Can anybody proof that our ministers are corrupted?
-
There has been alot of talk about our ministers' salary, however can anybody proof that despite their million dollar salary they are still corrupted?
-
It's prove, not proof. You studied English in school?
And please define corruption. -
Are you a cow or what ???Originally posted by Gazelle:There has been alot of talk about our ministers' salary, however can anybody proof that despite their million dollar salary they are still corrupted?
They are paid millions so that they would not be corrupted. 
-
There has been alot of talk about our ministers' salary, however can anybody prove that despite their million dollar salary they are not corrupted?
-
Sadly in reality, there is corruption in all government... There is no need to prove at all or u can name any government that u confirm there is no corruption ??? But it is how serious is the corruption that matters...
-
Hmmm......I guess in this case, those who are paid peanuts has a good chance of being corrupted....Originally posted by GHoST_18:There has been alot of talk about our ministers' salary, however can anybody prove that despite their million dollar salary they are not corrupted?
-
There is a big difference between being paid and being corrupted.Originally posted by miserable:Hmmm......I guess in this case, those who are paid peanuts has a good chance of being corrupted.... -
Government servants are never paid peanuts to cover backside~
-
they paid themselves obscene amount without a good justification & despite huge public disapproval... get it?Originally posted by Gazelle:There is a big difference between being paid and being corrupted. -
bila, I am afraid that is just pure speculation if you cant support your caseOriginally posted by bila_prem:Government servants are never paid peanuts to cover backside~ -
hey dude, my mistake. You can define it what ever way you want it as long as you can support it with proof and facts.Originally posted by Rock^Star:It's prove, not proof. You studied English in school?
And please define corruption. -
The amount you are talking is about is relative to the committment and opportunity cost one has to sacrifice in order to be a PAP minister. Obscene? cant me that obscene as compared to what some CEO get for golden handshakeOriginally posted by UandMe:they paid themselves obscene amount without a good justification & despite huge public disapproval... get it? -
Not for me to prove. I have never ever mentioned that our ministers are corrupted despite the salary that they are paid.Originally posted by Gazelle:hey dude, my mistake. You can define it what ever way you want it as long as you can support it with proof and facts. -
You already answered yourself then, in this case.Originally posted by Gazelle:There is a big difference between being paid and being corrupted. -
Sorry everyone, just have to quote part of Sylvia Lim's speech (AGAIN) on this:Originally posted by Gazelle:The amount you are talking is about is relative to the committment and opportunity cost one has to sacrifice in order to be a PAP minister. Obscene? cant me that obscene as compared to what some CEO get for golden handshake
"While I do agree that this is an opportunity to have a public airing, the debate arouses a feeling of deja vu, harking back to the other transparent debate about whether to have casinos in Singapore. The revision was presented in Parliament in a form of Ministerial statement under Standing Order 44 where no vote will be taken. Not one thing said by any MP will change the decision of the government. I would personally very much like to know what each individual Minister feels about taking more than $2m of taxpayersÂ’ money home each year, while fellow citizens struggle with rising costs and taxes.
Secondly, Minister Teo mentioned that it was not right to look at how much political leaders elsewhere earn because our Ministers cannot become Ministers in other countries. But the comparison is logical because we are comparing similar skill sets and responsibilities funded by the public. Looking instead at 2/3M48, how valid is it as a measure of a MinisterÂ’s worth? Is it possible that, in fact, some of our Ministers are doing better in Cabinet than they would have done in their previous careers? Can we say that each and every Minister in Cabinet now would have become a top-earning banker, accountant, lawyer, engineer or CEO? We have seen instances of civil servants and military personnel embark on 2nd careers in the private sector, and find the business world a whole new ball game; and some, in fact, flounder.
Thirdly, Minister attempted to show that Cabinet salaries were not in the rarefied zone of high fliers by plotting a graph of 1,000 residents and Malaysians. Even so, 1,000 out of the resident workforce of about 1.9 m (as at mid 2006, according to Labour Force Survey) is less than 0.1%. To be in this group of 1,000 is already to be in a very privileged few and as far as the public is concerned, is already in the rarefied zone. "
And wat makes Spore so special that our ministers have to have such opportunity cost consideration? Are other countries' leader all not CEO material at all? Is the US president having a much easier job than LHL, or even easier than all our ministers? -
U called the rock star as dude!!!no wonder he is in yr same clan!!!Docs!!!Originally posted by Gazelle:hey dude, my mistake. You can define it what ever way you want it as long as you can support it with proof and facts. -
Originally posted by miserable:Hmmm......I guess in this case, those who are paid peanuts has a good chance of being corrupted....
How dare you even suggest there is corruption in our "respected" Govt !!!Originally posted by Gazelle:There is a big difference between being paid and being corrupted.
Did or did not the government says high incomes are crucial to attract the best talent and curb corruption? The facts they being paid in millions therefore they "cannot " be corrupted else what is the justification for the increment whereas our "respected" ministers fought so hard for ?
Refer to the link understated.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/world/asia/10singapore.html?ex=1333857600&en=2c4ef640709d3ed2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
As for the case of "peanuts" is it not first mentioned during NKF controversy and of the course the person has been convicted and charged.
Refer to the link below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TT_Durai
Gazelle, appreciated if you do not suggest or abet anyone of such ideas as it is really a serious offence. Understanding that you supposely to be a PAP supporter, i really do not know if you are an asset or a liability for them -
It's common knowledge the Govt is corrupt.
How else is it possible for LKY's family to control Govt (him and his son), and a $100 billion fund (daughter in law).
Of course, since they have produced amazing results, I have no problem with it.
And look at what happens when you pay peanuts.
The US got George W Bush.
I dont have a problem with the PM's pay. I do object to the President's pay. He gets $5 million a year I think and he does nothing except attend some charity shows and gets to hold Zoe Tay's hand at the end of the shows. -
easy.Originally posted by Gazelle:There has been alot of talk about our ministers' salary, however can anybody proof that despite their million dollar salary they are still corrupted?
go reasearch about someone who ate up all the citizens' money for himself and went to jail for a mere 3 months. -
You do realise that George Bush is technically a millionaire at the very least. He worked in the private sector for a while ya know.. and Yale is by no means cheap.Originally posted by OneWithTheForce:It's common knowledge the Govt is corrupt.
How else is it possible for LKY's family to control Govt (him and his son), and a $100 billion fund (daughter in law).
Of course, since they have produced amazing results, I have no problem with it.
And look at what happens when you pay peanuts.
The US got George W Bush.
I dont have a problem with the PM's pay. I do object to the President's pay. He gets $5 million a year I think and he does nothing except attend some charity shows and gets to hold Zoe Tay's hand at the end of the shows.
I think Bill Clinton was paid rather well too when he was a lawyer. Probably 100K USD a year at least. A lot of Presidents were quite well off when they entered office. -
Legalized corruption count? Actually I have never felt that they outright broke the law.
Lets say, Old Man A is a director in a condo devlopment firm. Old Man A sold some of the condo units at huge discounts during a soft launch without the approval of Shareholders, in a hush hush manner. The people Old Man A sold to are his brother, Nephew, Niece, and thier associates.
The above secnario, does it display corruption? -
Well ........wat can i say ....it within the law right ? Therefore it is legalOriginally posted by Jontst78:Legalized corruption count? Actually I have never felt that they outright broke the law.
Lets say, Old Man A is a director in a condo devlopment firm. Old Man A sold some of the condo units at huge discounts during a soft launch without the approval of Shareholders, in a hush hush manner. The people Old Man A sold to are his brother, Nephew, Niece, and thier associates.
The above secnario, does it display corruption?
-
at least two people were sued in open court by TT Durai and they lost... you can say that at that time, they had "no proof" that TT Durai was corrupted... but was he? You bet your life.
-
corruption comes in many ways...
there is outright graft.. and there are subtle ways...
things legal may not be ethical..
corruption may be also viewed as allowing extraordinary remuneration to sway decisions.. strictly legal, but not quite right, is it? -
Agreed, hence the term legalized corruptionOriginally posted by the Bear:corruption comes in many ways...
there is outright graft.. and there are subtle ways...
things legal may not be ethical..
corruption may be also viewed as allowing extraordinary remuneration to sway decisions.. strictly legal, but not quite right, is it?
What legal is not always right, what is illegal is not always wrong. Anyway, I have very little faith in the justice system here in SG when cases are very close to the Government blind spots.
To quote a fomer Chief Justice :
In 1995
Chief Justice Yong held that any Law which deprived a person of his life or personal liberty was valid and binding as long as it was validly passed by parliament. The courts, he said, 'is not concerned with whether it is also fair, just and reasonable as well'.
So a CJ is not concerned whether a law is just and reasonable?
More recently, with the Falungong Activists.
Judge Tung: "But I am not here to judge whether you are right or wrong"
So a judge is not concerned between what is right and wrong. Isn't the law made for the purpose of upholding righteousness?
So based on the above statements by Judges or Fomer Judges (one of them a fomer CJ no less) among other things, I cannot say that just becase they have stayed within the Law they are corruption free. (Btw, PAP can change the law single handedly, both ordinary and constitutional laws.)