Is it legal for government to approve their own salaries?
-
they want to increase we also cannot do anything right? like GST, fare hike, ERP etc...
remember sheng jiang said something during shoot3 on fare hike issue?
this old auntie said that when she go china, their senior citizen get free travel anywhere. he shoot back asking her to go over there and live.
bottom line: not happy living here, go other countries. (from sheng jiang)
i will always remember what he said. -
I think it's a form of restitution . Like what they have in China , such as the free transport for their senior citizens there , they have no voting rights . Whereas in Singapore , it's the vice versaOriginally posted by freedom4ever:they want to increase we also cannot do anything right? like GST, fare hike, ERP etc...
remember sheng jiang said something during shoot3 on fare hike issue?
this old auntie said that when she go china, their senior citizen get free travel anywhere. he shoot back asking her to go over there and live.
bottom line: not happy living here, go other countries. (from sheng jiang)
i will always remember what he said.
-
i'll choose to be born in Singapore anytime rather than China..
Anyway..i notice that seniors in other countries like to travel around. We can't say the same for Singaporeans, not my grandmother anyway. That is an unhealthy habit. Staying at home or being cooped in the same neighbourhood is no good.
Seniors should be relieved of the burden of transport costs so that they can be mobile, can window shop, can visit friends, regardless of economic situation. Subsidising them on transport costs (bus, Mrt) can come from the taxes the additional taxes generated from FTs and GST ? I'm not sure. Anyway, true we have an ageing population but judging from current trends, they'll probably stay at home anyway.....
The government cannot consider this as a harmful form of welfare as i don't think anybody will lose the motivation to work or to save just because they get free transport when they hit the twilight years of their lives.
If the government is worried about us not having enough after age 80-85 and require us to purchase an annuity, then they also be worried that we might not have enough for transport. The only thing we can do then is stay at home, stare at the ceiling and wait to die. -
Leaders' salaries
George W. Bush, US president, €343,000
Vladimir Putin, Russian president, €56,500
Gordon Brown, UK prime minister, €267,000
Bertie Ahern, Irish Taoiseach, €310,000
Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, €101,000 (240,000 Euro after pay rise)
Angela Merkel, German chancellor, €272,000
Lee Hsien Loong, Pee Sai prime minister – writes his own pay cheque...tsk tsk tsk -
Think everybody writes their own paychecks. I had previously commented about the perils of having a 50-50 government. One of the good things about it however is that Minister salaries can be restricted
. -
But do the ministers deserve their pay judging from their performance?
So far, these are the wonderful solutions...
1. local not producing enough --> welcome FT with open arms
-- It's so easy to get a PR nowadays
2. aging population --> ask local to buy compulsory annuity
-- Annuity payout at 85? Is there any figure to support the majority of Singaporean are living past 85 (Or simply benchmark against LKY age?)
3. CTE jam --> increase ERP
-- still jam after ERP increase for the third times this year
Well, I don't see anything fantastic about their solutions.
-
It's one thing for them to be worried about you not having enough; it's quite another matter for them to worry about you living off them. Suffice to say, we know better what the gripes of this regime really is...Originally posted by kramnave:If the government is worried about us not having enough after age 80-85 and require us to purchase an annuity, then they also be worried that we might not have enough for transport. The only thing we can do then is stay at home, stare at the ceiling and wait to die. -
hmm...maybe i'll propose it for budget'08,'09,'10', ..........Originally posted by walesa:It's one thing for them to be worried about you not having enough; it's quite another matter for them to worry about you living off them. Suffice to say, we know better what the gripes of this regime really is... -
Solution: A creative and truly talented decision will be to restructure the economy taking to a value-adding model derived from mass participation and practical knowledge applications on the part of all. When there is such a government citizens will be able to live and procreate their next generation. Now they cannot even fend for themselves and many young ones could not earn enough to afford and older ones pay mortgages for the HDB flats how do they expect the citizens to procreate. To restructure to such an economy, we will need a government which is more creative and proactive not by all kinds of assumptions by one man at the helm but spread out all the ministers to be working closely with the people at all level, improve on HR, look after employees' welfare and interest and promote motivation and helping the citizens to live within their government-restricted wages. In such a situation, even if the government makes a lot of mistake with pushing up their monopoly fees and over-taxing and profiteering people will still be able to live and be motivated to live in this country and be happy.Originally posted by royston_ang:But do the ministers deserve their pay judging from their performance?
So far, these are the wonderful solutions...
1. local not producing enough --> welcome FT with open arms
-- It's so easy to get a PR nowadays
If not we will end up having a government which keeps talking about its own superficial success while citizens are either migrating or switching off refusing to listen to any of their propaganda,2. aging population --> ask local to buy compulsory annuity
Solution: Use the government windfall profits from land sales and all the profiteering schemes to create any endowment fund of S$20 billion from which to derive interest incomes without affecting the principal sum (avoid draining of national resource on welfare).
-- Annuity payout at 85? Is there any figure to support the majority of Singaporean are living past 85 (Or simply benchmark against LKY age?)[/b]
Such endowment funds could either go towards helping to pay ageing annuity insurance premium for citizens who live beyond 80 or channel to lower the rising costs of living on transportation, utility and education.3. CTE jam --> increase ERP
Solution: To use the vehicle excise duty, COE, petrol tax, ERP to provide alternative routes which are many and diverse to ease the main highways like CTE, PIE which are collecting ERP for lessening congestion.
-- still jam after ERP increase for the third times this year
Well, I don't see anything fantastic about their solutions. [/b]
It appears that our ministers would just introduce ERP everywhere without providing alternative routes so at the end all have to keep paying ERP without solving the road congestion problem they claimed originally from the early days the COE and ERP will solve.
Ministers must not be afraid to speak up in cabinet on real solutions like the above and must stop taking all the shortcuts instead of solving problems more creatively. -
Mr Ngiam, a former permanent secretary has opinion on the govt's plan to increase the population until six million. He emphasized more on quality of
the immigrants rather than quantity. -
acturely,
i no no but like to asking
did they really approved their own salary?
if so, can i say sg'reans very magnanimousity de?
i really no no liao leh. -
then who approves? You hah?Originally posted by reddressman:acturely,
i no no but like to asking
did they really approved their own salary?
if so, can i say sg'reans very magnanimousity de?
i really no no liao leh. -
Sovereignty IS PRICELESS. -
approval 2006?Originally posted by Daddy!!:then who approves? You hah?
i no no leh. -
Legally. I guess it is. I'm certain the salaries are stated in some bill passed by parliament which is backed by some statute in our constitution. But the question should be is it right.
-
The price tag that they placed on themselves don't match the kind of performance they suppose to have. And the weird thing is they have no sense of shame to get such aburdly overpaid tax money from the people. What a bunch of national bandits, isn't not it?Originally posted by royston_ang:But do the ministers deserve their pay judging from their performance?
So far, these are the wonderful solutions...
1. local not producing enough --> welcome FT with open arms
-- It's so easy to get a PR nowadays
2. aging population --> ask local to buy compulsory annuity
-- Annuity payout at 85? Is there any figure to support the majority of Singaporean are living past 85 (Or simply benchmark against LKY age?)
3. CTE jam --> increase ERP
-- still jam after ERP increase for the third times this year
Well, I don't see anything fantastic about their solutions. -
I think it is EITHER :Originally posted by Quincey:Legally. I guess it is. I'm certain the salaries are stated in some bill passed by parliament which is backed by some statute in our constitution. But the question should be is it right.
1. They did that.
2. They did no did that.
Is it legal to ask to know how the hike was passed?
Is it legal to ask to know who initiated it? cannot be all concurrently suddenly initiated it right?
Is there a step by step documentation of this wonderful event?
who initiated it, justified it, approved and signed it and take responsibility for it?
would you like to know?
btw, when will the next round be? -
Even if there is an enabling Act of legislation in the Constitution somewhere to allow motion to be put forward by the ministers or MPs for passing by their own members in parliament, the general principle of law still would be applicableL "no body shall be a judge or jury in his own cause. The statute would definitely require such passing of motion to approve their own benefits by their own members as subjected to conditions like independent assessment of benchmarks being used and declaration of interest and non-voting of the motion by those who are benefiting from it.Originally posted by Quincey:Legally. I guess it is. I'm certain the salaries are stated in some bill passed by parliament which is backed by some statute in our constitution. But the question should be is it right.
Can one imagine without such provisions any ministers could simply use any benchmark they like and pay themselves any amount of salary or bonuses or life pension in conflict with such a general principle of law. -
When I mean legal, I mean a process as defined by law. Take Pakistan or Burma for example, is it legal for their rulers to give themselves emergency powers and conduct the mass incarceration of their regime's opponents and using force to break up protesters? Well, by the legal code of Pakistan as enacted by Musharaf or the Junta, it is legal. The question then is, is it ethically permissible for a government to repress the freedom of it's people to such an extend. That's the function of the judiciary - to interpret the statutes of the constitution, which is one of the reasons why Musharaf assumed emergency powers to remove his chief justice.
-
Great point. I admit I have no idea whatsoever as to the guidelines and processes for reviewing ministerial salary. So I can't comment on that particular process. But what I was trying to emphasis here is that legality, or the rule of law, which is a common regime principle incepted by most states is itself defined and safeguarded by those who hold the reigns of power. A matter of legality or illegality is no white or black differentiation, but rather lies with the people who voted for the regim. I know its a simplistic view, but this is all I can say to thatOriginally posted by robertteh:Can one imagine without such provisions any ministers could simply use any benchmark they like and pay themselves any amount of salary or bonuses or life pension in conflict with such a general principle of law. -
you pointed out something most people are ignorant about:Originally posted by Quincey:When I mean legal, I mean a process as defined by law. Take Pakistan or Burma for example, is it legal for their rulers to give themselves emergency powers and conduct the mass incarceration of their regime's opponents and using force to break up protesters? Well, by the legal code of Pakistan as enacted by Musharaf or the Junta, it is legal. The question then is, is it ethically permissible for a government to repress the freedom of it's people to such an extend. That's the function of the judiciary - to interpret the statutes of the constitution, which is one of the reasons why Musharaf assumed emergency powers to remove his chief justice.
legal or not, does not mean ethical or not as in the case of other countrys.
of course, i will nebber use sg as an exampre for obvious reasons.
for exampre, is it legal in times of war to kill a person who nebber offended you directly or you nebber known before?
well, many wars have happened and is USA ever found illegal to invade any country? -
kramave bro,
What evidence you want ? If you read the Straits Times or even bothered with news on the internet then you would have known that.
Canadian Pay Hike
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=ea318a9c-4e24-4556-847e-2c162a7f1d36
Irish Pay Hike
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2007/1026/1193348363404.html
Sarkozy Pay Hike
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22681188-2703,00.html
the evidence you provide just support the opposition view that our minister are very highly paid .
i strongly hope our PAP supporters here are as capable as our ministers. otherwise, it seem PAP supporters support for the sake of support but lack reasons and substance to support it. -
I think the NDP (It's a left wing party btw) made a pt that what is needed is a clear and above board process that is open to public scrutiny to study any proposal to increase salaries of govt officials. I know in Singapore, there is the National Wages Council right? and I'm sure there is some independent body to study the pay of civil servants and what not.
-
It's one thing for them to be worried about you not having enough; it's quite another matter for them to worry about you living off them. Suffice to say, we know better what the gripes of this regime really is...
well said, the purpose of the annuity thing is that the current regime are more worry that you not die before age 85 but after.
i guess what most singaporeans are unhappy about is that we all know govt are darn rich and loaded with singaporeans money that they aint giving back to the poor fast and more. but when come to amending policy to benefits themselves, GLCs, it is often as fast and easy as snapping their fingers. -
Reyes bro !,
as i told Robert, Spartan said its illegal overseas so i juz provided france and ireland...and canada as examples that all.
When i read a thread or a post i and i see a discrepancy, i feel obliged to share what i know...regardless of anything...