At age 80, can one contribute or hinder development ?
-
On the countrary, I believe that it is a good thing that they are working and earning a living.This way, they could age actively and at the sametime, contribute to our economy. Senior citizens should be seen in this light , rather than someone who is lying there waiting for their death bed.Originally posted by boy in blues:how about those govt-aided homes 'force' employers like fast-food outlets, 7-11 or petrol kiosks to employ them? anyway, even if they OT everday also need some financial assistance. they not like fit young tramps living off national treasury. -
"Support the system that supports you". Doesn't that sound like a fair deal?
After decades of working for the good of the the country, contributing to the economy, when workers retire, and have no family support network to fall back on isn't it time for the country to give something back? Yes, there are the welfare homes and children, but whats wrong with the country doing its bit too to help older folks. They've spent decades supporting the system, isn't it time for the system to give something back after they retire?
Like the Chinese saying goes, 'Mei you gong lao, ye you ku lao' (Even if there are no achievements, there is also effort)
As for encouraging people into increasing savings, the forced+voluntary savings rate in Singapore is already the world's highest. How much more do you expect people to save? -
For your information, even the American government, with is one of the world's leading econmy does not provide welfare to their version of the old folks home.For their case, people rely on their own savings to ensure that they have a proper home for the aged.So we can't have the best of everything.
-
You are quite right that the US Government do not provide welfare similar to the Old Folks home.Originally posted by CenturionMBT:For your information, even the American government, with is one of the world's leading econmy does not provide welfare to their version of the old folks home.For their case, people rely on their own savings to ensure that they have a proper home for the aged.So we can't have the best of everything.
However, the US Government does support certain types of "Old Folks Home" that will attend to the needs of "Old Soldiers" - as in the Veteran Hospitals for ex-Servicemen.
From time to time, certain grants are also given to certain types of Social Welfare Homes that look after the destitutes, homeless, and the aged.
The US Social Welfare system provide some degree of assistance, although we may have endless debate on the efficacy of such a system, this system remains supported by the US Government and the economy.
In my earlier response, I failed to address your point concerning the ONE Percent being taken from taxes.
Actually, my line was that if ever an amount equal to ONE Percent is taken from the ANNUAL SURPLUS of the Singapore Government Budget, this amount does not necessarily come from any tax collected from the Citizens.
The revenue that the Singapore Government has available to its Treasury is many fold, and Tax (in all its forms) is but only one part. -
If the government does gives 1% from its surplus, i have nothing to say.As long as it does not give any burden to our working class.But have you thought of a senerio where one day we might have zero or negative growth?Then who is going to pay then?
-
If ever the economy should slip and go into negative growth, then perhaps a cut amounting to a quarter of the Million Dollar and super scale salaries - from every minister, minister of states, permanent secretaries, and all the super scale salaried Civil Servants - will be justified, and can help make lives easier for the maintenance of the Old Folks Homes.
Do you know how many ministers we have to-date (with and without Portfolios), as well as Minister of States ?
If the Government believe that we can get by with a diet of a dish of cheap ikan kurau (or even ikan belis), kangkong and porridge on a daily basis, then why are we paying million dollar salaries, while the rest of the population earn less than ONE Percent of that amount ?
Seriously, do you think that negative growth in our budget can occur ?
It is a numbers game, with the amount of funds that the Government has to "play with" - coming from all the GLCs - and categorised as "surplusses" in holding accounts all over the place.
It is little wonder that when the late President Ong Teng Cheong requested for an accounting of the Reserves that he was supposed to look after, there was so much 'hee-hawing' from the Government.
When GST was first implemented, the result after the first year was so embarrassingly and shockingly good that the ex-Finance Minister Richard Hu had to recommend a "refund" by way of the Singapore Shares.
This is to make peace with Singaporeans by giving out Singapore Shares from time to time.
At the end of the day, if we cannot look after so many old folks in the Charity Homes for the Aged, perhaps the salary that is paid to SM LKY can go a longer way to support the many instead of supporting one 80 Year Old, who surely do not need so much money in the twilight years of his active and already prosperous life ? -
Actually, in my honest oppinoin, (trust me , i am not siding anyone) I believe that ministers should be paid at a much higher salary.In fact, many people in the private sector actually get a pay equilivant or greater to the ministers.If ministers, being ceo of the country, don't deserve to draw that high a salary, who wants to be ministers? All the bright brains might as well go on to the private sector allowing the less intelligent people to fill up the power vacuum, which in my oppinion, is a much dangerous situation.
Yes, the old folks home should be sufficiently funded and we can see that they often get funds through regular donations. Just look at charity drives by schools.Each school could raise nearly 100000 per year.Each year, these associations gain millions of dollars in donation.So itsn't it enough for them? If you are already pretty well funded, is it fair to ask for more? -
MP is not for swindlers who wanna make a quick buck but rather for people who are interested in designing a better lifestyle for ALL fellow citizens. but i don't think they would starve to death yet at the rate they're paid. -
Sure, Ministers should be paid much higher than the average Singaporean Workers, but to equate their salaries to that of a Commercial CEO ?Originally posted by CenturionMBT:Actually, in my honest oppinoin, (trust me , i am not siding anyone) I believe that ministers should be paid at a much higher salary.In fact, many people in the private sector actually get a pay equilivant or greater to the ministers.If ministers, being ceo of the country, don't deserve to draw that high a salary, who wants to be ministers? All the bright brains might as well go on to the private sector allowing the less intelligent people to fill up the power vacuum, which in my oppinion, is a much dangerous situation.
Yes, the old folks home should be sufficiently funded and we can see that they often get funds through regular donations. Just look at charity drives by schools.Each school could raise nearly 100000 per year.Each year, these associations gain millions of dollars in donation.So itsn't it enough for them? If you are already pretty well funded, is it fair to ask for more?
The salary of the US President (whose powers far exceed that of the Singapore Prime Minister) is less then a quarter of the CEO of General Motors.
The position of a Minister in the Singapore Government is no longer a "Service to the Nation", as the position of a US President is seen to be.
In Singapore, the position of a Minister is a "Life Time Career", which explains for the perpetuation of power, and the tenacity to maintain political control so as to perpetuate this power on the economic benefits derived from holding on to power. -
Well, as i have said, this is Singapore, it is not USA.If Singaporeans don't get the pay they think they deserve, they don't work. This applies to the ministers. Why go and slog off and work for the government when the commercial side has a higher pay? After all, they have the talents.You get the picture?
In the end some not so talented people would simply fill up the power vacuum left behind by these talented people, and the country would gradually collapse by itself. -
Any one seeking high pay must be willing to be scruntinize based on their performance.
First of all, they are overpaid. But I would say that some of the ministers might deserve the pay but the rest totally doesn't. -
Did LKY and his team of First Generation Leaders involved themselves in the politics of Singapore with a vision of "High Salaried" career in Politics, or did they have a loftier ideals of what Political Service to Singapore is to be ?Originally posted by CenturionMBT:Well, as i have said, this is Singapore, it is not USA.If Singaporeans don't get the pay they think they deserve, they don't work. This applies to the ministers. Why go and slog off and work for the government when the commercial side has a higher pay? After all, they have the talents.You get the picture?
In the end some not so talented people would simply fill up the power vacuum left behind by these talented people, and the country would gradually collapse by itself.
Will talented people not come forth to serve in politics if the Ministerial Pay is not of equal amount paid in the private sector ?
The fact that there is such a paucity of educated and talented people willing to serve in politics, is due more to the unsavory type of politics being played out in Singapore for the last 38 years.
If money can draw talent to the surface, one can only wonder what kind of talent will be serving in Government.
There has been much debate about how much Singapore Ministers have to be paid, little has been concluded, and doubtfully if our positions can find any merging paths.