Wanted: MPs with courage and ability to speak out
-
Vote for the opposition in the next elections.
I think the three WP mps are doing quite well, though they got whacked 90% of the time.
Eunice Olsen is also quite a pleasant surprise. -
that one is frankly, in the clouds.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:in the same way as some fear GST will go up to 50%
-
agreed...Originally posted by robertteh:By creating fear of welfarism, our government goes to the other extreme resulting in our present high costs of living.
By creating fear of instability, and parliament bashing seen in Taiwan, our government is producing a compliant technocrat system where all MPs and Ministers are doing the bidding of the supreme leaders who no matter how dedicated or talented do not have consistency, the time or the energy to keep track and solve problems.
red herring
n.
2. Something that draws attention away from the central issue.
=======================
The logical fallacy of false dilemma—also known as false choice, false dichotomy, falsified dilemma, fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, false correlative, either/or fallacy and bifurcation—involves a situation in which two alternative statements are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered. The two alternatives presented are often, though not always, the two extreme points on some spectrum. Instead of such extreme simplification and wishful thinking, considering the whole spectrum, as in fuzzy logic, may be more appropriate. A typical false dilemma is the assertion "You are either for us or you are against us." The fallacy of this type of argument is that it tries to eliminate the middle ground. -
If increasing GST is to help the poor, why is 50% not plausible?Originally posted by LazerLordz:that one is frankly, in the clouds.
Doesn't the government want to help the poor more? -
in a loving and compassionate way so that we may stay together and move ahead with help from strong families and our foreign talent friends?Originally posted by charlize:If increasing GST is to help the poor, why is 50% not plausible?
Doesn't the government want to help the poor more?
-
If someone raises my pay from $1.2million to $2.2million, i would certainly shut up.
and i will say things like
"This budget is the most generous, heavenly budget ever made, it is indeed god sent." -
What qualifications or experience you have that make you deserving of that salary? Baclay Bank's boss Bob Diamond earned £22m (S$65m) in just one year...in 2006 alone! If you can do his job, paying you S$2.2 m a year is peanuts in comparison.Originally posted by pinkish purple papayas:If someone raises my pay from $1.2million to $2.2million, i would certainly shut up.
Here's the BBC Business editor's take on the widening gap between the rich and poor:
"Diamond has turned Barclays' investment banking arm from an also-ran into a contender. No one in his game doubts that his contribution to BarclaysÂ’ highly profitable global debt business has been significant. And he's probably being paid more-or-less the market-price for his kind of talent.
But it's arguable that the market itself doesn't work terribly effectively, that it tends to over-value certain sorts of people - investment bankers, hedge-fund managers, chat-show hosts, former residents of the Big Brother house, Premier League footballers - while undervaluing the contribution made by millions of others.
However, some (but not all) investment bankers and footballers can point to the substantial incremental profits they've generated for their businesses, and they can claim with some credibility that their personal remuneration represents value-for-money in that context (actually, it's pretty difficult to make that claim of Chelsea superstars, in view of the huge financial losses incurred by the club).
We live in an era when financial capital is staggeringly cheap and the profit-generating skills of humans are relatively scarce and highly prized. It's why the gap between the wealthiest and the vast majority is widening in a way we haven't experienced for a hundred years.
There may be social and moral arguments against the widening in that gap.
But itÂ’s hard to make an economic case against it, unless you believe that the prevailing global version of capitalism that rules almost everywhere (barring Cuba and Venezuela) is inefficient, unsustainable and will whither. "
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/] -
It is interesting to see that the people at the top are more interested in narrowing the gap between their salaries and the private sector's.
Rather than narrowing the gap between the poor and the rich in Singapore. -
The root of all elitist thoughts stems from here.Originally posted by charlize:It is interesting to see that the people at the top are more interested in narrowing the gap between their salaries and the private sector's.
Rather than narrowing the gap between the poor and the rich in Singapore. -
Good point!!!Originally posted by charlize:It is interesting to see that the people at the top are more interested in narrowing the gap between their salaries and the private sector's.
Rather than narrowing the gap between the poor and the rich in Singapore. -
They already have many times higher than the second highest country, but i guess human greed knows no bound.
MinistersÂ’ pay
How Singapore tops the world
Before planned hike, leaders already earn far more than those in the richest nations. By Rana.
Mar 25, 2007
Singapore ministers are currently paid S$1.2 million (US$790,000) a year, but that's not enough. They have to be paid more to close a 55 per cent gap with the private sector, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said last night.
Ministers' salaries have remained unchanged since 2000, he added. The Straits Times in Singapore explained:
A minister should be drawing S$2.2 million a year or more, according to benchmarks approved by Parliament in 1994 to ensure competitive salaries for a competent and honest government.
The prime minister didn't specify how much the salaries would be raised, but said details will be disclosed on April 9 in Parliament.
I wanted to find out how much leaders in other countries are paid. Here are some figures:
USA (All in US dollars):
President: $400,000
Vice President: $208,100
Senator: $162,100
Representative: $162,100
Majority and Minority Leaders: $188,100
Speaker of the House: $208,100
Supreme Court Chief Justice: $208,100
Supreme Court Associate Justice: $199,200
(Source: 2005 figures from Infoplease)
UK
Prime Minister - £187,611 (US%368,655)
Cabinet Minister - £136,677 (US$268,570)
Minister of State - £99,908 (US$196,320)
Leader of the opposition: £130,312 (US$256,063)
Member of Parliament: £60,277 (US$118,444)
Speaker - £136,677 (US$268,570)
Solicitor General - £126,846 (US$248,860)
(Source: Nov 2006, UK parliament)
Australia
Prime Minister: $309,270
(Source: Since Nov 2006, Wikipedia)
Hong Kong
Chief Executive: $420,000
(Source: Jan 2003, New York Times)
Japan
Prime Minister: $300,000
(Source: April 2004, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty)
Please note some of these figures may be out of date.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe took a 30 percent pay cut when he came to office in September 2006 and lowered other top officials' pay by 10 percent. But the reports didn't mention their actual pay.
European prime ministers as a rule are paid at least five times less than European business leaders, according to a 2005 study.
Posted by rana on March 23, 2007 -
Tell me again why they need so much money in the first place? Are ministers sooo hard to come by?
Heck, Benjamin Sheares didn't want to serve as a President, and only did so only because LKY begged him. It wasn't even pay that was the motivating factor. Frak he even rejected the higher pay. Why is it the ministers lack that sort of flair?! Heck, has LKY even forgotten that man? I can imagine him turning in his grave. -
Precisely. Remember:
"Only the Sith deals in absolutes".Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
agreed...
red herring
n.
2. Something that draws attention away from the central issue.
=======================
The logical fallacy of false dilemma—also known as false choice, false dichotomy, falsified dilemma, fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, false correlative, either/or fallacy and bifurcation—involves a situation in which two alternative statements are held to be the only options, [b]when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered. The two alternatives presented are often, though not always, the two extreme points on some spectrum. Instead of such extreme simplification and wishful thinking, considering the whole spectrum, as in fuzzy logic, may be more appropriate. A typical false dilemma is the assertion "You are either for us or you are against us." The fallacy of this type of argument is that it tries to eliminate the middle ground.[/b] -
In music, when you join a band you can only play and sing the songs the band leader writes. Otherwise, you're out...
But when you form your own band, you get to sing and play your own songs. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
i like to listen TO YOUR OWN theory if the salary increase in the ministers' pay is justifiable?
What qualifications or experience you have that make you deserving of that salary? Baclay Bank's boss Bob Diamond earned [b]£22m (S$65m) in just one year...in 2006 alone! If you can do his job, paying you S$2.2 m a year is peanuts in comparison.
Here's the BBC Business editor's take on the widening gap between the rich and poor:
"Diamond has turned Barclays' investment banking arm from an also-ran into a contender. No one in his game doubts that his contribution to BarclaysÂ’ highly profitable global debt business has been significant. And he's probably being paid more-or-less the market-price for his kind of talent.
But it's arguable that the market itself doesn't work terribly effectively, that it tends to over-value certain sorts of people - investment bankers, hedge-fund managers, chat-show hosts, former residents of the Big Brother house, Premier League footballers - while undervaluing the contribution made by millions of others.
However, some (but not all) investment bankers and footballers can point to the substantial incremental profits they've generated for their businesses, and they can claim with some credibility that their personal remuneration represents value-for-money in that context (actually, it's pretty difficult to make that claim of Chelsea superstars, in view of the huge financial losses incurred by the club).
We live in an era when financial capital is staggeringly cheap and the profit-generating skills of humans are relatively scarce and highly prized. It's why the gap between the wealthiest and the vast majority is widening in a way we haven't experienced for a hundred years.
There may be social and moral arguments against the widening in that gap.
But itÂ’s hard to make an economic case against it, unless you believe that the prevailing global version of capitalism that rules almost everywhere (barring Cuba and Venezuela) is inefficient, unsustainable and will whither. "
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/][/b] -
Originally posted by charlize:It is interesting to see that the people at the top are more interested in narrowing the gap between their salaries and the private sector's.
Rather than narrowing the gap between the poor and the rich in Singapore. -
REGARDLESS of what our MPs actually say in parliament, they will vote FOR a bill with or without the Party whip in place. For eg, during the Trasport fare hike debate a few years back (when Tan Soo Khoon was so passionately critical of it), the Party whip was lifted so that MPs could vote according to conscience. Even then, ALL the PAP MPs voted FOR the bill to pass.
So in this case, why should an MP stick his neck out and speak from his/her heart, if at the end of the day, s/he has to vote according party-lines? That's why our MPs can't really speak from their conscience.... -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
I wonder how many SHIN CORPS Barclay Bank's boss Bob Diamond bought?
What qualifications or experience you have that make you deserving of that salary? Baclay Bank's boss Bob Diamond earned [b]£22m (S$65m) in just one year...in 2006 alone! If you can do his job, paying you S$2.2 m a year is peanuts in comparison.
Here's the BBC Business editor's take on the widening gap between the rich and poor:
"Diamond has turned Barclays' investment banking arm from an also-ran into a contender. No one in his game doubts that his contribution to BarclaysÂ’ highly profitable global debt business has been significant. And he's probably being paid more-or-less the market-price for his kind of talent.
But it's arguable that the market itself doesn't work terribly effectively, that it tends to over-value certain sorts of people - investment bankers, hedge-fund managers, chat-show hosts, former residents of the Big Brother house, Premier League footballers - while undervaluing the contribution made by millions of others.
However, some (but not all) investment bankers and footballers can point to the substantial incremental profits they've generated for their businesses, and they can claim with some credibility that their personal remuneration represents value-for-money in that context (actually, it's pretty difficult to make that claim of Chelsea superstars, in view of the huge financial losses incurred by the club).
We live in an era when financial capital is staggeringly cheap and the profit-generating skills of humans are relatively scarce and highly prized. It's why the gap between the wealthiest and the vast majority is widening in a way we haven't experienced for a hundred years.
There may be social and moral arguments against the widening in that gap.
But itÂ’s hard to make an economic case against it, unless you believe that the prevailing global version of capitalism that rules almost everywhere (barring Cuba and Venezuela) is inefficient, unsustainable and will whither. "
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/][/b]
I wonder if he had the military and the police to collect taxes from the people?
Hello there is a difference between people that earn money for their companies and people that simply take money from their citizens... -
A sample of backbenchers’ exuberant praises included – “generous and forward looking”, “good intentioned” and “made in heaven”, “a landmark budget”, “wonderful”, “innovative” and “pragmatic.”
Which subordinate would not heap praises on everything you say when you dangle a huge carrot infront of them ? This is just the same as NKF.
The generosity of the budget is possible under the stewardship of the ruling PeopleÂ’s Action Party, said one MP, sounding like a Pyongyang news headline.
Another remarked: “Nowhere else in the world can you get a budget which includes love and compassion in abundance as this one.”
Durai : My co-workers! Do i deserve more pay for my hard work ?!
Co-Workers : Yes boss! You're the best!
Durai : Good, you guys have worked hard too, i'll give all of you a 50% pay increase.