LKY keeps taking lots of public money for himself/his family
-
When people take public money, then use it to buy prime orchard road properties, and finally push up property prices at everyone's expense... I wonder if that is considered corruption?
see: Property Prices Rise at our expense
Should we hold a black t-shirt event to demand that they disclose all theirs and their relatives property holdings? -
Are you saying that you do believe what zenden9 is saying?Originally posted by Trump_Card:The sheep is more likely to believe yours ...
-
With all the blasting on LKY, we need to remember he is the one who led Singapore to where she is today. I really appreciated what LKY had achieved for Singapore and her citizens.
Whether LKY had embezzled any public money we cannot know for sure. But the general consensus is the he did. Now the question is how much? To what extent of the embezzlement?
One thing that can be sure is that LKY had abused his power during his reign. Just look at who are the PM of Singapore now and the Temasek Holding chairwoman. -
The topic is "LKY keeps taking lots of public money for himself/his family"Originally posted by Spartans:With all the blasting on LKY, we need to remember he is the one who led Singapore to where she is today. I really appreciated what LKY had achieved for Singapore and her citizens.
Whether LKY had embezzled any public money we cannot know for sure. But the general consensus is the he did. Now the question is how much? To what extent of the embezzlement?
One thing that can be sure is that LKY had abused his power during his reign. Just look at who are the PM of Singapore now and the Temasek Holding chairwoman.
as far as I concerned, its ambiguous, and does not necessarily imply that LKY is embezzling public money.
What Andrew is saying is that he is taking lots of public money in YOUR and MY face, which is targeting the ridiculous pay that he is paying himself -
Actually my questions posed to all pro-PAP supporters are simple:Originally posted by uhbaden:And you were saying we were blinded by the government? er...where's your freedom of thought?
1. Why are we paying so many times above the market rate?
We all know Bush only earns US$400k per year, and governing a huge country.
All we need is just one 'great' minister here to dwarf Bush's pay. And Singapore is a tiny dot in the world.
Why are we paying 4-5 times more than the market, given that the Govt itself always emphasizes that we should only pay employees up to market conditions?
Why don't we just attract foreign talent from Finland and New Zealand to be our govt, since they are ranked better in the world rankings for their governance, and they are paid much less?
2. What are the achievements that they have attained, which other countries' governments DID NOT attain, that justifies what they are being paid now? -
I especially like their idea of creating work for themselvesOriginally posted by eagle:then what happened if they are still corrupt?
easy solution: Increase the pay further (it's from my 16 yr old sis after reading her social studies textbook)
Increase their pay -> Income gap between rich and poor widens
Help the poor -> Income gap between rich and poor narrows
Increase their pay because they helped the poor -> Income gap widens
Help the poor -> Income gap narrows
The vicious cycle repeats -
How to be self-sufficient and independent, when your pay is intentionally being oppressed to lower levels than most developed countries, so that the Govt can attract more foreign investment?Originally posted by uhbaden:I say be more self sufficient and self-independant. If I need to work a bit harder to keep up my family, I'll do so. Why bother with spending the effort wastefully blasting our government, whereby you can actually use the same effort to benefit yourself and people around us.
Don't be selfish. Think of your kids in the future (if you are planning for one anyway).
Low monthly pay and high bonuses (if you ever believe in that high bonus part), is one of their gimmicks, and is used by most of the Singapore companies.
You get the investments coming in, the country gets more reserves, but they don't flow down to you.
And nay, am not planning for kids coz this is too stifling a society -
how is 2.7 to 3.3 fiction when its reported in the papers???Originally posted by :One man's fact is another man's fiction..........
Sheesh -
Do you know what is other countries' income?Originally posted by uhbaden:I wish some ppl will grow up and open their minds more broadly then to start blasting our government.
e,g. My parents have been nuturing and supporting me over the years to who I am today, I am of course in all gratefullness want to return them the effort and resources spent on me. Why not?
What is 3.3 million compared to Singapore's economy? Do you know what is the our country's income by the way?
If you want to think this way, then do a proper comparison by comparing the incomes of other countries and the pay given to their governments, versus our country and the pay given to our government.
But then, there's also budget surplus and budget deficit policies in this world, and both are all sound policies -
1) LKY was the one who said in an article written by him that he prefers to draw foreign talent to run the government. He commented about his government at that time; mostly not from Singapore.Originally posted by soul_rage:Actually my questions posed to all pro-PAP supporters are simple:
1. Why are we paying so many times above the market rate?
We all know Bush only earns US$400k per year, and governing a huge country.
All we need is just one 'great' minister here to dwarf Bush's pay. And Singapore is a tiny dot in the world.
Why are we paying 4-5 times more than the market, given that the Govt itself always emphasizes that we should only pay employees up to market conditions?
Why don't we just attract foreign talent from Finland and New Zealand to be our govt, since they are ranked better in the world rankings for their governance, and they are paid much less?
2. What are the achievements that they have attained, which other countries' governments DID NOT attain, that justifies what they are being paid now?
2) What achievements have they attained? LOTS!
I shall list some examples:
ERP
COE
HDB
Good or bad is debatable. -
Nepotism is just infront of us. The problem is can anyone confront them and win in the local jurdicial court where the judges are all appointed by them. I don't think so. That's why i think Francis Seow was trying to seek help from foreign power.Originally posted by Spartans:One thing that can be sure is that LKY had abused his power during his reign. Just look at who are the PM of Singapore now and the Temasek Holding chairwoman. -
that's the purpose of GRCOriginally posted by maven2:They keep saying that the elections have shown that we've given the PAP a mandate to govern the way they like it.
But because of the GRC system:
33.3% Voted for Opposition. How many % representation to we get in parliament?
There is a serious problem here.
-
GRC means more harm than good. If it's not abolished, Singaporeans will carry on suffering the vicious cycle.Originally posted by maven2:They keep saying that the elections have shown that we've given the PAP a mandate to govern the way they like it.
But because of the GRC system:
33.3% Voted for Opposition. How many % representation to we get in parliament?
There is a serious problem here. -
You can remove HDB and CPF because that was the old guard's idea. I would not include any ideas from the 1st generation.Originally posted by eagle:1) LKY was the one who said in an article written by him that he prefers to draw foreign talent to run the government. He commented about his government at that time; mostly not from Singapore.
2) What achievements have they attained? LOTS!
I shall list some examples:
ERP
COE
HDB
Good or bad is debatable.
ERP, COE, whether that justifies their pay, I leave it to the onlookers to assess themselves.
What else in that famous list? Ahhh.... annuities....
-
But that would mean the PAP will suffer.Originally posted by (human):GRC means more harm than good. If it's not abolished, Singaporeans will carry on suffering the vicious cycle. -
They reasoned in the social studies textbook that GRC is enacted so as to have a minority representation in parliament ... I have no problems with 3-4 person per GRCOriginally posted by (human):GRC means more harm than good. If it's not abolished, Singaporeans will carry on suffering the vicious cycle.
But how the hell it expanded to 5 or 6 men , I guess we know the answer ... -
GRC is a game rule that is set by the ruling party, thus an advantage to ruling party never the oppositions.
-
33.3% of voters voted for oppositions. Why we did not see 33.3% of the 84 seats in parliament go to oppositions? It's because of this unfair game rule set by ruling party.
-
I have problems with a GRCOriginally posted by Trump_Card:They reasoned in the social studies textbook that GRC is enacted so as to have a minority representation in parliament ... I have no problems with 3-4 person per GRC
But how the hell it expanded to 5 or 6 men , I guess we know the answer ...
Its something no other countries have.
Heck... I have problems even with a 80 plus parliament
Why do we need to feed so many mouths, (and with a number of them caught sleeping in parliament, including Wong Kan Seng), when we are such a small country?
Of coz the reasons for having a 80 plus parliament, we all know, but we cannot say because this is PAP at its best. Open secrets
-
Ya ... Sometimes they play GRC to their full advantage ... Blackmailing the voters with the possibility of losing a minister for that constituency if they vote the opposition ...Originally posted by soul_rage:I have problems with a GRC
Its something no other countries have.
Heck... I have problems even with a 80 plus parliament
Why do we need to feed so many mouths, (and with a number of them caught sleeping in parliament, including Wong Kan Seng), when we are such a small country?
Of coz the reasons for having a 80 plus parliament, we all know, but we cannot say because this is PAP at its best. Open secrets -
Well , it is arguable if the parliament representation is fair for the 33.3% support for the Opposition because the Majority of PEOPLE are ok with this situation.Originally posted by (human):33.3% of voters voted for oppositions. Why we did not see 33.3% of the 84 seats in parliament go to oppositions? It's because of this unfair game rule set by ruling party.
Singapore is really based on the People. We have elections. Did anything happened to the 33.3% who opposed? 33.3% support for Opposition but only 3/85 (or so) seats taken up. This situation is what the people want, for now.
The People have spoken.
Dun believe , take a Poll . How you want to do it is not my parsar. -
33.3%/100 x 84=27 seats
play with GRC= 2 seats
Imagine 27 seats out of 84 seats go to opposition. At least we still have a more healthy balance is the parliament. 27 mouths vs 57 mouths. What we are having now is 2 mouths vs 82 mouths, this is poor balancing. -
Wrong way of calculating ...Originally posted by (human):33.3%/100 x 84=27 seats
play with GRC= 2 seats
Imagine 27 seats out of 84 seats go to opposition. At least we still have a more healthy balance is the parliament. 27 mouths vs 57 mouths. What we are having now is 2 mouths vs 82 mouths, this is poor balancing.
Only 47 seats were contested and 1.22 million out of the 2.16 million eligible Singaporeans voted ...
Therefore , the 66.6% does not account for the whole of singapore -
You are right. The real mandate is not known to us when GRC is at play.Originally posted by Trump_Card:Wrong way of calculating ...
Only 47 seats were contested and 1.22 million out of the 2.16 million eligible Singaporeans voted ...
Therefore , the 66.6% does not account for the whole of singapore -
Agree. He contributions in the beginning of his political career are appreciated. Now seems like he is making it a family business. Singapore belongs to all the people of Singapore and not just the Lee family. We are not for nepotism.Originally posted by Spartans:With all the blasting on LKY, we need to remember he is the one who led Singapore to where she is today. I really appreciated what LKY had achieved for Singapore and her citizens.
Whether LKY had embezzled any public money we cannot know for sure. But the general consensus is the he did. Now the question is how much? To what extent of the embezzlement?
One thing that can be sure is that LKY had abused his power during his reign. Just look at who are the PM of Singapore now and the Temasek Holding chairwoman.