All out to defame our governement
-
Yes I agree that we discuss for the greater good of our country, but that is assuming that our views are actually even considered.Originally posted by citymax:too lame to ans.
i might be naive to some and those who give positive opinion that the present govenment should improve are applaused.
Positive disccusion is needed and not accusation compared to previous topics.
Now we are really discussing on the progress of the country and not being critical to juz a few persons.
why we are so agitated at times is becoz we care for the country and of coz we wan a better government.
-
january, kindly reply the above too.Originally posted by Rock^Star:Don't put words in me, I have never mentioned the above underlined.
Widening income gap is indeed a problem faced by many countries the world over. Singapore is no different. However, why did ST not publish the statistics as researched by the World Bank and CIA? Isn't our democratic society one of free press?
LHL once said: "You can get anything you want in Singapore. You can travel, you can bring it in. You can - you can organize what you want. You can say anything you want, and all sorts of things are said and debated in Singapore."
Look at these links and one will know why such info is withheld.
http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html
http://devdata.worldbank.org/wdi2005/Section2.htm
With such results, are they still worthy of their exorbitant salaries when other nations are doing better and their ministers paid much less? Since they are paid so much, shouldn't Singaporeans deserve better? Isn't this why the govt stood for elections in the very first place?
Can TS still say that we are defaming our govt? Or is the hard truth too hard to swallow?
What about you? Can you handle the truth? Or too big a pill for you to swallow? Which explains why your rebuttals are sorely lacking in substance?
If you can't, would I be wrong to label you as "following blindly" and giving "philosophical yet irrelevant" replies? -
Question c - I can't answer, I don't understand the given link.Originally posted by Gazelle:The above statement will be more meaningful if you could let us know
a) Who are these same people you are referring to?
b) Does this pool of people provide a good represtation of the overall Singapore job market?
c) Do you have reasons to believe that the statistic provided by MOM is distorted?
http://www.mom.gov.sg/publish/momportal/en/communities/others/mrsd/statistics/Earnings_and_Wages.html
a) Around my neighbourhood.
b) I wouldn't dare say it provides a good representation of Singapore's job market, but as a rough gauge or something to imagine about, is good enough. -
If you think you have better skills, why not apply to PSD?Originally posted by bigmouthjoe:Ok those are what ifs.
This is a fact:
Wages had nothing to do with LKY, Ong Teng Cheong, Chiam See Tong, David Marshall joining politics...
So what makes you think these talents are really talents when I see that most of them actually graduated from the public sector instead of the private sector?
-
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
The govt's job is to create a level playing field. Those who do well in the global market are rewarded more and can afford more. Those who do less well have less and have to learn to live with less. The state should provide a small safety net for the very poor who cannot survive the global competition but the net cannot be too attractive, or it will discourage hardwork.
This post is not meant for you.
You are a university undergraduate? Have not worked and supported the family before? Is starting a family even on your cards? Do you know what it means to have parents going in and out of hospital due to old age?
In philosophy, we should all be frugal, that I agree with you. However, in truth? Not everyone is. How can we make everyone frugal? Impossible. Since it's impossible, we have to play by the game and not idealistically demand that everyone be frugal.
[b]Can you make everyone frugal? No, right? So why demand that people be?
Typical of philosphical mentality.
Can the govt make everyone frugal? No, they can't. Govt's role is to make life as smooth as possible, where feasible, for the citizens. Otherwise, why get elected?
[/b]
Live within your means. -
Haha how do you define better skills? Some people are good in drawing, some good in debates, others good in economics. Some are only good in studies...Originally posted by oxford mushroom:If you think you have better skills, why not apply to PSD?
Unfortunately, my results were horrid thanks to my language...
-
If the government wants to block access to information, do you think you can so easily get hold of it with the click of a key?
Look at these links and one will know why such info is withheld.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html
http://devdata.worldbank.org/wdi2005/Section2.htm -
When a fight occurs, you call the police or you cheer them on?Originally posted by january:then how do you that PAP is greedy people. just because of rising cost, and what you perception that their policies are not good.
The government has given ample and broad consideration for its policies, therefore, population feedback will only be given small consideration only, particularly if the feedback are unsuitable because they population dun undergo broad and complex decision process.
The government have to be firm in its stance. They will allow greater participation from citizens if they are more reasonable, more authority.
Policies makers nowadays involves leaders and scientist from various field thus showing that government do try to bring in experts of different field who have really great knowledge in their fields.
Same thing here. When costs are rising here, something should be done to improve the situation, not increase them and then give excuses like packages will be given out to help them.
I don't know how much consideration has the government considered before deciding to implement it, but if you ask me, I don't think ample is given. Just look at the casino issue. When it was brought that whether or we should have, about half agreed, half disagreed.
Granted, there were debates, some MPs disagreed. But are their voices heard?
Great knowledge doesn't mean one can apply local context. Where did they study? Where did they work? How would their own experience be relevant to Singapore?
Singapore and US may be a democratic country, but the same policies that applies to US doesn't apply here, simply because our thinking and their thinking just don't go along.
If you have started working, you should know certain methods will always work, but the same methods will not work for some people who chooses otherwise. -
Skills that are in demand command higher salaries..the market decides your value. When we negotiate a new job, it's common practice to quote the salaries offered by other employers...if the civil service or whoever wants you that bad;y, they must up the salary.Originally posted by bigmouthjoe:Haha how do you define better skills? Some people are good in drawing, some good in debates, others good in economics. Some are only good in studies...
Unfortunately, my results were horrid thanks to my language... -
I have my ways.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:If the government wants to block access to information, do you think you can so easily get hold of it with the click of a key?
Without breaking laws. -
None of these interest me, but yet I'm struggling.Originally posted by january:i ask a question to all the complainers in here.
what do have not in your life that your think your life is not smooth and not good?
Is it that you cannot go concert? cannot go restaurant? cannot buy car? cannot live in big house? cannot watch movies frequently? Cannot take taxi? cannot go to wedding (60 per person) ? cannot buy cable vision? cannot buy 60 dollar internet subscription?
Do you know that singtel cheapest is 30 dollars per month. 1Mbps
If you expectation exceed your income, of course you will have not smooth life. What people do is to shfit the cause of problem from them to others.
that is the usual scene.
people can enjoy more spending because they earn more. as long as you dun follow them becos u not the same income bracket, then your life will be smooth because you know how to plan your finance and plan long term.
there are many cheaper lifestyle if u follow, life will be smooth.
Go figure.
As I've said, you've failed to look at other causes. -
Something tells me that you have not read my "every society has a hierachy to fill" theory.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The govt's job is to create a level playing field. Those who do well in the global market are rewarded more and can afford more. Those who do less well have less and have to learn to live with less. The state should provide a small safety net for the very poor who cannot survive the global competition but the net cannot be too attractive, or it will discourage hardwork.
Live within your means.
Go read it up before you dig up january's old wounds. -
Aljunied almost kena lost to opposition but ISD never came knocking on their residents.Originally posted by Gazelle:Could I request you to read what the original poster is saying before replying my post.
He/She is saying that if you vote for opposition ISD will come knocking at your doors. -
Exactly, the opinion is divided but someone must make the final decision. The MM was against it and I was against it. But the figures are convincing...the IRs will bring revenue and more importantly, provide jobs for low-skilled Singaporeans. A cleaner in my office will not be able to earn as much as a cleaner in the IR.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:I don't know how much consideration has the government considered before deciding to implement it, but if you ask me, I don't think ample is given. Just look at the casino issue. When it was brought that whether or we should have, about half agreed, half disagreed.
Having weighed the pros and cons, the government decided this is the most appropriate decision we should take and they took it. If they made the wrong decision, they will answer for it in the polls. -
My qn was: "Why did the ST not publish the info?"Originally posted by oxford mushroom:If the government wants to block access to information, do you think you can so easily get hold of it with the click of a key?
Not "Why did the govt block access to it?"
Can you differentiate between withhold and block?
Intelligent replies are appreciated. -
How much he gives his parents is his issue, that has nothing to do with you.Originally posted by january:Parents 800? people dun give so much nowadays.. trend is not giving or giving token sum.
Address the rest. -
Because ST does not think there is public interest? You direct the question to ST instead of making baseless allegations. You are trying to hint at a government cover-up. Prove it. NPNT!Originally posted by Rock^Star:My qn was: "Why did the ST not publish the info?"
Not "Why did the govt block access to it?"
Can you differentiate between withhold and block?
Intelligent replies are appreciated. -
Hey. Heard of the stagnant middle class before? They are a group of people whose income are relatively stagnant. From what I can remember, their income growth rate is less than 1/3 of our GDP growth. OK you can fight that it is not a good comparision to use GDP. I'll show my calculations below.
For the middle income, let's take is as the median of the population, that is the third quintile.
In 1998, their combined household income is $3374, in 2003, their income is $3379. I believe that these figures are not in real dollars.
Hence, if you go by our GDP per capita growth rate from 1998-2003,
GDP per capita Growth Rate: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/hist/gdp.html
1999: -0.73% (all figures to 2 significant figures)
2000: 12%
2001: -6.7%
2002: 2.0%
2003: 1.8%
Overall, from the period of 1998-2003, the growth is 9.5%. Those percentages are calculated from real dollars, so percentages are accurate to 2sf.
So, if the third quintile received $3374 in 1998, they should receieve $3374 x 109.5%, that is $3695. That's not the end of the story.
If we factor in inflation, as $3374 is in 1998 dollars, and the $3379 figure is in 2003 dollars, $3695 is $3784. That's a $404 difference for a middle income family for a month! Sadly, that was not to be. They didn't have $400 more to spend each month. If their income growth is following the national GDP per capita growth, they could have $400 more.
That's just one case, for the third quintile, and that's for the stagnant income.
If you consider the lowest 20% population, and the next 20%,
Lowest 20% (in nominal dollars)
1988: $615
1993: $887
1998: $933
2003: $795
Next 20%
1988: $1072
1993: $1645
1998: $2118
2003: $2059
That's a decrease even in nominal dollars! The difference is even greater if you factor in inflation!
OK, let's put all these into perspective.
The highest 20%:
1988: $5055
1993: $8469
1998: $11450
2003: $12792
The fourth quintile:
1988: $2328
1993: $3799
1998: $5162
2003: $5309
See a steady increase? Perhaps it is not very steady but it is a generally increasing pattern.
So, 60% of the population is short changed by the economy growth in Singapore. That's assuming that one-person families are considered, and yes, they are, for the 1998, 2003 data.
Umm. 2 731 805 people... That's an awful lot. -
I'm not going to dig up history, it won't happen anyway, and construction has started.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Exactly, the opinion is divided but someone must make the final decision. The MM was against it and I was against it. But the figures are convincing...the IRs will bring revenue and more importantly, provide jobs for low-skilled Singaporeans. A cleaner in my office will not be able to earn as much as a cleaner in the IR.
Having weighed the pros and cons, the government decided this is the most appropriate decision we should take and they took it. If they made the wrong decision, they will answer for it in the polls.
I will wait to see. If it's really good, then this matter will rest (for me). If no, I want an explanation. -
First and foremost, please comprehend that there is a hierachy to fill in every society. Not everyone can climb the ladder and make it good. Take a toilet cleaner for example. Is the reason why she's just a cleaner because she does not work hard enough? Is a mechanic still a mechanic after 20 years because he has poor work ethics? Given the huge supply of poly and uni grads year after year, is a diploma holder still earning less than $2000/mth after years of working, a bum? Likewise, a degree holder earning les than $3000/mth after years of working, a sloth?
So what's your point? The market pays according to what it considers to be a fair price for whatever goods or services. A cleaner's skills are not valued as highly as those of a brain surgeon, hence the difference in pay and quite rightly so.
What matters is not elitism. There will always be an elite or hierachy in society as you choose to call it. What matters is that there is possibility of social mobility and our education system provides for that.
The ST senior journalist Chua Mui Hoong is a case in point. A daughter of a taxi driver, she has managed to win scholarships to get an MA from Cambridge and a Masters from Harvard. So she does better and earns more than her father. That's the social mobility this government has provided. -
Sweet, a new can of wormsOriginally posted by january:okay.. fair enough tell me something where you think govt is doing wrong.
1. Gerrymendering. They can claim demographics, but the obvious advantage to PAP is undeniable.
2. The amendments to the constitution that keep the PAP in power, especially the Elections act. The Electoral Boundaries Review Committee is supposed to release the boundaries of the constiuencies before any GE. Historically have been to close to election day. Rendering alot of ground work useless by the opposition members.
Report----------- GE Date ------- lead time
20 June 84 ----- 22 Dec 84 ---- 6 mths
13 June 88------ 3 Spet 88 ---- <3 mths
8 Aug 91-------- 31 Aug 91 ---- <4 Weeks
6 Nov 96 -------- 2 Jan 97 ------ <2 Mths
3. The amendments to the constitution to give the PM the power to appoint Judges and CJs, on short term contracts of 1 to 3 years, which means, also gives him the right to "not renew" those contracts on "unsatisfactory performance" and I leave the definition of "unsatisfactory performance" to your imagination. How can a plaintiff be involved (directly or indirectly) in the appointments of the judges presiding in the case(s)?
4. To outlaw peaceful assembly of individuals and freedom of speech. And then create speakers corner. And stop people from going in to listen to a speaker at the speaker's corner and calling a illegal assembly, even after giving a speaker a permit!
5. The boast the our courts are fair just and transparent, as we can apply to the highest court of appeal, the privy council of the house of lords in England. Then when the council overturns a judgement on JBJ, calling it a gross injustice, appeals to the council were severly restricted and then subsequently abolished.
6. Persecution of people who strongly disagree with the government. e.g Ricahrd Ho, JBJ, CSJ among others. The PAP "sledgehammer", with "Libel" engraved on one side, and "ISD" engraved on the other.
7. The lack of independent media, and the persecution of journalists that are against self censorship.
Many more, too many to list, a book on them is in progress, hopefully I finish it soon.
IMO, the govt is not a failure, but they have a long way to in terms of being sensative to the voices of the common people. Which is way, a opposition strong enough to be a threat to PAP's stranglehold on the constitution is essential. A mistake is a mistake, people make mistakes and are held accountable for them, and held accountable to the people they report to. The government should be no execption.Originally posted by january:somemore, doing one thing wrong does not mean that government is a failure though. dun keep picking on a mistakes or wrong investment and step it like a smashed potato until its rotten and conclude that govt is failure and bias.
there are many things.. dun just focus on mistakes...
Yep, running a country is not an easy task, that doesn't give any government the right to ignore the people (eg. with a farce of debates) and be unaccountable for mistakes. If they take the people a little more seriously, maybe many mistakes and their fallout can be mitigated.Originally posted by january:i myself deal with my personal life makes hundreds of mistakes and decision everyday with knowing whether i have make a mistakes or not . or find that make wrong mistake or find that i think i make a wrong mistake but actually i am thinking too negatviely liao or i thinking that i make a mistake but it turn out to be a blessing in disguise.
my one small life is already so complex already and what is about managing a country with people having various interests.
Doesn't give any government the right to restrict the rights of the individual. You are talking about a government leader that said "We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think" -
That was an awful lot to digest but you have put your point across. 60% of the population have seen their income stagnate or even decrease. The reason why mean income goes up every year is due to the top 40% percentile.Originally posted by gevo:Hey. Heard of the stagnant middle class before? They are a group of people whose income are relatively stagnant. From what I can remember, their income growth rate is less than 1/3 of our GDP growth. OK you can fight that it is not a good comparision to use GDP. I'll show my calculations below.
For the middle income, let's take is as the median of the population, that is the third quintile.
In 1998, their combined household income is $3374, in 2003, their income is $3379. I believe that these figures are not in real dollars.
Hence, if you go by our GDP per capita growth rate from 1998-2003,
GDP per capita Growth Rate: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/hist/gdp.html
1999: -0.73% (all figures to 2 significant figures)
2000: 12%
2001: -6.7%
2002: 2.0%
2003: 1.8%
Overall, from the period of 1998-2003, the growth is 9.5%. Those percentages are calculated from real dollars, so percentages are accurate to 2sf.
So, if the third quintile received $3374 in 1998, they should receieve $3374 x 109.5%, that is $3695. That's not the end of the story.
If we factor in inflation, as $3374 is in 1998 dollars, and the $3379 figure is in 2003 dollars, $3695 is $3784. That's a $404 difference for a middle income family for a month! Sadly, that was not to be. They didn't have $400 more to spend each month. If their income growth is following the national GDP per capita growth, they could have $400 more.
That's just one case, for the third quintile, and that's for the stagnant income.
If you consider the lowest 20% population, and the next 20%,
Lowest 20% (in nominal dollars)
1988: $615
1993: $887
1998: $933
2003: $795
Next 20%
1988: $1072
1993: $1645
1998: $2118
2003: $2059
That's a decrease even in nominal dollars! The difference is even greater if you factor in inflation!
OK, let's put all these into perspective.
The highest 20%:
1988: $5055
1993: $8469
1998: $11450
2003: $12792
The fourth quintile:
1988: $2328
1993: $3799
1998: $5162
2003: $5309
See a steady increase? Perhaps it is not very steady but it is a generally increasing pattern.
So, 60% of the population is short changed by the economy growth in Singapore. That's assuming that one-person families are considered, and yes, they are, for the 1998, 2003 data.
Umm. 2 731 805 people... That's an awful lot. -
Part of the problem is the lack of the safety net, or a reliable one. Like a minimum wage law. At least it encourages employment.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The govt's job is to create a level playing field. Those who do well in the global market are rewarded more and can afford more. Those who do less well have less and have to learn to live with less. The state should provide a small safety net for the very poor who cannot survive the global competition but the net cannot be too attractive, or it will discourage hardwork.
Live within your means. -
With globalisation we will see a greater income gap. The market will always go for the lowest priced good or services of similar quality. That brings down the inflation rate too.Originally posted by gevo:Hey. Heard of the stagnant middle class before? They are a group of people whose income are relatively stagnant. From what I can remember, their income growth rate is less than 1/3 of our GDP growth. OK you can fight that it is not a good comparision to use GDP. I'll show my calculations below.
For the middle income, let's take is as the median of the population, that is the third quintile.
In 1998, their combined household income is $3374, in 2003, their income is $3379. I believe that these figures are not in real dollars.
Hence, if you go by our GDP per capita growth rate from 1998-2003,
GDP per capita Growth Rate: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/hist/gdp.html
1999: -0.73% (all figures to 2 significant figures)
2000: 12%
2001: -6.7%
2002: 2.0%
2003: 1.8%
Overall, from the period of 1998-2003, the growth is 9.5%. Those percentages are calculated from real dollars, so percentages are accurate to 2sf.
So, if the third quintile received $3374 in 1998, they should receieve $3374 x 109.5%, that is $3695. That's not the end of the story.
If we factor in inflation, as $3374 is in 1998 dollars, and the $3379 figure is in 2003 dollars, $3695 is $3784. That's a $404 difference for a middle income family for a month! Sadly, that was not to be. They didn't have $400 more to spend each month. If their income growth is following the national GDP per capita growth, they could have $400 more.
That's just one case, for the third quintile, and that's for the stagnant income.
If you consider the lowest 20% population, and the next 20%,
Lowest 20% (in nominal dollars)
1988: $615
1993: $887
1998: $933
2003: $795
Next 20%
1988: $1072
1993: $1645
1998: $2118
2003: $2059
That's a decrease even in nominal dollars! The difference is even greater if you factor in inflation!
OK, let's put all these into perspective.
The highest 20%:
1988: $5055
1993: $8469
1998: $11450
2003: $12792
The fourth quintile:
1988: $2328
1993: $3799
1998: $5162
2003: $5309
See a steady increase? Perhaps it is not very steady but it is a generally increasing pattern.
So, 60% of the population is short changed by the economy growth in Singapore. That's assuming that one-person families are considered, and yes, they are, for the 1998, 2003 data.
Umm. 2 731 805 people... That's an awful lot.
If the skills of our workers lag behind those of cheaper economies, their salaries will drop. At the moment, our workers are still paid much higher salaries than their counterparts in China/India but our productivity is not rising fast enough to justify the salary differential. In contrast, the skills of our top earners, the professionals and high level managers are in demand because their salaries, though high, are not as high as their competitors in the MNCs and foreign firms. Therefore the salaries of our top earners will only rise. If a local investment banker does better than one in London but draws half the pay, he can expect his salary to rise even further even though he already earns 100k a month.
Globalisation benefits those with the highest productivity and who are cost-competitive. The government has to move the economy to embrace higher value services and make our population upgrade their skills to man the wafer fabs and pharmaceutical laboratories. If we haven't got the right people, we will have to rely on FT. -
Of course the market is fair and pays accordingly. My point is not everyone can hop onto this "social mobility" as you call it, despite our education system.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:So what's your point? The market pays according to what it considers to be a fair price for whatever goods or services. A cleaner's skills are not valued as highly as those of a brain surgeon, hence the difference in pay and quite rightly so.
What matters is not elitism. There will always be an elite or hierachy in society as you choose to call it. What matters is that there is possibility of social mobility and our education system provides for that.
The ST senior journalist Chua Mui Hoong is a case in point. A daughter of a taxi driver, she has managed to win scholarships to get an MA from Cambridge and a Masters from Harvard. So she does better and earns more than her father. That's the social mobility this government has provided.
Anyway, how does the GST increase help the poor? Has the govt outlined any plans yet? Any idea on your end?