and take in people with higher salaries from some the private sector to upgrade our entrepreneurship like in areas of technology-start-up of the calibre of stanley shih (or Acer) we could accept such recommendations on a case by case basis.
It does not mean that we need to prevent corruption or retain talent and must give our government a blank cheque to fill their own amounts or for their own favored blue-eye boys to create a crony system.
All who want to be paid super-peanut salaries in the government will have to prove their worth but we do not want to accept the argument that we need to pay them high salaries to avoid corruption.
Many of the younger and newbie ministers were untested and unproven and their preceding salaries were very much below one million pa.
Therefore the time has come for citizens to play an active role and give their views and feedbacks and engage the government in debating policies which have not be beneficial to them and make them change.
Last edited by roberttehkh on Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:42 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top -
Below are some exerpts from an Interview with David Marshall in 1994. The Law Society published it in November 2006 It can be viewed here :
"I am frankly terrified by this massive control of the mass media, the press, the radio, television, antennae, [and] public meetings. You canÂ’t write a letter to the Straits Times; if there is a shadow of criticism, itÂ’s not published. And the Chinese press follows suit. ItÂ’s a very dangerous position because experience proves that no one group of human beings has got all the wisdom in the world.
(...)(China had) Confucian authoritarianism for more than 2500 years. What happened to China? She was a fossil. She had to reinvigorate herself with the Western ideology of communism. Another authoritarian ideology! And what was the result?"
<...>
We have lost sight of the joy and excitement of public service, helping our fellow men. The joy and excitement of seeking and understanding of the joy of the miracle of the living the duty and the grandeur. We have lost taste for heroic action in the service of our people.
<...>
The government doesnÂ’t see I do respect them immensely. They donÂ’t see IÂ’m a genuine friend. They only see me as a critic and to be a critic is to be an enemy who must be erased and destroyed. There is no such thing as an honest critic to the PAP. ItÂ’s a blasphemy to criticise the emperor, spoilt son of heaven.
(Lee) Kuan Yew says you mustnÂ’t lampoon a Chinese gentleman. Oh, dear me! Ya, what happened? What happened to China?
In Europe, they institutionalised the court jester and the court jester had total immunity against any result from his public criticism of the kings and emperors and the courtyard. Open public criticism – that was his job! They tried to laugh it off but at least there was one person to prick the bubble of their overgrown egoism.
And which civilisation has progressed better for the development of humanity? The Western civilisation or the Chinese civilisation?"
How chilling that his words should be so relevant today, in 2007. -
David Marshall. Truly a statesman and a honest chap.
-
Yes.. and it's so ironic that David Marshall did such a great job on non-PAP scale pay (and he even felt it should be the way).. but now that our ministers enjoy the highest salaries in the world, we don't see people like him up there anymore..Originally posted by LazerLordz:David Marshall. Truly a statesman and a honest chap.
-
Originally posted by spinsugar:
This is the difference between people who entered the political scene based on passion for the country and scholars who entered politics based on their academic qualifications.
Yes.. and it's so ironic that David Marshall did such a great job on non-PAP scale pay (and he even felt it should be the way).. but now that our ministers enjoy the highest salaries[b] in the world, we don't see people like him up there anymore.. [/b] -
Hey Joe,Originally posted by bigmouthjoe:This is the difference between people who entered the political scene based on passion for the country and scholars who entered politics based on their academic qualifications.
Judging from the salaries they draw, and all the half-baked aideas they churn up, I'd say their just in it for the MONEY.
Period...
He who is not in it for MONEY, but for the PEOPLE, are people like DR CSJ...
He is taking punch after punch for us and the world to see...what kind of government the 66% of us blindly voted for... -
(re-posted from youngpap site for information]
normalsing wrote:
My starting point is for a country to be well governed, the basics must be right. The basics include honesty, integrity, commitment to serve the people to attain the greatest benefits for the greatest number.
Robert,
I know you got great posts and great arguements. But let me ask you again. Do you actually think that by lowering the pay of all the civil servants, you will lower the income gap?
One sure way to do so is to govern the country democratically based on rule of law and a well written constitution will help to ensure such a good corporate governance.
The constitution can be adopted such that the people will respect it as it will provide a basis to settle all potential differences and problems. The constitution can be laid down as a social compact between the people and government with the government committed to serve the people who elected them based on such serious and solemn pledges and manifestos.
It will be quite wrong for leaders to keep thinking of themselves or their own wellbeings. If there is such a government which thinks of taxing and recovering costs to accumulate their own government surpluses and does not intend to use the surpluses to lower the rising costs of living, then such a system is not sustainable and will fail in the long run.
So I hope many of our active citizens could appreciate the importance of building a government based on such strong commitments and foundation or social compact.
Anything that is less than the above will not be serving our interests as a people who pay them to do a job well done and not to give any more excuses to justify their past mistakes. -
9re-posted from youngpap site for information)
goldameir wrote:
The president's pay obviously was increased not because there is a need to award or retain talent or not enough to meet his needs but with the obvious intention to justify the total pay packages of the ministers and the civil servants since ministers' self-rewards have been under queries by the people.
NeutralParty888 wrote:
If don't like what the president is doing, can always convince someone else to try out for the job ie the legal way.
i liked your jokes
and your view
who approved for the president latest pay rise?
you?
me?
please convinced us
just liked you
convinced mindef to reduce ippt
It will then be easier when people question the ministers over their self-rewards to point to the president's pay and say that they deserve to be paid something pegged to the president's pay.
So our president will unwittingly get rewarded without his asking for more and more salary increments based on look-good legalistic wrangling and justification characterizing our uniquely Singapore system of governance. -
Given the extremely bigoted and caustic remarks expressed by opponents of the government here, a robust rebuttal is not only to be expected, but required.Originally posted by LazerLordz:You can't blame them because OM stands strongly, many times, too strongly, on one side of the fence.
Policy decisions require a comprehensive, non-passionate consideration of all the implications. Yes, it may be seen as being too cold and calculating for the touchy-feely liberal leftist. But at the end of the day, if your policies and laws lack consistency, society breaks down and investors leave.
There is nothing wrong in taking a strong stand on an issue (and in case you have conveniently forgotten, I also oppose certain government policies such as the Thaksin affair, just as strongly). The government critics here who regularly demonstrate inconsistencies in their positions are building on sand and bound to fall. -
I can't believe you delight in digging your own graveOriginally posted by maurizio13:Hey OM! You still have not rebutted my post on medical cost and doctors from India to reduce cost. Ran out of websites to cut and paste; or you just busy cleaning wc?
Well then, for those who do not know the argument, here's the preamble:
Singapore faces two competing demands: the need to increase doctors in public hospitals and polyclinics to cut waiting times and the need to cut healthcare costs. You take issue with my point that employing foreign doctors from India will solve our healthcare problem.
My point is that Indian doctors are paid very lowly in their country. A specialist doctor in Bangalore is only paid Rs20,0000 (after a salary hike):
"Bangalore, Jan 28 (IANS) Karnataka has finalised an $800-million project to revamp its healthcare infrastructure and train health professionals at the grassroots - a scheme that is expected to benefit over 45 million people.....
...The minister said the salaries of contract doctors in the state were under review and may be increased. The government is planning to increase the salary of contract doctors to Rs.19,000 and specialised doctors to Rs.20,000, he added." (Exerpt from http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1913342,000600030009.htm)
Rs.20,000 for specialised doctors is only S$695.670 a month....In fact, even if we take their creme de la creme, specialists in private hospitals who have worked 6 years in the US (their standard cannot be too bad if they could work in USA, arguably the most medically litigious society in the world), their pay is only Rs50,000 or S$1,740.61 a month.
Given that our non-specialist doctor (medical officer) with three years' post-housemanship experience is getting between 4k to 5k (depending on the number of calls), we can well employ 2 or 3 Indian specialist doctors for the salary of one of our non-specialist MO.
If you still cannot see how that will lower healthcare costs and cut waiting times, then you should really enroll in MINDS. -
[quote]JJ wrote:
The widening income gap is a problem because of 2 things:-
1. costs have risen faster than wages for the folks at the bottom rungs.
If price increases didn't outstrip wage growth, this would mean the quality of life for lower income earners would not deteriorate. Which means that while upgrading of lower income folks is important, it is also equally important that cost of living in general is managed to prevent it from outstripping wage growth. If prices outstrip wage growth again in the next few years, all this upgrading would still leave the lower income folks worse off.
2. even if costs did not rise so much, this widening income gap would fuel envy in the masses as they see high earners flaunt, travel, live it up and not give back to the lesser fortunate.
Hypothetically, if prices did not increase so much, would lower income folks feel resentment and envy at the higher income folks? And would we have to manage this resentment and envy? I would certainly say we have to manage the mindsets of some higher income group folks who tend to rub their success in others' noses, flaunt endlessly and not give back to society.[quote]
JJ,
You have generalized the costs of living as being caused by the market forces.
However, the rising costs affecting people's necessities and causing job losses in Singapore have been substantially contributed by the government by devious and deliberate policies to tax and recover all costs to build government's surpluses and claim success of government.
The costs went up in Singapore largely because the government incurred higher costs in paying continuously increasing salaries to its ministers, and civil servants under the Goh Keng Swee doctrine of restructuring the wages to phase out lower labor intensive manufacturing.
Under that policy, government could not lower costs in providing essential services. It had to jack up costs as what we have been paying for our tansportation, utilities, medicare and public housing over the past 20 years or so.
HDB which was originally set up and given the power to acquire lands cheap to provide for people's low cost housing began to think of making more monies like the private developers.
Mah Boh Tan changed the past policy of Lim Kim San of charging for HDB flats by the construction costs and began charging the HDB flat prices at market prices less a little discount to look good to the people.
From S$7,800 for a 3-room improved flat, (priced at construction costs) people are now made to pay the full market value of the flat up to S$160,000.00 for a 3-room flat.
Although lands were owned by citizens Minister Mah has ignored that fact and double-charged on lands in selling the HDB flats from the late 1970s.
In the name of avoiding welfarism, all government farmed out or sold all such services e.g. medicare, utilities, tv and radio, etc. to FLCs and given power to GLCs to charge full market prices for all these services.
In the name of solving traffic congestion, LTA started vehicle excise duty up to 170% of import value or OMV.
It was announced that excise duty would be replaced by COE, but LTA kept the excise duty after COE was introduced and went further to charge the ERP.
Through corporatisations of essential government services into GLCs, government raised all the costs of living making tons of profits in selling its infrastructures and lands to the GLCs and making GLCs to charge the fullest costs like medicare, utilities, public transportation etc. against the people.
This has been a most uncaring and money-making government who is only interested in taxing and recovering all costs from the people and we as citizens must know it is wrong and ask for change.
People have to earn S$1,000.00 per month in order to pay for the necessities and struggle against the rising costs jacked up by the government.
If only our government has learned to leave well alone and refrained from tinkering too much with the private market economy, and charged reasonably at construction costs for HDB flats and taxed the vehicle ownership at COE today we would not have reached our present state of high costs and our factories and businesses in HDB shops would not be closing in large number and we would have been prospering. -
-Double Post-
-
is this why STOMP is now tragi-comedy?
it would be comic if it wasn't so tragically effective in diverting attention away from important issues... -
weapon of mass distractionOriginally posted by the Bear:is this why STOMP is now tragi-comedy?
it would be comic if it wasn't so tragically effective in diverting attention away from important issues...
-
exactly... the high costs of maintaining the 'commercial justification' of ministerial pays is 'provided for' by the people... how long can this last.. looking at the way the pappies' treatment of the opposition wards u can speculate how they will treat u if their positions are compromised... what was promised as 'reduction n keeping down costs' in the public transport system is never honoured... if u can get hold of articles in the past when omo bus scheme was first introduced... what was the generalisation then, now... has that ever been fulfilled, with technological advances, costs should be brought down but instead... u got justification of all sorts n in the commercial ends, its the shareholders' interests never the people's interests...Originally posted by robertteh:[quote]JJ wrote:
The widening income gap is a problem because of 2 things:-
1. costs have risen faster than wages for the folks at the bottom rungs.
If price increases didn't outstrip wage growth, this would mean the quality of life for lower income earners would not deteriorate. Which means that while upgrading of lower income folks is important, it is also equally important that cost of living in general is managed to prevent it from outstripping wage growth. If prices outstrip wage growth again in the next few years, all this upgrading would still leave the lower income folks worse off.
2. even if costs did not rise so much, this widening income gap would fuel envy in the masses as they see high earners flaunt, travel, live it up and not give back to the lesser fortunate.
Hypothetically, if prices did not increase so much, would lower income folks feel resentment and envy at the higher income folks? And would we have to manage this resentment and envy? I would certainly say we have to manage the mindsets of some higher income group folks who tend to rub their success in others' noses, flaunt endlessly and not give back to society.[quote]
JJ,
You have generalized the costs of living as being caused by the market forces.
However, the rising costs affecting people's necessities and causing job losses in Singapore have been substantially contributed by the government by devious and deliberate policies to tax and recover all costs to build government's surpluses and claim success of government.
The costs went up in Singapore largely because the government incurred higher costs in paying continuously increasing salaries to its ministers, and civil servants under the Goh Keng Swee doctrine of restructuring the wages to phase out lower labor intensive manufacturing.
Under that policy, government could not lower costs in providing essential services. It had to jack up costs as what we have been paying for our tansportation, utilities, medicare and public housing over the past 20 years or so.
HDB which was originally set up and given the power to acquire lands cheap to provide for people's low cost housing began to think of making more monies like the private developers.
Mah Boh Tan changed the past policy of Lim Kim San of charging for HDB flats by the construction costs and began charging the HDB flat prices at market prices less a little discount to look good to the people.
From S$7,800 for a 3-room improved flat, (priced at construction costs) people are now made to pay the full market value of the flat up to S$160,000.00 for a 3-room flat.
Although lands were owned by citizens Minister Mah has ignored that fact and double-charged on lands in selling the HDB flats from the late 1970s.
In the name of avoiding welfarism, all government farmed out or sold all such services e.g. medicare, utilities, tv and radio, etc. to FLCs and given power to GLCs to charge full market prices for all these services.
In the name of solving traffic congestion, LTA started vehicle excise duty up to 170% of import value or OMV.
It was announced that excise duty would be replaced by COE, but LTA kept the excise duty after COE was introduced and went further to charge the ERP.
Through corporatisations of essential government services into GLCs, government raised all the costs of living making tons of profits in selling its infrastructures and lands to the GLCs and making GLCs to charge the fullest costs like medicare, utilities, public transportation etc. against the people.
This has been a most uncaring and money-making government who is only interested in taxing and recovering all costs from the people and we as citizens must know it is wrong and ask for change.
People have to earn S$1,000.00 per month in order to pay for the necessities and struggle against the rising costs jacked up by the government.
If only our government has learned to leave well alone and refrained from tinkering too much with the private market economy, and charged reasonably at construction costs for HDB flats and taxed the vehicle ownership at COE today we would not have reached our present state of high costs and our factories and businesses in HDB shops would not be closing in large number and we would have been prospering.