All out to defame our governement
-
Instead of using such vague example (ie. there is only upper class and lower class scenario) may I suggest that you visit MOM website and read their reports before speculating and guessingOriginally posted by maurizio13: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? -
1) Where is the report which state clearly that middle income pay has stagnated for 5 years.Originally posted by soul_rage:A total of 196,348 out of 1,381,068 is earning $5,000 and above
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.
2) What is your definitely of middle income?
3) We are talking about past 10 years from 1997 to 2006
4) Which 5 years you are talking about? are you talking about 1997 to 2001?
WHERE ARE THE FACTS!! -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
There is no point talking about monthly wage if you dont take into consideration the age group. e.g. $2000 per month for a 17 years old is alot of money as compare the $2000 for a adult with family. Plus it is normal for man around the age of 21 to 25 to be earning 2000 per month.
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]
It might better if you could state your intention of showing us the chart and the 43.03%. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
excellent rebuttal
[b]
Important to have a leader of a country that will not abandon ship!!! Is it possible with the kind of ministers we have, where salary comes first and foremost before country? We don't even need an obstacle for them to abandon ship, you pay them $1 million less and they will move to some other profitable venture. Their motto, show me the money, then show me the country.
[b] -
Originally posted by Eiizumi:
PAP certainly brought us out to where we are now,
going by the experience of Hong Kong, with or without PAP, we would still have arrived
If we want to show gratitude to the PAP government,
maybe the PAP should show theirs
He is a good man.
how good can a man be who goes around harming fellow citizens like JB Jeyaretnam for speaking the truth?
We'll respect that he is our founding father of the Republic of Singapore,
that was what i used to think when i was in school for that was what i was told. now, i think it is Sir Stamford Raffles, without him, there wouldn't have been singapore.
and the leaders he brought together during the time of uncertainty then.
yes, goh keng swee was the architect of singapore's transformation to the first world. he just sat around to bask in the glory. -
with JB Jayetratnam as an example, which talented idiot would want to be sued bankrupt and have his life broken?Originally posted by Eiizumi:Dun oppose for the sake of opposing.
During the 2001 GE, when SDP came to fight for seats in my Jurong GRC versus the PAP. I think I would vote for them either. Their poster images don't even smile then. In fact, they look angry. With details like this, how to vote for such opposition?
What I meant is, if I choose opposition, I choose a strong opposition, like WP.
But seriously, no party is as strong as PAP in terms of the number talented leaders.
there is a bully here slaughtering all the good opposition. no one can stop the bully. if we condone the actions of the bully, we would never gather enough strength to stand on our own two feet and will pepetually be slaves to the bully's wants and desires.
the only way to break the bully is by not voting it. -
Originally posted by citymax:
I just want to stress dun allow others Anti Government destroy the peacefulness that we have been enjoying for the past 40 years.
what is peace if it comes with slavery?
I know its tough to accept our PM who is a son of our minister mentor, imagine if its someone else doing the job, will we be complaining?
it is not just that. we cannot see in the PM, the charisma of his father, neither do we see in him the gentlemen demeanour of SM Goh. he is quite ordinary really ... -
yes, too much injustice going around. Tan Liang Hong was deemed a "Chinese chauvinist" by an "English chauvinist"Originally posted by Rock^Star:Do you not know that ISD was used by LKY to clamp down on communists? And then it boiled down to political opponents? So why not common citizens?
What about Chia Thye Poh, Francis Seow and Tang Liang Hong? How about the student blogger who was threatened legal action by A*Star chairman when he voiced dissident views? What about the the 22 year old NSF who was called up for questioning just because he participated in the Human Rights Day movement? -
excellent stuff!Originally posted by maurizio13:Shin Corp is a big mistake, apart from Suzhou Industrial Project, Global Crossing and the current Indosat & Telkomsel. If you have a company constantly making wrong major investment decisions, there must be seriously something wrong with your company. Moreover the CEO isn't independently hired for the position based on her abilities, it's based on relationships, much like the politics of China.
In business, you would also take in the political risk and assess the returns from the investments. The last year's return from the investment was less than 6% (can't be sure as I didn't check, but I remembered it's around that figure), so their investment decision confound me.
Thailand is a country throughout it's 20th century politics, riddled with coups. Does it not make sense that a coup will inevitably happen in the future.
How does GST help in securing job opportunities from overseas company? Can you please elaborate?
Spreading the wealth to low income group? In the past low income groups don't pay income tax, high income group pay income tax. After they impose GST, low income group still don't pay income tax, but they end up paying GST of 5%; whereas the high income group (which used to pay 33% top income bracket), gets income tax reduce to 20% (a reduction of 13%), while paying an increase of 5% GST.
There is no private market for political appointments, the job scope is different from other positions in the private market. We would like that their pay remain competitive that they attract capable people to do the job. But their pay scale is astronomical by global standards. Why would you want to attract Bill Gates to do the job when the job can be done by a comparable university graduate? Either ways, the job gets done.
Running a large business corporation is different from running a government. In a corporation, you would need to be a visionary, contend with market conditions and manage the company.
Running a country is to maintain a basic standard of living conditions for it's populace and maintain law & order.
You don't need a rocket scientist to do the job of an office administrator! -
i can attest to thatOriginally posted by maurizio13:Seriously, forgive Gazelle, it's not intentional, he has a comprehension disability. As can be seen from his other topic "wooing the super-rich", after afew replies, he will start forming new statements from your replies and claim that it is what you said. Pity atobe, snow leopard and soul_rage. -
deleted
-
of course you can because they are written all over the thread.Originally posted by snow leopard:i can attest to that -
these are the tools of our times. to say that they are luxuries is to say that we have not progressed.Originally posted by Gazelle:10 years ago, most Singaporeans dont own mobile phone, dont have broadband, dont watch cable TV, dont own Ipod or mp3 player, dont drink coffee at starbucks etc. Is the middle earner struggling to make ends meet or are they struggling because of their new lifestyle?
it can also mean we're being overcharged for broadband -
the one with the vulgarities is gazelle, do clean his mouth by stuffing it with mushroomsOriginally posted by oxford mushroom:Ha...finally a post without vulgarities. What happened? Did your mother wash your mouth out with soap?
-
sigh, can u do what you always ask others to do:Originally posted by Gazelle:1) Where is the report which state clearly that middle income pay has stagnated for 5 years.
2) What is your definitely of middle income?
3) We are talking about past 10 years from 1997 to 2006
4) Which 5 years you are talking about? are you talking about 1997 to 2001?
WHERE ARE THE FACTS!!
refer to maurizio13 post in page 24. Read yourself. Don't depend on others, like what you always accuse other people of. -
Originally posted by sirAdrian:
We|| whoever or which party is incharge of the government, there will be people complain and whining... complain abt
there's difference between complain and speaking up against tyrants.
Have any 1 seen a country, that his people are all happy with their government. the answer is NO!! big NO!!!
but there are countries where people are MOSTLY happy with their govt. ours is not one of them.
If u think that SG is so bad and others is so GOOD, feel free to migrate.
this is my country, why should i migrate? i will stay and fight the bullies till my last breath.
Well i think the government is doing ok, our economic is not bad(for now), we r No1 in a few things, the world can see the small red dot now. and the government is try hard to improve but is not tat good compare to others.
US demand increase, govt doing ok. US demand decrease, govt not doing ok?
looks like what govt does pales in significance to global events happening around us.
They also try their best to help us thoru hard time like SARS etc. they can simply just dun care.
they screwed up at first lah, so many doctors died under Lim Hng Khiang
I agree tat their pay is too high, but at least it can prevent corruption.
if money under the table is corruption, why is money over the table not corruption? the former is theft, the latter is day light robbery which carries a heavier sentence.
One last thing, our government does not fight, throw(eG: shoe, rices eggs) in National TV during parliament almost once in 2weeks or more..
practically one big happy family in our parliament. what's there to fight?
if you want to see fight, you should see how MM Lee bristled like an animal ready to bite into Low Thia Khiang when the latter argued against ministerial salaries. if less than a handful of opposition can trigger such a violent reaction from the MM, what do you think when our parliament becomes more balanced like those of Taiwan? he will not just be throwing shoes, he will be doing a lot more to "fix" his opponents. -
how do you enjoy being beaten by us all over?Originally posted by Gazelle:of course you can because they are written all over the thread. -
Since you have mention there is a report which CLEARLY state middle income pay has stagnated for 5 years, I think it is only right that you support your statement by providing a link to that report, rather than referring me to someone else post.Originally posted by soul_rage:sigh, can u do what you always ask others to do:
refer to maurizio13 post in page 24. Read yourself. Don't depend on others, like what you always accuse other people of.
Plus it is also important which 5 years are you referring to because we were talking about 97 to 2006. And equally important is, what is your definition of middle income. -
You mean beaten but this bunch of BS that you have been bit.ching in the other thread?Originally posted by snow leopard:how do you enjoy being beaten by us all over?
1) Singapore men should place their wife preference before their own parents.
2) The cheapest HDB flat which Singaporeans should buy is $300K
3) You should live where you work, hence if you are waiter working in Orchard, you should deserve to be living in Orchard Road
4) There shouldnÂ’t be any bungalow in Singapore, because every home should be of the same floor area and plot ratio
5) NTU grad from 2006 are majority accounting grad
6) A healthy economy is an economy that aims for “zero” growth.
7) A surge in employment from financial and government sectors are not important to Singapore
8.) Influx of rich immigrant and tourists doesnÂ’t benefit taxi drivers.
9) A surge in service industry will cause property prices to boom and vice versa.
10) There is no difference to Singapore if we have high-tech or low-tech manufacturing
11) We need HDB flats in Orchard Road, CBD, Marina Bay and even inside Istana
12) Maximum wage increase for Singaporeans is $15K per year
13) SMU and NTU are same university -
Originally posted by Gazelle:
You mean beaten but this bunch of BS that you have been talking in the other thread?
[b]
1) Singapore men should place their wife preference before their own parents.
singapore men doesn't bit-ch like gazelle
2) The cheapest HDB flat which Singaporeans should buy is $300K
the cheapest HDB is a kennel made of precious metal that gazelle stays in
3) You should live where you work, hence if you are waiter working in Orchard, you should deserve to be living in Orchard Road
gazelle lives where he works, that's why he lives in a kennel
4) There shouldnÂ’t be any bungalow in Singapore, because every home should be of the same floor area and plot ratio
there shouldn't be any bungalow for gazelle. he only needs a kennel.
5) NTU grad from 2006 are majority accounting grad
why not? make great careers for more people
6) A healthy economy is an economy that aims for “zero” growth.
a healthy brain cannot be zero like gazelle's
7) A surge in employment from financial and government sectors are not important to Singapore
a surge in dogs is impt to bit-chy gazelle, more dogs to satisfy it
8.) Influx of rich immigrant and tourists doesnÂ’t benefit taxi drivers.
benefits gazelle more, more bones for him to chew on
9) A surge in service industry will cause property prices to boom and vice versa.
a surge doggy services will be a boom for bit-chy gazelle and vice versa
10) There is no difference to Singapore if we have high-tech or low-tech manufacturing
there's no difference between gazelle and bit-ch
11) We need HDB flats in Orchard Road, CBD, Marina Bay and even inside Istana
we need kennels in orchard road, where gazelle works
12) Maximum wage increase for Singaporeans is $15K per year
maximum lifespan for bit-chy gazelle - 15 years
13) SMU and NTU are same university
gazelle and bit-ch are the same -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
pls read this Gazelle, you are really a sad case. But I will be patient and give you the report.
[b]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 [/b] -
Actually point 2 is true isn't it? If "rise in wages" actually means the median or mean income going up.Originally posted by Gazelle:A good example of a whiner trying to distort facts to defame our government.
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.
a)http://www.singstat.gov.sg/papers/seminar/income2000.pdf
b)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore
The above links all show that the higher income groups get bigger increases over time, in relation to the lower income households. Doesn't that mean the higher income groups are the main contributors to raising the mean and/or median income levels?
Think there is a link somewhere in another thread that has 2003 figures in a less comprehensive study, if a kind sould could post it here as well, will be greatly appreciated
-
Weather it is my bs or yours I think people with eyes and common sense will be able to decide. Anybody who have time to spare you are definitely invited to view this thread (pages 13 and 14 only but lots of BS)Originally posted by snow leopard:these are your bullshits.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=252941&page=12.
Example pt 13 - NTU and SMU are same university
Snow claim that
""you'd realise that NTU grads comprise a significant numbers of accountants so their pay jump is merely a reflection of the current boom in the finance sector""
when I ask him to support his claim, he quote this
"By comparison, the Singapore Management University's (SMU) latest employment survey found that its accountancy graduates from last year reported average salaries of $2,880 - 28 per cent more than in 2005. Thanks to recent changes in starting pay at the Big Four accounting firms, newbie accountants can draw between $2,800 and $3,200 in the private sector""
Enjoy!! -
In response to PM Lee's call to the citizens to speak up, and build an inclusive and cosmopolitan society, it is perhaps a burning question on the mind of many citizens - how has he performed since his taking office as PM in 2004.
PM Lee Hsien Loong has welcomed people in fact to engage in robust debates on government policies and even invited them to join the party.
So, I for one has some time ago emailed to youngpap secretary offering to volunteer my service in taking part in its internal policy debates. I was referred from one agency to another without any result.
As advised, I went to see the MP of my constituency first presumably to subject myself to some scrutiny so that I could be allowed to take a part in such debate.
I did give my view that as I was only interested in the debates of its policies I should not be subjected such party rules but there was no further reply.
Lately the government instead of welcoming people to take an active part in debating its policies has announced that it will send anonymous counter-insurgency agents to counter cyber criticisms in internet forums.
So what does PM Lee actually mean when he announced he would be more open, and build an inclusive and cosmopolitan society.
Does he really intend to let or encourage people to take a more active part in running of the country and change the past policies to be more open or cosmopolitan or engaging critics in robust debates of policies.
Of particular great concern is the fact that within one year after the 2006 election, PM Lee has quickly increased the GST by 2% to 7% on the representation that the increase was to enable him to introduce workfare but as it turned out it was actually a prelude to increasing the ministers' own hyper salaries by another million per annum.
All the above-mentioned actions of PM Lee since he took office do not quite convince people that he will change the past government policies of taxing and recovering the fullest costs of providing services which lead to people suffering high costs of living.
There is also no change from the past practices of governing the country without accountability e.g. refusing to cooperate with the ex-president in reporting land sale profits and other extraordinary gains made by government in public housing etc.
There is no efforts made to ensure that the government will not carelessly spend away people's surpluses on extravagant 7 wonders or on foreign investments which benefit the foreigners with heavy losses by the billions.
There is no change yet to the hypocrisy in justifying mistakes and shortcomings with massaging of statistics like employment figures or GDP to avoid answering to persistent failures in restructuring the economy to value-adding model talked about for years.
There is no change to the profiteering by the HDB in sale of public low-cost housing at market prices when such housings were built on lands already paid for and owned by the people.
There has been a lot of monies on helping foreigners in education and securing them jobs at the expense of unemployed citizens.
Profits made on land sales and investments should have been plowed back to lower costs of essential services.
The billions spent on biomedical researches are not making any significant returns in job creations.
If the lower income earners are getting poorer with dropping wages, how could he justify swopping of corporate taxes with GST which hurt the lower income even more.
The lower income earners are paying more than 50% of their income on basic needs like transportations and utilities as a result of PM Lee's untimely swopping of income tax by the GST.
Will his MPs and Ministers speak the truths in parliament on the above-mentioned problems and issues affecting most citizens or will they be hip-hopping or putting up wayang kulit to detract people's attention to real problems or be submissive in order to safeguard their own careers ?
The above-stated questions will be asked again and again and hopefully PM Lee will confront such serious concerns in governing the country. -
Originally posted by Gazelle:
thank you for drawing support for my argument. "Big Four accounting firms, newbie accountants can draw between $2,800 and $3,200 in the private sector", suggests that new accountants, be it from NTU or SMU can draw between $2,800 and $3,200.
Weather it is my bs or yours I think people with eyes and common sense will be able to decide. Anybody who have time to spare you are definitely invited to view this thread (pages 13 and 14 only but lots of BS)
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=252941&page=12.
Example pt 13 - NTU and SMU are same university
Snow claim that
""you'd realise that [b]NTU grads comprise a significant numbers of accountants so their pay jump is merely a reflection of the current boom in the finance sector""
when I ask him to support his claim, he quote this
"By comparison, the Singapore Management University's (SMU) latest employment survey found that its accountancy graduates from last year reported average salaries of $2,880 - 28 per cent more than in 2005. Thanks to recent changes in starting pay at the Big Four accounting firms, newbie accountants can draw between $2,800 and $3,200 in the private sector""
Enjoy!!
[/b]