Wage revamp? Govt helping us to save jobs? Are you sure?
-
continuing post from Page 1
continuing post by stupidissmart: [quote]
Then how do u choose who to be politicians ? [/quote]
As had happened, in the past and also recently, good buinessmen does not necessarily make good Ministers; and conversely, good Ministers do not necessarily make good businessmen - especially without the political clout that they are accustom to.
Are we entering a new topic ?continuing post by stupidissmart: [quote]
2 para for a single spelling mistake ! The speling mistake betwen an O.E and E.O ! Gosh I must be careful on wat I write here... [/quote]
SDP Chief's excuse of 'spelling' or 'typo' error was not well received by many, can you accept his given 'excuse' ?
I was 'fascinated' by your repeated use of C.O.E in two different threads, and thought of having some fun, glad to know that you find it 'Facinating....'
It always is better to be careful of one's position before posting, and I have made typo errors too, but attempt to correct by editting the posted text when I spot the errors.
There is a difference between your preferred 'NEW' style of English writing, and the accuracy of intended words on specific matters.
I can accept the idiosyncratic new style spelling of 'tat' to replace 'that' - although I cannot see any difference in the time spent to add another 'h' to 'tat'. However, it jars the brain to figure what is 'C.O.E.' when you repeatedly intend to mean 'C.E.O' - and did you do it intentionally, as in 'tat' - or simply the mind being a slower then the fingers at work on the keyboard ?continuing post by stupidissmart: [quote]
So the bottom line is wat ? After they get a HEAD START over other less weathy then wat ? Previously we r talking about is [b]the selection process of SCHOLARS a fair process ? And u told me it is not since [/b] [/quote]
The statement made was that people who are rich, enjoy BETTER SUPPORT AFTER SCHOOL HOURS and has a BETTER ENVIRONMENT - which in SUM TOTAL provide the Rich Kid a HEAD START over the other less wealthy.
I am not certain as to your open ended statement, and cannot help you further If you cannot figure out what the bottom line is.continuing post by stupidissmart: [quote]
If u r not trying to say tat richer people are better in studies, then wat r u trying to say ? [/quote]
The statement made was that people who are rich, enjoy BETTER SUPPORT AFTER SCHOOL HOURS and has a BETTER ENVIRONMENT - which in SUM TOTAL provide the Rich Kid a HEAD START over the other less wealthy.
This one surely takes the cake.
The 'Rich Kid' Scholars may not be better in studies, surely you will agree that the BETTER SUPPORT and BETTER ENVIRONMENT -for studying that their wealth can get them - will give them a HEAD START over their poorer compatriots ?
The keywords are 'BETTER SUPPORT' 'BETTER ENVIRONMENT' and a 'HEAD START' - nothing was mentioned that they can study.
Those who succeed to become Scholars probably had the benefit of such EXTRA CIRCUMSTANCES not available to the poorer Scholars.
Do not forget that I had suggested in my earlier post that it will be interesting to study the family backgrounds of ALL the Scholarship receipients, to determine the numbers coming from the Higher, Medium, and Lower Income Groups.
You have to keep the whole discussion in focus, even when you start to split hairs.continuing post by stupidissmart: [quote]
Exactly - now you are getting somewhere.
It is those who have the TALENT, and with that certain kind of intelligence and alertness (or smartness) to capitalise on the 'slowness' (or stupidity) of others to do so, and to seize the opportunity to take COMMAND and CONTROL over others (including the competition) and become successful.
They certainly deserve to earn the money which THEY MAKE from the PROFITS of the MARKET PLACE.
u mentioned tat [/quote]
The key statement is 'PROFITS of the MARKET PLACE'.
Refer to my earlier details posted in the preceding paragraph.continuing post by stupidissmart: [quote]
So now u finally agree tat minister certainly deserve to earn the money which THEY MAKE from the PROFITS of the MARKET PLACE ? Your previous position is on the fact tat "minister" don't deserved the pay they r getting because they were "helped by army of staffs". Even the examples like Bill Gate u had given r taking multi million profit solely on doing the job tat minister r doing now. Why do Bill Gates deserve the money now and not the minister we have here ? Why do Bill Gates enjoy the money he has and not the software developers ? [/quote]
Is it so impressive and productive of a Minister, when his requirements are attended to by an army of supporting staff ?
All that the Minister has to do is to delegate, assigned, and wait for the return of the works that have been instructed to be accomplished; and on their return the materials are then digested, reviewed, corrected, and regurgitated as his own.
The army of supporting staff will prepare all answers from their research works, summarised reports into key notes; speeches that are researched and prepared for redraft by the Minister; ideas that are brainstormed by the supporting scholar civil servants and offered for the consideration of the Minister, who will adopt them as his own brilliant speech.
Now you are mixing two different issues conveniently to come to your point.
Bill Gates and his Companions of MIRACLE PERFORMERS were quoted to prove your doubt that 'MIRACLES do NOT happen' - have you forgotten your original position ?
Shocking and you certainly deserve more then an OSCAR for interpretation simple text.
How did you come to this conclusion by skewing my post ?
Ministers DO NOT MAKE ANY PROFIT OF THE MARKET PLACE.
The unfortunate and more accurate description is that the MINISTERS are parasites to the environment and systems that they imposed onto the Market Place.
It is the BUSINESSMEN that make the PROFIT, which the MINISTERS will TAX, and doing it so efficiently through all kinds of Direct and Indirect Taxes to enlarge the Government Treasury.
With the success in collecting Revenue, the Ministers will pat each of their own Ministerial backs, give themselves a humongous salary increase - that is beyond the proportions needed to meet the SINGAPORE COST of Living, and living a lifestyle far above the Singapore STANDARD of Living, and more akin to the SWISS, while the general populations live in Lifelong Debt.
Concerning your last statement about the benefits of the software developers working for Bill Gates, I suggest that you call up or read up about the Life of the Software Developers working in MICROSOFT.
One thing is for certain, the shareholders of MICROSOFT get a better return from the risks that they took in supporting Bill Gates' Management and Support Team, than the common shareholders of Singapore Inc who so obediently support the Management Team of the Ruling Party.
How much of the extra-ordinary profits from the investments of GIC and the Temasek Holdings will actually trickle down to benefit ordinary Singaporeans - the sick, infirmed, the old, and the future generations ?
Are the profits used to lower the cost of hospital fees, or to support the Homes for the Aged ?
Even hospices for the Old to move on to the next world has to depend on the charity of the already overworked, under-paid, and over-taxed ordinary Singaporeans. -
Atobe ups goes to you man! You definitely have a fine intellect and intelligence! What a great debate!
Well, to add to the sub-topic about politics, we're going to add another 3 more ministers to our cabinet. As well as make way for more by 2007.
All three Acting Ministers will be promoted to full Ministers.
They are:
Mr Khaw Boon Wan, Acting Minister for Health and Senior Minister of State for Finance
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Acting Minister for Education
Dr Ng Eng Hen, Acting Minister for Manpower and Minister of State for Education.
They are also adding more ministers of State.
I have'nt heard of Mr Khaw or Shanmugaratnam before but their names do ring a bell. I have met and seen Dr Ng Eng Hen, he's quite a nice guy, when I was in army he was COA(I think) not too sure what his highest ranking position was in the army before he left to the private sector.
Well, back to the topic of wage reform, there are more reports showing that govt saying that wage reform might not be suitable for all companies. But they definitely did hit a touchy subject of AWS. A lot of people believe that AWS (known as Annual Wage and Supplement, in case stupidissmart mixes it up with something else) is something owed to them. There's a writeup in the Forum today about it, it will be interesting to see what what the govt says. -
Your response is now different in tone and direction from your previous post that receive my response that you are quoting now.
I am glad u realise it is not an easy task to govern the country. In tat case, we cannot expect "perfect " decisions made from them. There will always be some pros and cons and risk factor to a decision being made. Wat I feel is tat some people keep complaining about some policies tat were inadequate in the past using the knowledge they had now. Tat is not a fair since we did not place ourselves in the situation then.
You had previously asked - 'U seems eager to complain about old policies made in the past using the new found knowledge u have now. Is tat fair ?'
Did I mention that policy making is easy ? Did I mention any 'model' for any kind of political institution in my last response to your post ?
Just to humor you with a response, perhaps you will consider the fact that if there had been less Political Dominance from the Ruling Party, and had they allowed ALTERNATIVE or DISSENTING VIEWS to be heard, then the present problems may not have arisen as had been created by the past policies of 2 Child Family, killing of the Small and Medium Enterprises, dominance of GLCs and MNCs in the Singapore Economy - just to name a few.
Please note tat I am asking u wat is your ideal or improved political situation (basically a model) in a country AND in the case u do mention about your ideal or improved political situation, will it eliminate all problems or wrong policies being made ?
Since u state a posible improvement, I ask again,
If we allow, as wat u suggested by having ALTERNATIVE or DISSENTING views in the past, will the problem now be eliminated ? Will it poses other new problems in exisiting of the one we have ? Though I do not deny tat in singapore politics we need a stronger opposition, I do not see tat ministers here aren't doing a good job or doesn't deserved the pay they get.Now do you believe that the 'sky is the limit' for someone with talent, or if DPM LHL had to compete at all, or did he 'get' a better chance because of his relationship with SM LKY ?
Then again, wat is the general situation in singapore ? Other fighting to be a prime minister, people with talents get to be appreciated and climb up the corporate ladder. Does it stop u from becoming a minister in singapore ? And does LHL really perform miserably ? Which other minister deserved be promoted to Primie Minister instead of him ? Does Madam Ho Ching failed to showed performance ? As wat u all had mentioned she manage to control so many firms within the short timeframe. Can u safely say she has no credit to all tat ?Where were you when the losses at MICROPOLIS Hard Disk and Suzhou Industrial Park (just to name a few) had occurred. Try visiting the thread - 'TEMASEK HOLDINGS' and read some of the issues posted.
Where were u when Singapore manages to set up Jurong Island ? Where were u when SIA becomes one of the best airlines ? Suzhou Industrial Park is starting to rake in the money now. In fact it is one of the most prosperous area in China. Is it really such a failed investment ?Even if it happen in the SAF, it is probably the performance of the Senior Sergeant - with new academic or skilled qualification - being double-promoted over the Master Sergeant.
Sorry man, we r living in singapore. Americans have four star generals, Marines and air craft carriers while we don't. In singapore, master sergeant r meant for "condemn" case. It means they should get a promotion due to their seniority yet their performance do not get them to be a warrant officer. Why don't u ask around and find out whether most warrant officers were promoted from a staff sergeant or master sergeant.
The SAF ranks are following closer to the US Military Rank Structure, and if we visit the following site, your position will be riddled with bullets:-
[/quote] -
Again, your direction has shifted from your last position which received my reply that you are now quoting, and when you had asked - 'Thus I ask tis question, if the minister start working up in a private firm instead, will he be less successful and not earn as much when they work in politics ?'
Funny, how have I shifted my position ?
A businessman labor for the perks that he deserves as a result of his entrepreneurial success, and his benefits including salary is commensurate with the size of the Profit that he generate for his Board of Directors and Shareholders.
One may indicate that a Minister is similar to that of a Businessman, and should similarly deserve similar compensation for the success of the corporation. Is the profit from a business earned from enterprise similar to the State Revenues collected by taxations on a Country ?
However, we did not previously focussed about the pay package, but had originally debated on the suitability, capability and the opportunities available to scholars.
To humor you on this topic, Singapore Ministers are paid salaries to run a Singaporean economy with a GDP value about the size of the annual value of General Electric Corp of USA.
Meanwhile the US President runs a US Economy that is perhaps 40 times bigger than Singapore, and his benefits are only about one third paid to the C.E.O of General Electric, or about a salary that is half that of the Singapore PM.
I guess u r the one tat was being confused... All I am trying to point to u is how r we going to attract those capable people to work for the Gov ? U state tat they already have a distinguished pay before they joined into poitics. Then if being in politics make u get 40 times lesser pay that before, gives u less freedom and more stress, will u take the job ? The only thing tat Gov can encourage more talents to join in as politics is by offering them a high pay.
The second point I am trying to conveyed is, THEY deserve the money they r getting now as minister BECAUSE that is probably the pay they will be getting if they remains in the private sector. If they don't join politics, they still get to enjoy the lifestyles where common people can't reach. So wat is the rationale of reducing their pay ?
SO the key POINT I am asking is, HOW r u going to attract talents who had displayed results to join into politics ? Why do most people feel they don't deserve the pay they get ?To humor you on this topic, Singapore Ministers are paid salaries to run a Singaporean economy with a GDP value about the size of the annual value of General Electric Corp of USA.
Being a president of America gets u probably 40 times more power and fame than singapore prime minister. Who don't want to be the President of the united states ?
Meanwhile the US President runs a US Economy that is perhaps 40 times bigger than Singapore, and his benefits are only about one third paid to the C.E.O of General Electric, or about a salary that is half that of the Singapore PM.
Wat is the population of America ? Probably 40 times as well. They have LOTs of great candidates interested in politics and joined in willingly. Their top 5000 people in their country is already smarter, more capable, more experience than our top 50 in our country. If their top and our top 1% of population became politician. We r already faring poorer than them since their gov consists of more capable people than us. To be able to be equal or excel them, we have to attract the top 0.1% of our country. If our Gov and country should remains strong, we have to attract, maybe the top 10 people in our country to be able to survive in the long run. So how r we going to attract these top 10 people ?It always is better to be careful of one's position before posting, and I have made typo errors too, but attempt to correct by editting the posted text when I spot the errors.
3 PARAGRAPHS and still counting... Who doesn't made spelling error here and there when they type in so much words ?
There is a difference between your preferred 'NEW' style of English writing, and the accuracy of intended words on specific matters.
I can accept the idiosyncratic new style spelling of 'tat' to replace 'that' - although I cannot see any difference in the time spent to add another 'h' to 'tat'. However, it jars the brain to figure what is 'C.O.E.' when you repeatedly intend to mean 'C.E.O' - and did you do it intentionally, as in 'tat' - or simply the mind being a slower then the fingers at work on the keyboard ? -
There seems to be a contradiction in the first paragraph above...
The 'Rich Kid' Scholars may not be better in studies, surely you will agree that the BETTER SUPPORT and BETTER ENVIRONMENT -for studying that their wealth can get them - will give them a HEAD START over their poorer compatriots ?
Rich Kids may not be better in studies, HOwever being rich gives u extra priviedges tat will give u a headstart, which in the end will still get u better in studies. SO I am asking, if all these scenarios is true, tat if they get a headstart wat does it leads eventually ? From wat u have written, it seems tat they it will get them to be better in studies. I rewrite a paragraph to illustrate your para better
Stronger people doesn't mean they may have an advantage in fist fighting. Surely u will agree tat being stronger will allows u to give BIGGER BLOWS and LONGER ENDURANCE. This gives them a BENEFIT over their weaker opponents.
Compared tis paragraph with the one quoted above.
So from the paragraph, wat can your conclusion be ? Stronger people r better, worse, or equal at fist fights ?Bill Gates and his Companions of MIRACLE PERFORMERS were quoted to prove your doubt that 'MIRACLES do NOT happen' - have you forgotten your original position ?
Yes I know they r from your miracle part. Why I used these names is because u seems to have deep admiration for these people. Yet the job they r doing now is almost the same as wat the minister r doing now. Is tat any wrong in this use ? Where have I made use of "miracles" in the use here ? It expressed wat I am trying to say isn't it ?
Shocking and you certainly deserve more then an OSCAR for interpretation simple text.Ministers DO NOT MAKE ANY PROFIT OF THE MARKET PLACE.
Wat is the job of a policeman ? To maintain peace and order. They didn't MAKE any profit too, instead they leech at the tax from the businessman. Don't tell me just because the policeman do not make any profits from your market place, then they deserved NO PAY
The unfortunate and more accurate description is that the MINISTERS are parasites to the environment and systems that they imposed onto the Market Place.
It is the BUSINESSMEN that make the PROFIT, which the MINISTERS will TAX, and doing it so efficiently through all kinds of Direct and Indirect Taxes to enlarge the Government Treasury
Wat is the job of a business man ? To earn money. Wat is the job of a politician ? To make good policies tat ensures growth and stability. If they did good in their job then they deserve the money that they earned. Wat has tat got to do with the profit from the market place ? Without policemen or Gov, will there even be a market place ?With the success in collecting Revenue, the Ministers will pat each of their own Ministerial backs, give themselves a humongous salary increase - that is beyond the proportions needed to meet the SINGAPORE COST of Living, and living a lifestyle far above the Singapore STANDARD of Living, and more akin to the SWISS, while the general populations live in Lifelong Debt.
The above paragraph seems more like housewives gossipping behind peoples' back. The description u had given about minister just "patting" each othe back for "getting success in collecting revenues" is unfair and demeaning. U think it is so easy to be a minister ? I can also say retired people just lie around the house digging their nose and gossip about other people. And maybe sometimes occasionally visit the forums. Is tat a fair comment to make ?
As wat I have stated in the previous paragraphs, EVEN if they don't entered politics, they will still be EARNING humongous salary increase that is beyond the proportions needed to meet the SINGAPORE COST of Living, and living a lifestyle far above the Singapore STANDARD of Living, and more akin to the SWISS, while the general populations live in Lifelong Debt.. U have said tat they already earned distinguished careers and salaries before they joined poitics isn't it ? Things remain the same ! Capable people drink champaign while others soak in rain. TIS IS A FACT OF LIFE.One thing is for certain, the shareholders of MICROSOFT get a better return from the risks that they took in supporting Bill Gates' Management and Support Team, than the common shareholders of Singapore Inc who so obediently support the Management Team of the Ruling Party.
HOw much people have GlC and Temasek Holdings recruited ? R these companies functioning as a business entities or charity organisations ? How much companies in singapore r big enough to go on a global stage ? How bad r the conditions of the hospices for Old ? How rich r the people of singapore ? How big is the land of singapore ? R we in a time where we can be complacent and lax while our competitors catch up with us ? How about situations in countries such as Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan or Japan or people living in big cities ? R they really living tat much better than us ? They seemed to be overworked, under-paid, and over-taxed too isn't it ?
How much of the extra-ordinary profits from the investments of GIC and the Temasek Holdings will actually trickle down to benefit ordinary Singaporeans - the sick, infirmed, the old, and the future generations ?
Are the profits used to lower the cost of hospital fees, or to support the Homes for the Aged ?
Even hospices for the Old to move on to the next world has to depend on the charity of the already overworked, under-paid, and over-taxed ordinary Singaporeans. -
I am not sure how to read your following opening remarks, but you are mixing several issues into one lump, which I will need to break up into three parts.
The model was given, the explanations were given; if you cannot understand what has been written previously, and repeated in clearer detail above, I cannot help you further.Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I am glad u realise it is not an easy task to govern the country. In tat case, we cannot expect "perfect " decisions made from them. There will always be some pros and cons and risk factor to a decision being made. Wat I feel is tat some people keep complaining about some policies tat were inadequate in the past using the knowledge they had now. Tat is not a fair since we did not place ourselves in the situation then. [/quote]
Is there anything perfect in this world ? Are the feelings of disaffection towards the Government Policies a result of the imperfections made worse by a Government that do not listen, or if they listened but proceed with an attitude of 'I KNOW BETTER' ?
After FORTY YEARS, SM LKY admit in his memoirs, that if he had the foresight and wisdom of the father of the present Sultan of Brunei, then perhaps Singapore would have followed Brunei in not joining Malaysia, which resulted in the subsequent separation that led to the present messy political baggage burdening our relations with Malaysia.
Is it 'UNFAIR' - to RECALL and REMEMBER - when there were 25 Percent of Singaporeans, who had that wisdom to REJECT MERGER WITH MALAYSIA by casting blank votes - as the REFERENDUM was cleverly crafted to achieve a single minded outcome - whichever the vote is cast ?The Truth about the 1962 Merger Referendum ?
http://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/merger/headline/yakref1.html
We may not belong to that generation, nor did we participate in that period when policies were decided - does that prevent us from learning from the EXPERIENCES and CONSEQUENCES of CONCEITED THINKING of the Political Leaders from that period, and who continue to influence PRESENT policies that will affect us into the FUTURE ?continuing post by stupidissmart:
Please note tat I am asking u wat is your ideal or improved political situation (basically a model) in a country AND in the case u do mention about your ideal or improved political situation, will it eliminate all problems or wrong policies being made ?
Since u state a posible improvement, I ask again,
If we allow, as wat u suggested by having ALTERNATIVE or DISSENTING views in the past, will the problem now be eliminated ? Will it poses other new problems in exisiting of the one we have ?
[quote]continuing post by stupidissmart:
Though I do not deny tat in singapore politics we need a stronger opposition, I do not see tat ministers here aren't doing a good job or doesn't deserved the pay they get.
This statement is quite contradicting, and you will need to make up your mind, as it also contradict your preceding remarks as well.
Why do you accept the idea that we need a stronger Opposition, if you "do not see tat ministers here aren't doing a good job or doesn't deserved the pay they get." ?continuing post by stupidissmart:
Then again, wat is the general situation in singapore ? Other fighting to be a prime minister, people with talents get to be appreciated and climb up the corporate ladder. Does it stop u from becoming a minister in singapore ? And does LHL really perform miserably ? Which other minister deserved be promoted to Primie Minister instead of him ? Does Madam Ho Ching failed to showed performance ? As wat u all had mentioned she manage to control so many firms within the short timeframe. Can u safely say she has no credit to all tat ? [/quote]
Now do you believe that the 'sky is the limit' for someone with talent, or if DPM LHL had to compete at all, or did he 'get' a better chance because of his relationship with SM LKY ?
Your statements made here can only show either you are callow to the extent of being wholly gullible; or you are simply an fervent supporter of the Ruling Party, and will prefer to be blind and gloss over all the issues that have been so widely reported.
It will be a pointless exercise to attempt to respond on your statements here, and I will leave you with the privilege of your decision to be what you wish to be.
Will you care to visit the various issues that have been posted in other Alternative websites, and keep an open mind with an attitude and allow yourself to believe 'No Smoke WITHOUT Fire' ?
http://www.thinkcentre.org/links/index.cfmcontinuing post by stupidissmart:
Where were u when Singapore manages to set up Jurong Island ? Where were u when SIA becomes one of the best airlines ? Suzhou Industrial Park is starting to rake in the money now. In fact it is one of the most prosperous area in China. Is it really such a failed investment ? [/quote]
Where were you when the losses at MICROPOLIS Hard Disk and Suzhou Industrial Park (just to name a few) had occurred. Try visiting the thread - 'TEMASEK HOLDINGS' and read some of the issues posted.
Yes, Jurong Island and SIA, who did it benefit ? Did you get anything out of it ? Where did the money come from to develop these projects ? Who is the biggest beneficiary ?
Besides those in direct employment earning the lower spectrum of a 4-figured salary that is controlled by the Government, did the profits generated trickle down to benefit the Lives of Ordinary Singaporean ?
The Government taxes, and Profits from the GLC holdings in the various investments in Jurong Island and SIA, will all end up into the coffers of the Government, and ultimately into the GIC, to be controlled by the hands of LKY, and soon will be in LHL.
The Singapore President, Parliament and Citizens - do not even get any accounting.
Suzhou Industrial Park had been divested by Singapore, and we hold only a minority share, the PROFITS are being pocketed by China, and Singapore is the BIG LOSER after spending BILLIONS of our Singapore Dollar to develop it.
Try digesting the contents in the following site:
http://www.sfdonline.org/Link%20Pages/sgic_link.htmlcontinuing post by stupidissmart:
Sorry man, we r living in singapore. Americans have four star generals, Marines and air craft carriers while we don't. In singapore, master sergeant r meant for "condemn" case. It means they should get a promotion due to their seniority yet their performance do not get them to be a warrant officer. Why don't u ask around and find out whether most warrant officers were promoted from a staff sergeant or master sergeant. [/quote]
Even if it happen in the SAF, it is probably the performance of the Senior Sergeant - with new academic or skilled qualification - being double-promoted over the Master Sergeant.
The SAF ranks are following closer to the US Military Rank Structure, and if we visit the following site, your position will be riddled with bullets:-
You seem to have an expertise in not reading and understanding simple statements, and try to outsmart even yourself.
In my previous post, I had indicated that 'it is probably the performance of the Senior Sergeant - with new academic or skilled qualification - being double-promoted over the Master Sergeant.'
Is my statement not similar to your statement about the Master Sergeant being "condemn case" and that promotion is about PERFORMANCE ?
What is your problem here ? -
You have an unfortunate habit of mashing several unrelated issues into one general confused mess, which I will try to unravel again.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Funny, how have I shifted my position ? [/quote]
Again, your direction has shifted from your last position which received my reply that you are now quoting, and when you had asked - 'Thus I ask tis question, if the minister start working up in a private firm instead, will he be less successful and not earn as much when they work in politics ?'
A businessman labor for the perks that he deserves as a result of his entrepreneurial success, and his benefits including salary is commensurate with the size of the Profit that he generate for his Board of Directors and Shareholders.
One may indicate that a Minister is similar to that of a Businessman, and should similarly deserve similar compensation for the success of the corporation. Is the profit from a business earned from enterprise similar to the State Revenues collected by taxations on a Country ?
However, we did not previously focussed about the pay package, but had originally debated on the suitability, capability and the opportunities available to scholars.
To humor you on this topic, Singapore Ministers are paid salaries to run a Singaporean economy with a GDP value about the size of the annual value of General Electric Corp of USA.
Meanwhile the US President runs a US Economy that is perhaps 40 times bigger than Singapore, and his benefits are only about one third paid to the C.E.O of General Electric, or about a salary that is half that of the Singapore PM.
In your post on Page 1, 08 February 2004 · 02:00 PM - you had asked : 'Thus I ask tis question, if the minister start working up in a private firm instead, will he be less successful and not earn as much when they work in politics ?'
My response was given and repeated above quote paraphrased.
Did you not shift in your position again - as your question was quoted with the emphasis part in RED ? Now with your clarifying statements below, it becomes even more obvious in the confused direction of your expressed intent.continuing post by stupidissmart:
The second point I am trying to conveyed is, THEY deserve the money they r getting now as minister BECAUSE that is probably the pay they will be getting if they remains in the private sector. If they don't join politics, they still get to enjoy the lifestyles where common people can't reach. So wat is the rationale of reducing their pay ?
I guess u r the one tat was being confused... All I am trying to point to u is how r we going to attract those capable people to work for the Gov ? U state tat they already have a distinguished pay before they joined into poitics. Then if being in politics make u get 40 times lesser pay that before, gives u less freedom and more stress, will u take the job ? The only thing tat Gov can encourage more talents to join in as politics is by offering them a high pay.
SO the key POINT I am asking is, HOW r u going to attract talents who had displayed results to join into politics ? [/quote]
It is quite a long about way of trying to ask a question, which seems to be completely different from the simple question which you had asked originally: 'Thus I ask tis question, if the minister start working up in a private firm instead, will he be less successful and not earn as much when they work in politics ?'
Now you are asking - 'How do we attract talent into Government Service, if NOT by HIGH SALARY ?', which is different from asking "If a talented person will be less successful and not earn as much when work in politics ? '.
Why don't you pose this question as a New Topic, instead of deviating from this thread ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:
You should also post this question as a NEW TOPIC in this sgForums, and perhaps you MAY get your answer.
Why do most people feel they don't deserve the pay they get ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Being a president of America gets u probably 40 times more power and fame than singapore prime minister. Who don't want to be the President of the united states ?
To humor you on this topic, Singapore Ministers are paid salaries to run a Singaporean economy with a GDP value about the size of the annual value of General Electric Corp of USA.
Meanwhile the US President runs a US Economy that is perhaps 40 times bigger than Singapore, and his benefits are only about one third paid to the C.E.O of General Electric, or about a salary that is half that of the Singapore PM.
Wat is the population of America ? Probably 40 times as well. They have LOTs of great candidates interested in politics and joined in willingly. Their top 5000 people in their country is already smarter, more capable, more experience than our top 50 in our country. If their top and our top 1% of population became politician. We r already faring poorer than them since their gov consists of more capable people than us. To be able to be equal or excel them, we have to attract the top 0.1% of our country. If our Gov and country should remains strong, we have to attract, maybe the top 10 people in our country to be able to survive in the long run. So how r we going to attract these top 10 people ? [/quote]
The President of the USA has 40 times more power, 40 times more population to take care of, but is paid half the salary of a Singapore Prime Minister, who has probably LESS than 1 PERCENT of the Power available to the US President.
If you believe that there is a lack of talent in Singapore - which the Government has try so hard to make you believe - then there is little I can do to change the self-doubt that you have of yourself.
Try reading the thread: 'SINGAPORE - BIGGER THAN THE PAP, shouldn't it ? 'continuing post by stupidissmart:
3 PARAGRAPHS and still counting... Who doesn't made spelling error here and there when they type in so much words ? [/quote]
It always is better to be careful of one's position before posting, and I have made typo errors too, but attempt to correct by editting the posted text when I spot the errors.
There is a difference between your preferred 'NEW' style of English writing, and the accuracy of intended words on specific matters.
I can accept the idiosyncratic new style spelling of 'tat' to replace 'that' - although I cannot see any difference in the time spent to add another 'h' to 'tat'. However, it jars the brain to figure what is 'C.O.E.' when you repeatedly intend to mean 'C.E.O' - and did you do it intentionally, as in 'tat' - or simply the mind being a slower then the fingers at work on the keyboard ?
Keep counting, if you are able to keep your numbers intact, as well as you have managed the idiosyncratic slant of your thoughts.
Everyone makes 'spelling error', some have a purposefully weak inclination, while others make honest effort in new directions.
Some seems to have a knack for errors that one cannot discern if it is willfully made, or part of a pun - as in 'SENTIMENTS' when the intended meaning was 'SEDIMENTS' .
It takes some ingenious effort to make multiple errors. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
There seems to be a contradiction in the first paragraph above...
The 'Rich Kid' Scholars may not be better in studies, surely you will agree that the BETTER SUPPORT and BETTER ENVIRONMENT -for studying that their wealth can get them - will give them a HEAD START over their poorer compatriots ?
Rich Kids may not be better in studies, HOwever being rich gives u extra priviedges tat will give u a headstart, which in the end will still get u better in studies. SO I am asking, if all these scenarios is true, tat if they get a headstart wat does it leads eventually ? From wat u have written, it seems tat they it will get them to be better in studies. I rewrite a paragraph to illustrate your para better
Stronger people doesn't mean they may have an advantage in fist fighting. Surely u will agree tat being stronger will allows u to give BIGGER BLOWS and LONGER ENDURANCE. This gives them a BENEFIT over their weaker opponents.
Compared tis paragraph with the one quoted above.
So from the paragraph, wat can your conclusion be ? Stronger people r better, worse, or equal at fist fights ? [/quote]
You try very hard to be clever, but you conveniently forget to consider some KEY WORDS in my post - RICH BACKGROUND.
Is this another mistaken 'typo error' of the mind ?
If a strong person is RICH and can afford vitamins, health food, personal gym equipment, and specialist instructor - do you think he can benefit and IMPROVE his performance OVER a poorer strong person ? Is this not a HEADSTART of the Rich over the Poor ?continuing post by stupidissmart:
Yes I know they r from your miracle part. Why I used these names is because u seems to have deep admiration for these people. Yet the job they r doing now is almost the same as wat the minister r doing now. Is tat any wrong in this use ? Where have I made use of "miracles" in the use here ? It expressed wat I am trying to say isn't it ? [/quote]
Bill Gates and his Companions of MIRACLE PERFORMERS were quoted to prove your doubt that 'MIRACLES do NOT happen' - have you forgotten your original position ?
Shocking and you certainly deserve more then an OSCAR for interpretation simple text.
You are now trying to make a futile justification in the wrong use of my reference, by quoting it 'out of context', to suit your new position from that previously made.
Your use of these persons - who proved you wrong, and that miracles do exist - was to equate them as having supporting staff to help them to be successful; and hence, the Ministers deserve the same supporting staff to be prove their success, and so deserve their high Ministerial Pay.
You fail to note that these MIRACLE MAKERS had STARTED their business as NOBODY and NO SUPPORT.
Your Post on Page 1 08 February 2004 · 01:24 AM:
Isn't "Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Steven Jobs (Apple), Sim Wong Hoo (Creative) and Goi Seng Hui (Tee Yih Jia)" just plainly "attended to by an army of supporting staff "now ? Without tis "army of supporting staff", can they get tat far ?continuing post by stupidissmart:
Wat is the job of a policeman ? To maintain peace and order. They didn't MAKE any profit too, instead they leech at the tax from the businessman. Don't tell me just because the policeman do not make any profits from your market place, then they deserved NO PAY
Ministers DO NOT MAKE ANY PROFIT OF THE MARKET PLACE.
The unfortunate and more accurate description is that the MINISTERS are parasites to the environment and systems that they imposed onto the Market Place.
It is the BUSINESSMEN that make the PROFIT, which the MINISTERS will TAX, and doing it so efficiently through all kinds of Direct and Indirect Taxes to enlarge the Government Treasury
Wat is the job of a business man ? To earn money. Wat is the job of a politician ? To make good policies tat ensures growth and stability. If they did good in their job then they deserve the money that they earned. Wat has tat got to do with the profit from the market place ? Without policemen or Gov, will there even be a market place ? [/quote]
Now you are taking a DIFFERENT line of argument.
You had previously posted that MINISTERS also MAKE PROFIT OF THE MARKET PLACE.
If you are employed by the Shareholders to perform a task, and given BETTER THAN ORDINARY salary (by OUR standards) - should you not go about doing your assigned tasks, with the expected due diligence ? Can the Shareholders approve of your ARBITRARY use of your limited Executive Powers to give yourself salary increments that have been previously agreed by mandate and contract ?
Did the Government ASK for the approval of the ORDINARY Singaporeans for the amount of salary paid to them, or did they simply decide that they deserve a BIGGER salary for making ALL THE MONEY from all kinds of Direct and In-direct Taxes ?
The second part of your argument that they deserve the money that they earned is best left to a NEW TOPIC, which I had earlier encourage you to post. -
continuing post by stupidissmart:
The above paragraph seems more like housewives gossipping behind peoples' back. The description u had given about minister just "patting" each othe back for "getting success in collecting revenues" is unfair and demeaning. U think it is so easy to be a minister ? I can also say retired people just lie around the house digging their nose and gossip about other people. And maybe sometimes occasionally visit the forums. Is tat a fair comment to make ? [/quote]
With the success in collecting Revenue, the Ministers will pat each of their own Ministerial backs, give themselves a humongous salary increase - that is beyond the proportions needed to meet the SINGAPORE COST of Living, and living a lifestyle far above the Singapore STANDARD of Living, and more akin to the SWISS, while the general populations live in Lifelong Debt.
This perception depends on the mentality of the reader of this text.
If the reader is gullible, shallow, undiscerning, intelligently handicap, purblind - can one expect the reader to share the same views of others, who has the courage and daring to see the world from a different perspective.
Try visiting this site, it may give you a new perspective to even change your idiosyncratic preferences.
http://www.allaboutfrogs.org/stories/well.htmlcontinuing post by stupidissmart:
What would you call those 'Capable People' when given the powers and responsibility - by the remaining 'others soak in rain' - will believe that they can drink champagne, while others continue to soak in rain; and if they feel generous enough to spill a few drops of champagne as rain drops ?
As wat I have stated in the previous paragraphs, EVEN if they don't entered politics, they will still be EARNING 'humongous salary increase that is beyond the proportions needed to meet the SINGAPORE COST of Living, and living a lifestyle far above the Singapore STANDARD of Living, and more akin to the SWISS, while the general populations live in Lifelong Debt.' U have said tat they already earned distinguished careers and salaries before they joined poitics isn't it ? Things remain the same ! Capable people drink champaign while others soak in rain. TIS IS A FACT OF LIFE.
Facts of LIFE is what one accept and continue to accept.
If we accept your 'TIS IS A FACT OF LIFE' - Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sim Wong Hoo, Goi Seng Hui and their miracle maker compatriots, would have ALL remained where they had begun and failed, and accept their failures as 'FACT OF LIFE'.
This ATTITUDE and APTITUDE makes the difference between those who believe the difference between smart and stupid, seeing truths as it is and-or denying Reality.
Sorry, but unfortunately - THIS IS THE FACT OF LIFE.continuing post by stupidissmart:
HOw much people have GlC and Temasek Holdings recruited ? R these companies functioning as a business entities or charity organisations ? How much companies in singapore r big enough to go on a global stage ? How bad r the conditions of the hospices for Old ? How rich r the people of singapore ? How big is the land of singapore ? R we in a time where we can be complacent and lax while our competitors catch up with us ? How about situations in countries such as Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan or Japan or people living in big cities ? R they really living tat much better than us ? They seemed to be overworked, under-paid, and over-taxed too isn't it ? [/quote]
One thing is for certain, the shareholders of MICROSOFT get a better return from the risks that they took in supporting Bill Gates' Management and Support Team, than the common shareholders of Singapore Inc who so obediently support the Management Team of the Ruling Party.
How much of the extra-ordinary profits from the investments of GIC and the Temasek Holdings will actually trickle down to benefit ordinary Singaporeans - the sick, infirmed, the old, and the future generations ?
Are the profits used to lower the cost of hospital fees, or to support the Homes for the Aged ?
Even hospices for the Old to move on to the next world has to depend on the charity of the already overworked, under-paid, and over-taxed ordinary Singaporeans.
All these cliches that you repeat makes me wonder if you think at all, and if you truly believe that you can fit those shoes owned by the Ruling Party just by repeating these lines ?
Or perhaps by some miracle, you forced your feet to fit those worn shoes, which swelled your brains to the extent that you could not hear the voices that are screaming to be heard - just as the previous owners of those shoes from the Ruling ?
Have you visited any Home for the Aged, or Hospices ?
Have you visited the School for the Blind, or Handicapped ?
Have you visited anyone with kidney failures and requiring daily dialysis to continue living ?
Where do you think the capital come from that created GIC and Temasek Holdings ?
Do you believe that the funds in GIC and Temasek Holdings belong to Singapore and Singaporeans, or do they belong separately as INDEPENDENT Enterprises controlled by INDIVIDUALS ? -
I hate the system of sgforums. I have written the reply, all of it dissappear as the system logged me out automatically. And I had to rewrite everything again
Is there anything perfect in this world ? Are the feelings of disaffection towards the Government Policies a result of the imperfections made worse by a Government that do not listen, or if they listened but proceed with an attitude of 'I KNOW BETTER' ?
Do u think the decision to merge with malaysia is "wrong" in the past ? Singapore is terribly small, with no other resources other than the port. There were a lot of problems like unemployment and lack of funding then. Everyone doubts we can survive.
After FORTY YEARS, SM LKY admit in his memoirs, that if he had the foresight and wisdom of the father of the present Sultan of Brunei, then perhaps Singapore would have followed Brunei in not joining Malaysia, which resulted in the subsequent separation that led to the present messy political baggage burdening our relations with Malaysia.
Is it 'UNFAIR' - to RECALL and REMEMBER - when there were 25 Percent of Singaporeans, who had that wisdom to REJECT MERGER WITH MALAYSIA by casting blank votes - as the REFERENDUM was cleverly crafted to achieve a single minded outcome - whichever the vote is cast ?
The Truth about the 1962 Merger Referendum ?
http://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/merger/headline/yakref1.html
We may not belong to that generation, nor did we participate in that period when policies were decided - does that prevent us from learning from the EXPERIENCES and CONSEQUENCES of CONCEITED THINKING of the Political Leaders from that period, and who continue to influence PRESENT policies that will affect us into the FUTURE ?
Now of course u will say tis is a wrong decision to go as time has shown tat we can survive. The problems tat surfaced later was clear to us and not to the people then. If u r LKY then, wat decision will u make ?
About the 25% blank votes, please note tat there are 71% tat agree for it to go along. SO u want to fosake the 71% just for the 25% ? And the party, Barisan Sosialis is urging singaporean to vote to be the 12th state of malaysia, with no autonomy at all, or totally do not join into malaysia at all. If we follow tat route, things will probably be MUCH worse.
It benefit the Gov. But if our Gov benefits, it will help us much too isn't it ? We see parks around, we see investment ongoing and we have the best equipment and facilities like police and armed forces. How else do u want it to be use ?
Yes, Jurong Island and SIA, who did it benefit ? Did you get anything out of it ? Where did the money come from to develop these projects ? Who is the biggest beneficiary ?
Besides those in direct employment earning the lower spectrum of a 4-figured salary that is controlled by the Government, did the profits generated trickle down to benefit the Lives of Ordinary Singaporean ?
The Government taxes, and Profits from the GLC holdings in the various investments in Jurong Island and SIA, will all end up into the coffers of the Government, and ultimately into the GIC, to be controlled by the hands of LKY, and soon will be in LHL.
The Singapore President, Parliament and Citizens - do not even get any accounting.
Suzhou Industrial Park had been divested by Singapore, and we hold only a minority share, the PROFITS are being pocketed by China, and Singapore is the BIG LOSER after spending BILLIONS of our Singapore Dollar to develop it.
We still held 35% of the shares. In addition we do not make a loss from the investments. We spent $131 millions but now the investment in tat area reaches $13++ US billions. There were even further plans to expand. DO we lose at all ?You seem to have an expertise in not reading and understanding simple statements, and try to outsmart even yourself.
U r the person tat twisted your stand here and there.
In my previous post, I had indicated that 'it is probably the performance of the Senior Sergeant - with new academic or skilled qualification - being double-promoted over the Master Sergeant.'
Is my statement not similar to your statement about the Master Sergeant being "condemn case" and that promotion is about PERFORMANCE ?
What is your problem here ?
Tis is originally quote dby me
Then u r the one tat write below
Heard of Master Sergeant ? When promotion comes, it is the senior sergeants tat became the warrant officers, and not Master sergeants.Where did you get this idea of Senior Sergeants bypassing Master Sergeants to become Warrant Officers ?
Wat do u mean by "Where did you get this idea of Senior Sergeants bypassing Master Sergeants to become Warrant Officers ? " SInce u know they r condemn cases, then why ask me tis ridiculous question ? And where does my position get "riddled with bullets" over an irrelevant website ?
Even if it happen in the SAF, it is probably the performance of the Senior Sergeant - with new academic or skilled qualification - being double-promoted over the Master Sergeant.
The SAF ranks are following closer to the US Military Rank Structure, and if we visit the following site, your position will be riddled with bullets:- -
In your post on Page 1, 08 February 2004 · 02:00 PM - you had asked : 'Thus I ask tis question, if the minister start working up in a private firm instead, will he be less successful and not earn as much when they work in politics ?'
U totally missed wat I am trying to say ! I am telling u tat MINISTER will earn their MINISTER level salaries one way or another. They will still get their minister level pay EVEN if they remain to work in their own chosen field. So why the sore eyes over their pay ? If they doesn't work as minister, they aren't going to drop down and become poor. They will still be very much remains the same.If you believe that there is a lack of talent in Singapore - which the Government has try so hard to make you believe - then there is little I can do to change the self-doubt that you have of yourself.
I do not believe in the proportion of talent in singapore. I believe in the LACK of people in singapore. Our population r so small yet we have to remain competitive with regards to other bigger countries. Tis is the same case as in Olympics or other bigger sporting events. Countries with bigger population have a bigger advantage over countries with a smaller population.Keep counting, if you are able to keep your numbers intact, as well as you have managed the idiosyncratic slant of your thoughts.
4.
Everyone makes 'spelling error', some have a purposefully weak inclination, while others make honest effort in new directions.
Some seems to have a knack for errors that one cannot discern if it is willfully made, or part of a pun - as in 'SENTIMENTS' when the intended meaning was 'SEDIMENTS' .
It takes some ingenious effort to make multiple errors.You try very hard to be clever, but you conveniently forget to consider some KEY WORDS in my post - RICH BACKGROUND.
So in the end, u not only confirm your stand tat rich people get better at their studies, u also state tat rich people get to win in all event, including fist fights. So poor people will always be losers while rich people be successful in all their endeavours ? I am glad tat people with such a twisted stand r not a majority here.
Is this another mistaken 'typo error' of the mind ?
If a strong person is RICH and can afford vitamins, health food, personal gym equipment, and specialist instructor - do you think he can benefit and IMPROVE his performance OVER a poorer strong person ? Is this not a HEADSTART of the Rich over the Poor ?You are now trying to make a futile justification in the wrong use of my reference, by quoting it 'out of context', to suit your new position from that previously made.
First, I got to say u seems to have missed one of my posting on 8th Feb 2004 0152PM.
Your use of these persons - who proved you wrong, and that miracles do exist - was to equate them as having supporting staff to help them to be successful; and hence, the Ministers deserve the same supporting staff to be prove their success, and so deserve their high Ministerial Pay.
You fail to note that these MIRACLE MAKERS had STARTED their business as NOBODY and NO SUPPORT.
Your Post on Page 1 08 February 2004 · 01:24 AM:
Isn't "Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Steven Jobs (Apple), Sim Wong Hoo (Creative) and Goi Seng Hui (Tee Yih Jia)" just plainly "attended to by an army of supporting staff "now ? Without tis "army of supporting staff", can they get tat far ?
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=post_display&post_id=1575081
There u will find my stand about your miracles
Initially u say tat minister do not deserve their pay because they r just "helped by a army of staffs". They don't even have to prepare their own speech. Wat I am saying is tat isn't tat wat all high wage earners do ? Your "miracle workers" r all helped by "army of staffs" too now isn't it ? Do u think they prepare their own speech themselves ? Wat is the wrong of using them for tis scenario ? They may have started off as nobody, but so r most minister in singapore too (except for LHL). They started off the same and ended up the same. SO why discirminate them only ?Now you are taking a DIFFERENT line of argument.
Read carefully. When have I ever SAID tat ?
You had previously posted that MINISTERS also MAKE PROFIT OF THE MARKET PLACE.Ministers DO NOT MAKE ANY PROFIT OF THE MARKET PLACE.
Tis is your initial reply. U state tat just because MINISTER do not earn any profit from market, they don't deserve their pay. Well, firemen and police don't earn anything from the MARKET, should they get a pay ? Everyone has an important role to play. Why only reward people tat earn money from market place ? Minister job is not easy, an it has nothing to do with increasing revenues etc. They have a lot of other tasks like MANAGING big organisation like SAF, Police and Civil Defences. DO they not deserve pay ?
The unfortunate and more accurate description is that the MINISTERS are parasites to the environment and systems that they imposed onto the Market Place.
It is the BUSINESSMEN that make the PROFIT, which the MINISTERS will TAX, and doing it so efficiently through all kinds of Direct and Indirect Taxes to enlarge the Government Treasury -
This perception depends on the mentality of the reader of this text.
Or people tat have tainted eyes tat see only the negative and not the objective. Or people tat blamed all their problem on the Gov and not on themselves or circumstances.
If the reader is gullible, shallow, undiscerning, intelligently handicap, purblind - can one expect the reader to share the same views of others, who has the courage and daring to see the world from a different perspective.What would you call those 'Capable People' when given the powers and responsibility - by the remaining 'others soak in rain' - will believe that they can drink champagne, while others continue to soak in rain; and if they feel generous enough to spill a few drops of champagne as rain drops ?
Wat r u talking about ?!?! I guess u should heed Gov advice tat simple English is good english
U have mis interprete again. I do not say tat u shouldn't take risk and resign to fates. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sim Wong Hoo, Goi Seng Hui r capable thus deserve the status they r in. If u have the drive, the ability to fulfill your dreams, then go on. Wat I am trying to say is tat in society THERE will always be SUCCESS and FAILURE, RICH and POOR, CAPABLE and the NORMAL. Generally capable and poor people will turn out to be rich thus enjoy their champagne. The Not capable people, even if they r left with a huge forture, will spend it all and left being soaked in the rain. Such is a FACT OF LIFE.
Facts of LIFE is what one accept and continue to accept.
If we accept your 'TIS IS A FACT OF LIFE' - Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sim Wong Hoo, Goi Seng Hui and their miracle maker compatriots, would have ALL remained where they had begun and failed, and accept their failures as 'FACT OF LIFE'.
This ATTITUDE and APTITUDE makes the difference between those who believe the difference between smart and stupid, seeing truths as it is and-or denying Reality.
Sorry, but unfortunately - THIS IS THE FACT OF LIFE.Have you visited any Home for the Aged, or Hospices ?
HAve u visited the Homes for Aged, School of Blind and people tat need daily diaslysis from other countries ? R our homes really in tat bad a condition ? I see them myself when I volunteer and their conditions r as good as Sec or JC. R they really in such poor conditions ? Wat do u expect ? Aircon for the whole building ?
Have you visited the School for the Blind, or Handicapped ?
Have you visited anyone with kidney failures and requiring daily dialysis to continue living ?
Where do you think the capital come from that created GIC and Temasek Holdings ?
Do you believe that the funds in GIC and Temasek Holdings belong to Singapore and Singaporeans, or do they belong separately as INDEPENDENT Enterprises controlled by INDIVIDUALS ? -
lol, pretty strong points you have here SIS.
-
I will going on a short trip, will be back for more replies on Tuesday. Till, then...
-
The problem with stupidissmart is that while is is not exactly imcompetent as a debater, he hamstrings his own talent by starting out with the idea of a verdict that demands evidence rather then the other way round.
Having said, that's why he can often take logical sentiments to their illogical extreme.
Nuff said. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
That Singapore is 'SMALL' is a FACT OF LIFE, 'terribly small' - I am not so sure if it is that terrible ?
Do u think the decision to merge with malaysia is "wrong" in the past ? Singapore is terribly small, with no other resources other than the port.
The PORT is the essence for which Singapore was founded, and it has been growing since the day it was firmly established as the main outpost for the British Empire.
It still remains as our Life Blood that supports our very existence.continuing post by stupidissmart:
Do you truly believe in this propaganda from the Ruling Party ?
There were a lot of problems like unemployment and lack of funding then. Everyone doubts we can survive.
BEFORE LKY even came into the scene, Singapore was a 'THRIVING' metropolis, with a population growing from a fishing village to become the Jewel in the Far East for the British Empire, and with a population of about 1.5million by 1960's.
It was LKY's headstrong views and articulate mouth - that convinced his own compatriots in politics and Singaporeans that we cannot survive on own own - and vigorously pushed us towards merger with Malaysia.
The resentment and reservations towards the terms of merger had the support of David Marshall (the first Chief Minister of Singapore), as well as from key leaders of the Chinese Business Communities - who supported the Barisan Sosialis position.
LKY was a lamb in a new environment of politics, which he stumbled into as a practising LAWYER. He was facing a crisis of selfconfidence as he confronted the challenges imposed on his limited experience in political leadership.
Was he a match for the Tunku Abdul Rahman ? Probably not, as LKY had to give away much of Singapore's advantage, and with little in return, in order to be included into a bigger entity.
Tunku Abdul Rahman and LKY had their own personal ambition and agenda for the merger, which did not merge. This was reflected in Tunku's speech at Kuala Lumpur airport (after signing the merger papers and returning from London).
In his speech, the Tunku announced - 'Satu Bangsar, Satu Bahasa, Satu Negara' - or 'One Race, One Language, One Country' - (this surprised LKY, as was noted in his memoirs).
This statement alone very much summarised the apprehension and doubt by the largely Chinese community - led by their Community Leaders, and leading Chinese Businessmen, who had wide exposure in their dealings with the Malay aristocrats (an experience that LKY ignored, and which he later recorded in his memoirs of an admission to this fact).continuing post by stupidissmart:
Challenges will always face us, in one form or another, throughout our lives.
Now of course u will say tis is a wrong decision to go as time has shown tat we can survive. The problems tat surfaced later was clear to us and not to the people then. If u r LKY then, wat decision will u make ?
It very much depend on how one is brought up, the background exposure to one's environment and beyond, the challenges that are faced as one develop, and the opportunity available to exercise judgment and decision making process.
If one reads his memoirs, and also researched writings of his person by other authors (complimentary and critical ones), one can piece together a picture of his development.
He was not 'streetsmart' and had to learn very much on the job.
The problem with Singapore history is that much is now re-written to glorify the achievements, while the failures are glossed over.
It was unfortunate that the memoirs of the late Dr Lee Siew Choh was 'prevented' from being published, although it was said to be a family decision to let the Politics of the Past move on with the passing of the late Dr Lee.
Will we get to see the memoirs of the ex-President Devan Nair, so as to enable us to learn of the events from the past ?continuing post by stupidissmart:
By now, in the year 2004, surely you will have learnt the style of politics as practised by the Ruling Party. It has varied little since the early days of politics in the 1950s, with plenty of 'Promises - that will be modified and half-given', and with as much 'Fear of the Unknown' being instilled into a gullible, unsophisticated working class population.
About the 25% blank votes, please note tat there are 71% tat agree for it to go along. SO u want to fosake the 71% just for the 25% ? And the party, Barisan Sosialis is urging singaporean to vote to be the 12th state of malaysia, with no autonomy at all, or totally do not join into malaysia at all. If we follow tat route, things will probably be MUCH worse.
Are you sprouting the twisted propaganda from the Ruling Party ?
Where did you get the idea that the Barisan Sosialis had urged Singaporeans to vote for an Alternative to be the 12th state of Malaysia ?
Peninsula Malaya had 10 states, PLUS the 3-'S' states of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore there is a total of 13 states.
Is this not the exact number of states with MERGER ?
Is this a proposal from the Barisan, or from the brilliant minds of LKY and the PAP - to get Singapore to be either 11th, 12th, or 13th State of Malaysia ?
In any case, the comments - on the 3 Alternatives offered in the Referendum before Merger - from Dr Lee Siew Choh is in the following site:
http://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/merger/headline/yakref2.html -
continuing post by stupidissmart:
It benefit the Gov. But if our Gov benefits, it will help us much too isn't it ? We see parks around, we see investment ongoing and we have the best equipment and facilities like police and armed forces. How else do u want it to be use ? [/quote]
Yes, Jurong Island and SIA, who did it benefit ? Did you get anything out of it ? Where did the money come from to develop these projects ? Who is the biggest beneficiary ?
Besides those in direct employment earning the lower spectrum of a 4-figured salary that is controlled by the Government, did the profits generated trickle down to benefit the Lives of Ordinary Singaporean ?
The Government taxes, and Profits from the GLC holdings in the various investments in Jurong Island and SIA, will all end up into the coffers of the Government, and ultimately into the GIC, to be controlled by the hands of LKY, and soon will be in LHL.
The Singapore President, Parliament and Citizens - do not even get any accounting.
Suzhou Industrial Park had been divested by Singapore, and we hold only a minority share, the PROFITS are being pocketed by China, and Singapore is the BIG LOSER after spending BILLIONS of our Singapore Dollar to develop it.
Do you seriously believe that the profits from the investments of GLC and SIA will return to GIC and Temasek Holdings; and if it does reach the accounts of the GIC and Temasek Holdings, these will be distributed back to Singaporeans into Parks, investments (?), and equipment for our SAF and Police Force ?
Do you seriously believe that SIA, SilkAir, Singapore Technologies Engineering (and subsidiaries), Capital Land, DBS Bank, Unicorn, Chartered Semi-conductors, Chartered Industries, Keppel FELS, PSA, Changi Airport, SingTel, (just to name these few GLCs) - have contributed ANNUALLY to help alleviate the sufferings of the less fortunate in Singapore ?
Try reading this post:
'If Stat Board holds $33billion - how much is our Reserves ?'
dated 23 January 2004 - 12:12PM
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=67486
The Budget presented by the Government is a balance of Revenue from TAXES (Indirect and Direct Taxes), with the Expenses that has to be incurred for all branches of Government.
If you read the Budget, there is no single entry of GLC contribution to the State Budget for the building of Parks and Recreation, the Development and Maintenance of Infrastructure, or to the Defense Budget.continuing post by stupidissmart:
'Investment in tat area reaches $13++US billions' - so our present 35% share in Suzhou Industrial Park entitle Singapore to a cut of this billion US Dollar Pie ?
We still held 35% of the shares. In addition we do not make a loss from the investments. We spent $131 millions but now the investment in tat area reaches $13++ US billions. There were even further plans to expand. DO we lose at all ?
Are you sure of this information to post it so confidently ?
What investment in 'tat area reaches $13++US billions' are you referring to ? From US, European, Japanese, Taiwanese, Malaysian, Singaporean manufacturers and entrepreneurs ?continuing post by stupidissmart:
U r the person tat twisted your stand here and there. [/quote]
You seem to have an expertise in not reading and understanding simple statements, and try to outsmart even yourself.
In my previous post, I had indicated that 'it is probably the performance of the Senior Sergeant - with new academic or skilled qualification - being double-promoted over the Master Sergeant.'
Is my statement not similar to your statement about the Master Sergeant being "condemn case" and that promotion is about PERFORMANCE ?
What is your problem here ?
We will see, who had twisted after my following response.continuing post by stupidissmart:
Then u r the one tat write below
Tis is originally quote dby me
[quote]
Heard of Master Sergeant ? When promotion comes, it is the senior sergeants tat became the warrant officers, and not Master sergeants.Where did you get this idea of Senior Sergeants bypassing Master Sergeants to become Warrant Officers ?
Wat do u mean by "Where did you get this idea of Senior Sergeants bypassing Master Sergeants to become Warrant Officers ? " SInce u know they r condemn cases, then why ask me tis ridiculous question ? And where does my position get "riddled with bullets" over an irrelevant website ? [/quote]
Even if it happen in the SAF, it is probably the performance of the Senior Sergeant - with new academic or skilled qualification - being double-promoted over the Master Sergeant.
The SAF ranks are following closer to the US Military Rank Structure, and if we visit the following site, your position will be riddled with bullets:-
Is there any point to continue with this line of discussion if you cannot be certain of the interpretation of what has been said by yourself - when you had started this ridiculous notion of stating that 'Senior Sergeants - can bypass Master Sergeants - to become Warrant Officers'; and only you can know the purpose of making this statement as a response to what I had posted.
Irrelevant website ? It was intended to show you the significance of each rank in the US Military, and how the Warrant Officers bridge the gap between the Officers and the NCOs. It was also intended to show you how the SAF had moved from the British Rank Structure to that of the US Military, which resulted in the creation of more strata or positions within the NCO and Warrant Officer Class.
It also showed that your statement was 'no big deal' when you said in your post on this Topic Page 1 08 February 2004 · 02:00 PM -
'The BG's and Rear Admiral by wat u suggested is their NSmen status. The 2 stars or 3 stars means they r too specialized in their field and thus better remain in that field. Heard of Master Sergeant ? When promotion comes, it is the senior sergeants tat became the warrant officers, and not Master sergeants.'
Lower ranks do leap frog over a Senior is a fact - but it does not clear the fact that 2 and 3 stars Generals are deliberately not included into the Cabinet – especially when some of them ARE Scholars.
It is just too embarrassing for a Future PM with only 1-star to be outshone and outperformed by a more capable 2 or 3 star Minister. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
U totally missed wat I am trying to say ! I am telling u tat MINISTER will earn their MINISTER level salaries one way or another. They will still get their minister level pay EVEN if they remain to work in their own chosen field. So why the sore eyes over their pay ? If they doesn't work as minister, they aren't going to drop down and become poor. They will still be very much remains the same.
[quote]In your post on Page 1, 08 February 2004 · 02:00 PM - you had asked : 'Thus I ask tis question, if the minister start working up in a private firm instead, will he be less successful and not earn as much when they work in politics ?'
[/quote]
What was the last drawn pay of the PRESENT Acting Minister of Manpower in his last job ?
What was the pay of the PRESENT PM GCT in his last job as the CEO of Neptune Orient Line ?
What was the pay of the PRESENT DPM LHL before he entered Politics, and was only a Lt Colonel ?
'Sore eyes' ? More likely red eyes from being infuriated more then the soreness.
When ordinary Singaporeans elected these personalities as members to represent ordinary Singaporeans in Parliament, there exist a contract with the people, who gave them the mandate.
The trust in the mandate was broken, when these Members from a Single Party monopolise Parliamentary Powers to benefit their own position - in all aspects.
Once these Ministers or Members of Parliament leave Politics, they are as good as NOBODIES, and will not enjoy the same perks available to them as Ministers or Members of Parliament.
How many of the First Generation leaders still enjoy the security and SALARY that once were paid to them ?continuing post by stupidissmart:
I do not believe in the proportion of talent in singapore. I believe in the LACK of people in singapore. Our population r so small yet we have to remain competitive with regards to other bigger countries. Tis is the same case as in Olympics or other bigger sporting events. Countries with bigger population have a bigger advantage over countries with a smaller population. [/quote]
If you believe that there is a lack of talent in Singapore - which the Government has try so hard to make you believe - then there is little I can do to change the self-doubt that you have of yourself.
Four Million People and you still believe 'in the LACK of people in Singapore' ?
I am amaze at the position that you have taken.
Certainly I will agree with you that countries with bigger population can have bigger advantage in terms of selection.
However, it does not explain why China cannot produce better football players with a population size that far outnumber that in Brazil. It does not explain why the USA can have technological leaps and bounds over China and that of India too.
From your statement made, can you give any reason for Singapore being more successful and wealthier then all the other countries in ASEAN, and for a long time even better then China and India - even if combined.continuing post by stupidissmart:
4. [/quote]
Keep counting, if you are able to keep your numbers intact, as well as you have managed the idiosyncratic slant of your thoughts.
Everyone makes 'spelling error', some have a purposefully weak inclination, while others make honest effort in new directions.
Some seems to have a knack for errors that one cannot discern if it is willfully made, or part of a pun - as in 'SENTIMENTS' when the intended meaning was 'SEDIMENTS' .
It takes some ingenious effort to make multiple errors.
Actually 5 in total.
You forgot to keep your counting intact by including the referrals in my next post that return you to this point.
At least this time around you remember to be kinder to yourself.
At least some good came out of this, with your new effort made in cleaning up the jarring mis-spelling that halted one's quick readingcontinuing post by stupidissmart:
So in the end, u not only confirm your stand tat rich people get better at their studies, u also state tat rich people get to win in all event, including fist fights. So poor people will always be losers while rich people be successful in all their endeavours ? I am glad tat people with such a twisted stand r not a majority here.
You try very hard to be clever, but you conveniently forget to consider some KEY WORDS in my post - RICH BACKGROUND.
Is this another mistaken 'typo error' of the mind ?
If a strong person is RICH and can afford vitamins, health food, personal gym equipment, and specialist instructor - do you think he can benefit and IMPROVE his performance OVER a poorer strong person ? Is this not a HEADSTART of the Rich over the Poor ?
[/quote]
Are you so desperate to score points in this exchange that you are willing to grab every little opportunity that come your way ?
Do you not agree that when there is WEALTH alot more opportunity becomes available that the wealthy can CAPITALISE upon ?
Do you think that WITHOUT the wealth that we have in our Reserves, we can continue to have the opportunities that our poorer neighbors do not have ?
Is this still not obvious to you that Singapore is STRONGER than the other ASEAN Country, because we had a HEADSTART or an ADVANTAGE, due to our WEALTH ?
Do you wish to twist this fact and bend it in any other way to help you make your case more convincing ?continuing post by stupidissmart:
First, I got to say u seems to have missed one of my posting on 8th Feb 2004 0152PM.
You are now trying to make a futile justification in the wrong use of my reference, by quoting it 'out of context', to suit your new position from that previously made.
Your use of these persons - who proved you wrong, and that miracles do exist - was to equate them as having supporting staff to help them to be successful; and hence, the Ministers deserve the same supporting staff to be prove their success, and so deserve their high Ministerial Pay.
You fail to note that these MIRACLE MAKERS had STARTED their business as NOBODY and NO SUPPORT.
Your Post on Page 1 08 February 2004 · 01:24 AM:
Isn't "Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Steven Jobs (Apple), Sim Wong Hoo (Creative) and Goi Seng Hui (Tee Yih Jia)" just plainly "attended to by an army of supporting staff "now ? Without tis "army of supporting staff", can they get tat far ?
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=post_display&post_id=1575081
There u will find my stand about your miracles [/quote]
Will address this post when I get through your post of this date. -
continuing post by stupidissmart:
Did we 'mis-connect' before 'disconnect' with our points ?
Initially u say tat minister do not deserve their pay because they r just "helped by a army of staffs". They don't even have to prepare their own speech. Wat I am saying is tat isn't tat wat all high wage earners do ? Your "miracle workers" r all helped by "army of staffs" too now isn't it ? Do u think they prepare their own speech themselves ? Wat is the wrong of using them for tis scenario ? They may have started off as nobody, but so r most minister in singapore too (except for LHL). They started off the same and ended up the same. SO why discirminate them only ?
Your 'miracle' started as A Cleaner - out of a Million - in your first introduction of this analogy - where is the help from an army of staff ?
The successful businessman arrived at where he is - in most cases - SINGLE HANDED and WITHOUT HELP.
Do you think that a Minister become a Minister WITHOUT any help ?continuing post by stupidissmart:
Read carefully. When have I ever SAID tat ?
Now you are taking a DIFFERENT line of argument.
You had previously posted that MINISTERS also MAKE PROFIT OF THE MARKET PLACE.Ministers DO NOT MAKE ANY PROFIT OF THE MARKET PLACE.
Tis is your initial reply. U state tat just because MINISTER do not earn any profit from market, they don't deserve their pay. Well, firemen and police don't earn anything from the MARKET, should they get a pay ? Everyone has an important role to play. Why only reward people tat earn money from market place ? Minister job is not easy, an it has nothing to do with increasing revenues etc. They have a lot of other tasks like MANAGING big organisation like SAF, Police and Civil Defences. DO they not deserve pay ? [/quote]
The unfortunate and more accurate description is that the MINISTERS are parasites to the environment and systems that they imposed onto the Market Place.
It is the BUSINESSMEN that make the PROFIT, which the MINISTERS will TAX, and doing it so efficiently through all kinds of Direct and Indirect Taxes to enlarge the Government Treasury
Firemen and police earn a salary based on their level of wage scale.
The Ministers certainly deserve to be paid a salary, NOBODY deny them this privilege; and they had been paid a sum BEYOND that of ORDINARY Singaporeans, AND far above the requirement to meet the low Cost of Living, or to maintain the SINGAPORE Standard of Living.
BUT they were NOT satisfied - or at least, LKY was NOT.
MINISTERS salary has been pegged to the performance of C.E.O of MNC's - when the MINISTERS do NOT make any profit from the activities of the Market Place.
The ENTIRE GDP Value of Singapore's Economy is equal to only ONE US Giant Corporation, and yet our Ministers are paid wages equal to the C.E.O. of this US Giant Corporation.
Did you forget my previous reply to your post, in which I had stated that the US President has 40 times more power, managing an Economy which maybe 400 times bigger than Singapore's, and governing a population size 40 times bigger than Singapore's; yet his remuneration is only HALF that paid to our PM GCT.? -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Or people tat have tainted eyes tat see only the negative and not the objective. Or people tat blamed all their problem on the Gov and not on themselves or circumstances. [/quote]
This perception depends on the mentality of the reader of this text.
If the reader is gullible, shallow, undiscerning, intelligently handicap, purblind - can one expect the reader to share the same views of others, who has the courage and daring to see the world from a different perspective.
Is this not exactly what our glorified Singapore Government has always been doing, never admitting their own failures, but putting the blames for all the economic hardship on external factors - from the events in the US, EU, UK, China, Japan, Australia and the entire world, except admitting the URA Policies of high land cost, high CPF contributions that lock up a huge portion of our money, high cost of operations that include transport, development, rental, utilities, direct and in-direct taxes.continuing post by stupidissmart:
Wat r u talking about ?!?! I guess u should heed Gov advice tat simple English is good english [/quote]
What would you call those 'Capable People' when given the powers and responsibility - by the remaining 'others soak in rain' - will believe that they can drink champagne, while others continue to soak in rain; and if they feel generous enough to spill a few drops of champagne as rain drops ?
The phrases were yours, and if you cannot figure out what they meant, don't blame it on the English used by Others.
This habit reflect the typical stance of your idols in the Ruling Party methods of blaming the world for every failure in Singapore.
Who did you intend to label with those 'Capable People' ?
Who did you target with the 'others soak in rain' ?
Surely you understand the difference between 'champagne' and your 'champaign' ?continuing post by stupidissmart:
U have mis interprete again. I do not say tat u shouldn't take risk and resign to fates. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sim Wong Hoo, Goi Seng Hui r capable thus deserve the status they r in. If u have the drive, the ability to fulfill your dreams, then go on. Wat I am trying to say is tat in society THERE will always be SUCCESS and FAILURE, RICH and POOR, CAPABLE and the NORMAL. Generally capable and poor people will turn out to be rich thus enjoy their champagne. The Not capable people, even if they r left with a huge forture, will spend it all and left being soaked in the rain. Such is a FACT OF LIFE. [/quote]
Facts of LIFE is what one accept and continue to accept.
If we accept your 'TIS IS A FACT OF LIFE' - Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sim Wong Hoo, Goi Seng Hui and their miracle maker compatriots, would have ALL remained where they had begun and failed, and accept their failures as 'FACT OF LIFE'.
This ATTITUDE and APTITUDE makes the difference between those who believe the difference between smart and stupid, seeing truths as it is and-or denying Reality.
Sorry, but unfortunately - THIS IS THE FACT OF LIFE.
Now your position seems to be different from your previous post in which you had claimed to have stated that for ONE Cleaner - out of ONE Million People - to be successful is a Miracle.
Were you not previously implying that it was not so common to have more then ONE Cleaner becoming successful ?
Compared to your present statement you seem to accept that it is now acceptable that it is 'GENERALLY capable and poor people will turn out to be rich thus enjoy their champagne'.
You insult the abilities of those whom your termed as 'The Not capable people' and that 'even if they r left with a huge forture, will spend it all and left being soaked in the rain. Such is a FACT OF LIFE.'
Do you think that they will remain in the 'rain' if 'they r left with a huge forture (fortune)' ? Do you seriously believe that having gone through the hardship of being poor and desperate they are ignorant of their previous lifestyle and will 'SPEND IT ALL' and to return to 'being soaked in the rain' again ?
Will you be so foolish if you were in the same soaking shoes ?continuing post by stupidissmart:
HAve u visited the Homes for Aged, School of Blind and people tat need daily diaslysis from other countries ? R our homes really in tat bad a condition ? I see them myself when I volunteer and their conditions r as good as Sec or JC. R they really in such poor conditions ? Wat do u expect ? Aircon for the whole building ? [/quote]
Have you visited any Home for the Aged, or Hospices ?
Have you visited the School for the Blind, or Handicapped ?
Have you visited anyone with kidney failures and requiring daily dialysis to continue living ?
Where do you think the capital come from that created GIC and Temasek Holdings ?
Do you believe that the funds in GIC and Temasek Holdings belong to Singapore and Singaporeans, or do they belong separately as INDEPENDENT Enterprises controlled by INDIVIDUALS ?
You certainly excel in jesting with the conditions of those unfortunate, and adopt the arrogance that is the hallmark of the Ruling Party personalities.
It is doubtful if you have visited the poorest of the Homes for the Agedl, or the conditions of the equipment in the School for the Blind, or the Hearing Impaired. Certainly, it is doubtful if you realised that nearly all the Homes for the Aged do not get any direct financial support from the Government.
The Government's policy is to have Profit Centers at each and every Government Departments and Agencies - including the Police Force and the SAF; and if one cannot produce profit, at least be innovative to cut costs.
This has resulted in the wools being pulled over most eyes that subsidies are given to hospital charges for the various Class Wards - when the charges are inflated 'sky high' and then subsidies are shown - much like Department Stores inflating the original prices by 100 Percent, and announce a Discount of 30 Percent.
Big Deal ? The cash payment from the patient is in much larger outlay then what had been paid previously - 5 to 10 years ago.
If the GIC and Temasek Holdings are able to receive all the billion dollar profits from the various GLC's, perhaps a billion a year could be a 'drop from the champagne glass' to provide a rich rainfall to those 'others in the rain'. -
double post -
double post -
I just want to comment on this small area that Abobe had mentioned:
Firemen and police earn a salary based on their level of wage scale.
Being the ministers of the state is very much different from that of a MNC's CEO is because as a minster, your overall objective is that you work for your country while as a CEO, you work for profits of the company. Therefore, the argument about preventing corruption by having ultra high salaries is not justified because if your aim is to earn good money - you should seek your path in private sector instead.
The Ministers certainly deserve to be paid a salary, NOBODY deny them this privilege; and they had been paid a sum BEYOND that of ORDINARY Singaporeans, AND far above the requirement to meet the low Cost of Living, or to maintain the SINGAPORE Standard of Living.
BUT they were NOT satisfied - or at least, LKY was NOT.
MINISTERS salary has been pegged to the performance of C.E.O of MNC's - when the MINISTERS do NOT make any profit from the activities of the Market Place.
The ENTIRE GDP Value of Singapore's Economy is equal to only ONE US Giant Corporation, and yet our Ministers are paid wages equal to the C.E.O. of this US Giant Corporation.
Did you forget my previous reply to your post, in which I had stated that the US President has 40 times more power, managing an Economy which maybe 400 times bigger than Singapore's, and governing a population size 40 times bigger than Singapore's; yet his remuneration is only HALF that paid to our PM GCT.?
My 2 cents.
Cheers -
You are very correct, and this view has been mentioned in many public debate too.Originally posted by Yunhaier:I just want to comment on this small area that Abobe had mentioned:
Being the ministers of the state is very much different from that of a MNC's CEO is because as a minster, your overall objective is that you work for your country while as a CEO, you work for profits of the company. Therefore, the argument about preventing corruption by having ultra high salaries is not justified because if your aim is to earn good money - you should seek your path in private sector instead.
My 2 cents.
Cheers
I avoided stating this, as I do not wish to add more controversy to the limited and already overloaded capacity of S-i-S. -
And if we reduce our saleries of the ministers to a 4-5 figure sum, who do you think will want to be ministers? Hey, it is a money oriented world now. You work for money nowadays, loyalty comes second.