Singapore auditors find irregularities in ministries
-
honest???Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Unfortunately, the saying "Give the man a limb, he takes an arm" still works in the world, and just giving the guy plenty of money won't stop him from being corrupted.
At the essence of corruption is a question of how honest the person wants to be.
how did they manage to convince themselves that a million dollar payrise vs helping the poor are 2 separate issues, and cannot be lumped together, when the payrise and helping the poor BOTH come from the SAME source - Taxpayers' Money? -
Obviously honesty isn't in their portfolio. THere are tonnes of skeletons for us to dig up, if the Govt let us.Originally posted by soul_rage:honest???
how did they manage to convince themselves that a million dollar payrise vs helping the poor are 2 separate issues, and cannot be lumped together, when the payrise and helping the poor BOTH come from the SAME source - Taxpayers' Money? -
Politics is THE 'dirty' word, not 'welfare'.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Obviously honesty isn't in their portfolio. THere are tonnes of skeletons for us to dig up, if the Govt let us.
The trick is to dig up your opposition's while keeping yours secret.
The only people in the world who probably have zero dirty laundry are zen monks.
On the flip side, we shouldn't relate the poor vs the exhorbitant pay of ministers. Ultimately, the poor will always envy their 'high' wages, be it 1K, 10K or 100K a month. Low-income vs high-income has always been a relative term in any case. -
Well, don't really agree with your point on not relating. If the pay is earned by a private sector person whom earns everything through his own efforts and his pay is justified by the market conditions, then you are right, there is no point to relate.Originally posted by BillyBong:Politics is THE 'dirty' word, not 'welfare'.
The trick is to dig up your opposition's while keeping yours secret.
The only people in the world who probably have zero dirty laundry are zen monks.
On the flip side, we shouldn't relate the poor vs the exhorbitant pay of ministers. Ultimately, the poor will always envy their 'high' wages, be it 1K, 10K or 100K a month. Low-income vs high-income has always been a relative term in any case.
However, this is the public sector, where we are the taxpayers. The money to pay those jokers and to help the poor are coming from the same source. So there is a direct relation. To me, its simple, the money they are drawing, that increment amount could have gone to serve the poor better. LHL made an indirect admittance to his guilt when he promised to donate his salary increment to charity.
And if you talk about market conditions, that's even worse. Market (in this case politicians from all over the world) shows that our jokers are immensely, ridiculously, and absurbly overpaid.
Like I mentioned, to retain talent, you retain talent by paying him better than the market, but NOT STUPIDLY paying him so much more than the market. -
Of course, when they are paid taxpayer's monies, people will view them 'overpaid'.Originally posted by soul_rage:Well, don't really agree with your point on not relating. If the pay is earned by a private sector person whom earns everything through his own efforts and his pay is justified by the market conditions, then you are right, there is no point to relate.
However, this is the public sector, where we are the taxpayers. The money to pay those jokers and to help the poor are coming from the same source. So there is a direct relation. To me, its simple, the money they are drawing, that increment amount could have gone to serve the poor better. LHL made an indirect admittance to his guilt when he promised to donate his salary increment to charity.
And if you talk about market conditions, that's even worse. Market (in this case politicians from all over the world) shows that our jokers are immensely, ridiculously, and absurbly overpaid.
Like I mentioned, to retain talent, you retain talent by paying him better than the market, but NOT STUPIDLY paying him so much more than the market.
However, before they happily re-wrote their own cheques, people already viewed their pay as exhorbitant. In retrospect, how will the 'poor' view their pay as compared to their own?
Leaning on how the poor view ministerial salary is misleading, simply because regardless of what they are eventually paid, their relative wages will always be considered HIGH.
The only result is...ENVY. -
Not forgetting they are even receiving pensions while in office. UGH...Originally posted by BillyBong:Of course, when they are paid taxpayer's monies, people will view them 'overpaid'.
However, before they happily re-wrote their own cheques, people already viewed their pay as exhorbitant. In retrospect, how will the 'poor' view their pay as compared to their own?
Leaning on how the poor view ministerial salary is misleading, simply because regardless of what they are eventually paid, their relative wages will always be considered HIGH.
The only result is...ENVY. -
ok understand what you mean nowOriginally posted by BillyBong:Of course, when they are paid taxpayer's monies, people will view them 'overpaid'.
However, before they happily re-wrote their own cheques, people already viewed their pay as exhorbitant. In retrospect, how will the 'poor' view their pay as compared to their own?
Leaning on how the poor view ministerial salary is misleading, simply because regardless of what they are eventually paid, their relative wages will always be considered HIGH.
The only result is...ENVY.
And Fingolfin is correct that their pensions also went up by the same margin, since their pensions are tagged to 60-70% their pay. -
can we audit temasek holding?
i believe thjis is bigger can of worms!!! -
We are having national crisis. Anyone sense it?Originally posted by reyes:can we audit temasek holding?
i believe thjis is bigger can of worms!!!