All out to defame our governement
-
Yes I do. With more transparency, dirt has to be kept to a certain level before it surfaces. Unless you think "dirt is just as easy to hide" if you are open to public scrutiny. And to stay on topic/thread, there are people unhappy with the way the Government is avoiding being tranparent, silencing people who try too hard to make the govt transparent.Originally posted by Gazelle:Do you have reasons to believe the the dirt in politics can easily be seen from the outside and be quantified?
Firstly, there is no corealation between Bush's salary and the amount of "Dirt" he has. I have no heard complaints about PAP cannot raise thier salaries becuase they are more dirty than Bush. The people who are unhappy and use bush as a comparison, feel that his job is no easier than that of our ministers or PM, why should our PM get 4-5 times his wage?Originally posted by Gazelle:For example, many people here like to compare our minister's salary to president Bush, hence I assume that USA political scene must have less "dirt" than Singapore huh?
Thats was Bush's responsiblity to explain to the people or they'll vote him or his party out of office. There were public protests in the States opposing the war, demanding justification of the decision to go to war, the police acted as marhsalls guiding traffic and the proesters, not silencing them.Originally posted by Gazelle:If so, then how would you explain the hundreds of billion spending a year to fund the bush administration war game, which lead the country to no where and hundred thousands of death?
A group of protesters wanted to protest in front of the american ambassy, they were stopped by the police, and the American Ambassy questioned the Singapore Govt why where they(the protesters) not allowed to hold a peacful protest.
The same as, decisions made by the PAP is PAP's responsibility to answer to the people and justify thier decisions. -
Their considerations are not just in monetary terms.Originally posted by will4:I think the conflict with Iraq is costing more than what ministerial salary raise in Spore
US wants to remain the big brother of the world, and in doing so, will reap many different benefits in the long term.
This is unlike our govt, which is short-sighted/myopic -
PAP (and all the 'elitists' supporters of the PAP) doesn't care.Originally posted by Jontst78:Well lets look at the Figures provided by the PAP.
Avg income - At the 20% mark
1990 - $934/mth
2000 - $1145/mth
Avg income - At the 80% mark
1990 - $3897/mth
2000 - $6316/mth
Well there you go, without even factoring in inflation and rising cost of living, those at the 20% and lower categories have a rather "flat" income growth. Thats in a dipping economy. I don't see any proof otherwise, especially after SARs and 9/11. If you'll plot a graph along the same trajectory till 2006, and factor in the economical growth of the nation, you will not get a substiantial variation in relation to the two groups above.
To them, they should sacrifice the 20% poor (whom they term as the 'incompetent few') in order for the top 20% to live well and happy
They forgot that all are human beings. So much for 'Equality' -
Another thing is they trying hard to attract PR to e citizen as 150000 locals believed to be talented have migrated to other countries.Originally posted by soul_rage:Their considerations are not just in monetary terms.
US wants to remain the big brother of the world, and in doing so, will reap many different benefits in the long term.
This is unlike our govt, which is short-sighted/myopic
Many PR still prefer to retain their original citizenship. -
I want to add to this on ministers' pay to the vegetarian Gazelle.Originally posted by bangkokboy:So are you saying that as long as the Ministers salaries are raising and contributing to the MEAN Salary per Employee it is ok?
So are you saying that as long as the Rich becomes RICHER and contributes to the MEAN Salary per Employee it is ok that the poor earns less and less?
Isn't Jonst's question to you related to the discussion on wage growth? What are you trying to say? Do you understand simple english?
So you think that we are smart to pay > 3x above the market wages to ensure 'top' talent?
In an industry, if the top wage-earner earns 100k/mth, and to ensure you get 'top' talent, you pay 300k/mth, that's considered smart or stupid?
Are we paying intelligently, or STUPIDLY, to retain our ministers?
Also, pls don't forget to answer bangkokboy. Am just helping to remind you, in case you develop a coincidental case of 'dementia' just at the right time. -
the only reasons why they would drop their original citizenships:Originally posted by will4:Another thing is they trying hard to attract PR to e citizen as 150000 locals believed to be talented have migrated to other countries.
Many PR still prefer to retain their original citizenship.
- Genuinely want to be Singaporean (apparently, few are of this case from those I know)
- Good stepping stone to be citizen of a more valuable country like USA
- Singapore passport good, can travel without visa.
That's about all. -
which I feel, our ministers are VERY AWFUL at justification.Originally posted by Jontst78:The same as, decisions made by the PAP is PAP's responsibility to answer to the people and justify thier decisions.
Just listen to the rubbish and nonsense that Teo Chee Hean and Vivian Bala-watever gave for the ministers' pay hike.
They can't even debate in proper english, and proper sense, and they lose to Chinese-educated Low Thia Kiang, and NMP Sylvia Lim.
I shake my head in disbelief at all the ridiculous reasons Ah Teo gave when he was forced to stand up to talk about the pay hike.
Similarly, do you remember all these familiar talk?
"Its good to retrench in good times than in bad times"
"Its good to raise GST in good times than in bad times"
"Its good to raise ministers' pay in good times than in bad times"
I mean, come on, with a million dollar salary, I would expect these people to entertain me more with better comical antics, than to keep repeating themselves -
The govt is trying hard to attract back talented locals by organizing a Spore Day in other countries.Originally posted by soul_rage:the only reasons why they would drop their original citizenships:
- Genuinely want to be Singaporean (apparently, few are of this case from those I know)
- Good stepping stone to be citizen of a more valuable country like USA
- Singapore passport good, can travel without visa.
That's about all. -
And what can the country offer to get them to come back? Once a person is well settled abroad, there is very little that Singapore can offer to get them to come back, aside from bribing these buggers with huge sums of money.Originally posted by will4:The govt is trying hard to attract back talented locals by organizing a Spore Day in other countries. -
a) We are discussing wage growth between 1997 to 2007 hence whatever figures you show above is of no relevant to our discussionOriginally posted by Jontst78:Well lets look at the Figures provided by the PAP.
Avg income - At the 20% mark
1990 - $934/mth
2000 - $1145/mth
Avg income - At the 80% mark
1990 - $3897/mth
2000 - $6316/mth
Well there you go, without even factoring in inflation and rising cost of living, those at the 20% and lower categories have a rather "flat" income growth. Thats in a dipping economy. I don't see any proof otherwise, especially after SARs and 9/11. If you'll plot a graph along the same trajectory till 2006, and factor in the economical growth of the nation, you will not get a substiantial variation in relation to the two groups above.
b) Obviously you still dont understand why i said that a comparison between 1990 and 2000 figures does not reflect the current economy situation because year 2000/1 is the peak of Singapore worst recession.
To proof my point
Avg income - At the 20% mark
1990 - $934/mth
1997 - $1352/mth
(that is about 44.7% increase in income growth) -
I am surprise why you are bugging me about this when those figures are provided by Rock_Star? Plus those number provided by him are of no meaning to our discussion because we are discussin a country, not individual.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Then your figures are incomplete. You did not delineate his entire cost structure completely.
Until you do so, all you are doing is stuffing figures that do not make sense and then claim that he is doing well. -
Since the whiners here likes to compare Singapore's minister's pay to President Bush, I am sure there must be a basic understand that we are comparing apple to apple isnt it? Hence if we want to compare apple to apple, then why should we just limit ourselves to talking about the good apples in USA and not the bad ones.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Gazelle, you have brains, please do use them. Since when did anyone say the US Political scene has no dirt here? Also, how does one make such a huge leap in logic to make such a claim? In fact, it was your "religion" the PAP who made the claim that they do not want a "dirty democracy" when their realpolitik is as bad as any other?
Bad enough you have proven yourself to be a scum, troll or anything, unless you are an idiot enough to add "Village Idiot" to your epitaph, please think before you type.
Honestly if you dont have what it takes for a proper discussion, my advice to you is to be quiet. Such name calling tactic doesnt really work on me and definitely wont make you look any smarter either. -
First of all, the y2k figures are the latest study conducted by the PAP with regards to income distribution. If you have more updated data on income distribution, I'll gladly use it.Originally posted by Gazelle:a) We are discussing wage growth between 1997 to 2007 hence whatever figures you show above is of no relevant to our discussion
Isn't the discussion about a certain "flat" income growth? Hence the "flat" income growth of the lower income in relation to the higher income groups.
I was using the Y2k data as a baseline for the income distribution, to support my claim that the the income growth of lower income families has always been "flater" than the higher ups even in a dipping economy. The peak of the recession being post Y2k only further supports my claim as the higher ups were getting more income increases than lower income families (in terms of percentage), who were less increases in a dipping economy pre Y2k. With the economy dipping even further, unless the govt has more recent data, using their data as a baseline, I don't expect it to be any different. IF there is more updated data that is endorsed by the government, I'd gladly use it.Originally posted by Gazelle:b) Obviously you still dont understand why i said that a comparison between 1990 and 2000 figures does not reflect the current economy situation because year 2000/1 is the peak of Singapore worst recession.
That also further supports my claim as in that same yearOriginally posted by Gazelle:To proof my point
Avg income - At the 20% mark
1990 - $934/mth
1997 - $1352/mth
(that is about 44.7% increase in income growth)
Avg income - At the 80% mark
1990 - $3,897/mth
1997 - $6,093/mth
Which is a 56.3% percent increase.
Avg income - At the 90% mark
1990 - $5152/mth
1997 - $7965/mth
Which is a 54.6% increase
Which furthers my point of a flat income growth of lower income households in relation to the higher income groups. -
If you are interested in this subject about income distribution, please continueOriginally posted by Jontst78:That also further supports my claim as in that same year
Avg income - At the 80% mark
1990 - $3,897/mth
1997 - $6,093/mth
Which is a 56.3% percent increase.
Avg income - At the 90% mark
1990 - $5152/mth
1997 - $7965/mth
Which is a 54.6% increase
Which furthers my point of a flat income growth in relation to the higher income groups.
here http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=250502 -
Nah, I'm more interested about people trying to defame the Govt etc... the income distribution thingy was just a side dish , feel free to refute my claims on this thread tho. I might take the time to read the one in your link if I can find some later. This thread is alot more amusing tho
-
Originally posted by Gazelle:
If 'apples are to be compared to apples' is it not quite ridiculous for the Singapore Government to justify their own wages by comparing their own values to that of the top corporate earners in the Private Sector - even if these are the top earners in Singapore ?
Since the whiners here likes to compare Singapore's minister's pay to President Bush, I am sure there must be a basic understand that we are comparing apple to apple isnt it? Hence if we want to compare apple to apple, then why should we just limit ourselves to talking about the good apples in USA and not the bad ones.
Honestly if you dont have what it takes for a proper discussion, my advice to you is to be quiet. Such name calling tactic doesnt really work on me and definitely wont make you look any smarter either.
Should they not compare their own performance based on the performance of the top ten national economies, and the amount of ''wages plus perks'' paid to the respective governments of those top ten economies ? -
that's a very good point.Originally posted by Atobe:If 'apples are to be compared to apples' is it not quite ridiculous for the Singapore Government to justify their own wages by comparing their own values to that of the top corporate earners in the Private Sector - even if these are the top earners in Singapore ?
Should they not compare their own performance based on the performance of the top ten national economies, and the amount of ''wages plus perks'' paid to the respective governments of those top ten economies ?
On top of that, we should compare against the top 10 economies, and based on our position in the rankings, pay accordingly.
So if we are ranked 5th, then our perks and wages should be between the 4th and 6th top economy.
Am waiting to see what Gazelle says next. -
Middle class wage stagnation could lead to social instability
By Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 11 January 2007 1856 hrs
SINGAPORE: Middle class wages have been stagnant in the past 5 years, according to economists, and this could lead to social instability.
These concerns were shared by economists at the annual Institute of Policy Studies Singapore Perspectives conference, who also added that the government is taking steps to address the problem.
Economists believe a US economic slowdown in business and consumer spending may cause problems for Singapore, but as Singapore is tops in the ASEAN resilience index, it should be able to weather external shocks, thanks to a diversified economy and strong Asian demand.
They predict that growth going forward will be above 3 to 5 percent.
The long-term growth limits for a mature economy was previously in the 3 to 5 percent range.
However, economists are asking who this growth is for. The income of the bottom 30 percent of the population has fallen. What is more worrying is the fact that the majority of Singaporeans in the middle class has only seen about a one percent increase in their nominal income in the last 5 years.
This is not not just a Singapore problem say economists who point out that stagnant wages is a global problem.
The chief reason for this is globalisation, especially with India and China introducing a large pool of skilled and unskilled labour to compete with the labour forces of industrialised countries.
Singapore is susceptible to this because of its open economy.
Manpower Ministry data shows that 124,000 jobs were created last year and 45 percent of these jobs went to foreigners.
"With the rate of immigration, even among unskilled and semi skilled labour at a rate twice of what we experienced in the 90s, at a rate fastest in the developed world, the question is - does this dampen our real wages as we grow? Does the strategy itself dampen real wages and depress real wages at the low and middle end of the spectrums? They are sacred cows but we should step back and think about them," said Yeoh Lam Keong, Vice President, Economic Society of Singapore.
Another reason cited for middle class wage stagnation is the move by the government to cut CPF employer contribution rates for older workers by 4 percentage points over the last 2 years.
"So if you were a worker in the 50-55 age group, you could have seen your wages fall as much as 10 percent over the last 3 or 4 years. Now with the economy improving, the government could bring that back, the increase is 1 or 2 percent. I'm in support of CPF tinkering but probably it happens far too often, but I think there's probably some justification to look back and think that the restructuring was a bit too aggressive on the CPF side and it has contributed somewhat to a very sandwiched middle class," said Chua Hak Bin, Director, Asia Pacific Econ & Market Analysis, Citigroup Global Markets Singapore.
The government is looking at increasing CPF by 1 to 2 percentage points in 2007.
Economists say workfare should become a more permanent pillar of the economy so as to cushion growing inequality.
- CNA /dt -
met a filippino professional who took up citizenship so as to qualify for cheap education and other perks but unashamely declares that her heart will always be with the phillipines.Originally posted by soul_rage:the only reasons why they would drop their original citizenships:
- Genuinely want to be Singaporean (apparently, few are of this case from those I know)
- Good stepping stone to be citizen of a more valuable country like USA
- Singapore passport good, can travel without visa.
That's about all.
i don't blame her, she's just a survivor, it is our govt who is the sucker ... -
wow, this is a big bang reply from bangkokboyOriginally posted by bangkokboy:So are you saying that as long as the Ministers salaries are raising and contributing to the MEAN Salary per Employee it is ok?
So are you saying that as long as the Rich becomes RICHER and contributes to the MEAN Salary per Employee it is ok that the poor earns less and less?
Isn't Jonst's question to you related to the discussion on wage growth? What are you trying to say? Do you understand simple english? -
Using the data from our beloved CPF board in 2005, it is a FACT that 43.03% of Singaporeans have monthly wages of less than $2,000.
43.03% = (191,461 + 175,922 + 62,876 + 71,230 + 34,474 + 15,345 + 13,221 + 12,220 + 17,525) / 1,381,068 -
There are dangers in using averages in analysing data, because if the raw data is skewed (biased) towards a particular direction, you can't decipher from the averages.
A - 10,000 count - $ 20,000
B - 500 count - $ 1,000,000
Average = ($200,000,000 + $500,000,000) / (10,500)
The average for this is $66,666.66
If group A's income level drops by 10% and B's income increases by 10%.
We have:
A - 10,000 count - $ 18,000
B - 500 count - $ 1,100,000
Average = ($180,000,000 + $550,000,000) / (10,500)
The average would have increased to $ 69,523.81.
Does this mean that the income of A has risen because the averages of their income has risen? -
A good example of a whiner trying to distort facts to defame our government.Originally posted by bangkokboy:So are you saying that as long as the Ministers salaries are raising and contributing to the MEAN Salary per Employee it is ok?
So are you saying that as long as the Rich becomes RICHER and contributes to the MEAN Salary per Employee it is ok that the poor earns less and less?
Isn't Jonst's question to you related to the discussion on wage growth? What are you trying to say? Do you understand simple english?
1) He tries to create the impression that the mean income per employee figures shown on the government website are actually distorted by our minister's million dollar salary.
2) He tries to create the impression by speculating that the rise in wages is mainly contributed by the rich getting richer.
Comments :-
Obviously he is not aware that there is an Explanatory Notes stating that the figures only show wage in the private sector. which mean minister's salary and government servants are not included in the survey.
I think he is also unaware the rich people dont create wealth from drawing salary, but from investment and businesses.
Suppose if he is an opposition party accusing our government of that, he will become a joke in the parliment and charged for defamation I am sure -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
A total of 196,348 out of 1,381,068 is earning $5,000 and above
Using the data from our beloved CPF board in 2005, [b]it is a FACT that 43.03% of Singaporeans have monthly wages of less than $2,000.
43.03% = (191,461 + 175,922 + 62,876 + 71,230 + 34,474 + 15,345 + 13,221 + 12,220 + 17,525) / 1,381,068[/b]
196,348/1,381,068 = 14%
So Gazelle, my information that the top 10% in 2006 earns > $7,000.00 is highly possible.
Also, I think you have nothing else to say since someone has given you a news report stating CLEARLY that the middle income pay has stagnated for the past 5 years. These are your so-called FACTS you want to see, and you cannot say these researchers are sprouting BS. -
sign up as a RC memberOriginally posted by snow leopard:met a filippino professional who took up citizenship so as to qualify for cheap education and other perks but unashamely declares that her heart will always be with the phillipines.
i don't blame her, she's just a survivor, it is our govt who is the sucker ...
get free parking, and priority for kids to primary school