-
the lack of clarity on long-term projected Government income and spending;
-
the lack of consideration of alternative revenue streams and whether there is scope for the reserves to better support and invest in Singaporeans;
-
the lack in details on the effect of the future GST hike on low-income and middle-income Singaporeans and the Government’s permanent GST offset packages.
https://www.facebook.com/yeejj.wp/
Yee Jenn Jong, JJ (余振忠)
Yesterday at 02:00 ·
As a former NCMP, it feels kinda surreal to have a PAP politician ’envy’ the position and allowance of a NCMP.
Perhaps more information is needed about life on the other side in case one thinks the grass is greener there …
The allowance (about $2,000 monthly) is set at about 15% of a MP’s allowance. It is meant to cover expenses for parliamentary work, which a losing PAP candidate will not have to do. Parliament sits for 40-60 times a year. Usually it is 1-3 times a month but during the Budget period, there will be about 2 continuous weeks of sittings commencing from around 11am till 7pm. When there are special bills or motions, there will be additional sittings, each of which can go on for several days.
My fellow NCMP colleagues and I, past and present, have taken pride to have good attendance and participation records. Usually during the intensive budget sitting days, I absent myself nearly completely from my regular work as I make it a point to participate as much as I can in as many of the Committee of Supplies’ (i.e. various ministries) debates. There is also much to research on and we have to be resourceful as access to non-public information of the government is not available to us.
I do not believe the allowance for NCMP was designed by the PAP government to cover grassroots activities; hence NCMP gets 15% of a MP’s allowance. In addition, NCMPs do NOT get any access to facilities in the constituency he/she contested in previously, unlike that of losing PAP candidates.
I have continued my work on the ground even though I am no longer a NCMP, Many of my Party’s colleagues have continued their work on the ground. We do not get the support of the People’s Association, which gets some $1 billion annual allocation from the government’s budget for their work.
PA will work only with PAP MPs and grassroots advisors appointed by the government, which include the losing candidates for the PAP in an opposition ward (But hey, it’s non-partisan, as someone famously said). Any expenses for our work, including food distribution projects for the needier families, have to be raised though our resourcefulness. Thankfully, there are Singaporeans and organisations willing to support, though some do come from our own pockets too. Work are organised by volunteers.
The Elections Department reports to the Prime Minister’s Office. It is fond of giving surprises to the opposition, with short notices for elections and sudden change of boundaries just before elections. Before GE2015, about 6 weeks’ notice was given. Many constituencies had changes, and that which I contested in previously was merged into something much larger. I am not sure what uncertainties PAP candidates have to deal with.
Sometimes it is better to count one’s blessings and then we will realise that there are actually much to be thankful for.
http://www.wp.sg/wp-votes-no-to-the-...-in-2021-2025/
WP votes NO to the announcement of GST hike in 2021-2025
The Workers’ Party MPs voted “no” to the motion that Parliament “approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April 2018 to 31st March 2019” for the sole reason that WP is unable to support the announcement of a GST hike from 7% to 9% in 2021-2025 at this point in time.
We support the Government’s budget strategy and measures for the coming Financial Year, as presented to Parliament. However, the future GST hike is an announcement and not a budget measure. We are unable to support the announcement for three reasons:
We asked the Government to consider other options for raising revenue to meet increased spending. These options included raising the NIRC cap and using a small, capped fraction of land sales proceeds for Budgets. However, the latter was brushed off by the Government.
WP MPs intended to vote “yes” on the budget measures for the Financial Year 2018/2019. However, Minister Heng insisted that voting “yes” would mean WP supports the announced GST hike in the next term of Government in 2021-2025 and called for a division.
It is unreasonable for us to vote for a drastic future tax hike that will financially affect Singaporeans based on inadequate information and justifications on the need for the hike. We therefore voted NO.
The Workers’ Party
1 March 2018
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DisGraceFool
Such a disgracefool and shameful act .
https://forums.$$$$$$$$$$$$.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/%5Bgpgt%5D-another-wp-banner-covered-up-blk-722-victor-lye-banner-5855236.html
[GPGT]: Another WP banner covered up at Blk 722 by Victor Lye banner!
source:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155618399508977&set=p.10155618399 508977&type=3&theater
Is this a great work of art? It’s like the grassroots have to hide existence of WP!
Now everyone in the GRC will know this highly important face!
Saw this other post on fb:
Seems misleading to put up double posters as if he is already the mp. These kinda posters and notifications are everywhere and even occupied 100%of the noticeboard below my block. If the scenario was reversed an a “volunteer “did this in a pap ward, wonder the pap IBs will ripp the wp person to pieces. Here victor just got away with it.
source:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156485792746248&set=p.10156485792 746248&type=3&theater
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kuasimi
http://forums.$$$$$$$$$$$$.com.sg/current-affairs-lounge-17/gerald-giam-how-pap-uses-taxpayer-funded-grassroots-political-gain-3097742.html
http://geraldgiam.sg/2009/10/how-pap...olitical-gain/
How PAP uses taxpayer-funded grassroots for political gain
Not many Singaporeans are aware of how much the taxpayer-funded grassroots have been used by the PAP for political gain.
By Gerald Giam
10 October 2009 | 4,299 Reads | 12 Comments
Last week, Mr Eric Low and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, the PAP MP-aspirants who lost to Workers’ Party’s Low Thia Khiang and SDA’s Chiam See Tong respectively in the last election, grabbed the limelight for themselves by announcing HDB’s decision to upgrade lifts in Potong Pasir and Hougang.
I had written an article questioning why HDB had informed the losing candidates in opposition wards of the upgrading plans.
A Straits Times forum letter writer, Mr Muhammad Yusuf Osman, said it best when he called for the mandate that the residents gave to the elected MPs to be respected.
He asked: “Under what authority did both Mr (Eric) Low and Mr Sitoh (Yih Pin) act as advisers to the grassroots organisations, given that the People’s Association is a government statutory board and should work with the elected MPs of the constituencies?”
In response, HDB and People’s Association replied that “it is the Government’s practice to implement its national programmes for residents through advisers to grassroots organisations who are appointed by the Government to gather feedback from residents.”
They forgot to mention that these “advisers” are always PAP men, whether or not they won the election.
Not many Singaporeans are aware of how much the taxpayer-funded grassroots have been used by the PAP for political gain.
Here’s a quick run down:
The People’s Association (PA), a statutory board under the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, was set up in 1960 to counter the influence of Chinese clan associations and unions on working class Singaporeans.
Like all other stat boards, it receives a yearly grant from the government to run its programmes and cover operational costs. In FY2008, PA received $280 million from taxpayers, and another $23 million in “operating income”. It spent a total of $320 million last year.
However unlike most stat boards, whose chairmen are usually the permanent secretary of the parent ministry or some other senior civil servant, PA’s chairman is none other than the Prime Minister.
The deputy chairman and two other board members are PAP ministers, together with a PAP minister of state, two other PAP office holders and a PAP backbencher. Eight out of the 14 board members are PAP MPs.
No other public sector board in Singapore has so many “Men in White” on it.
The PA oversees all the official “grassroots organisations”, namely the Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCC), Community Club Management Committees (CCMC), Residents’ Committees (RC), Neighbourhood Committees (NC) and the Community Development Councils (CDC).
PA also runs the National Youth Council (NYC) and the People’s Association Youth Movement (PAYM), which reach out to young people.
The de facto leader of all the CCCs, CCMCs, RCs and NCs in each constituency is known as the “adviser to the grassroots organisations (GROs)”.
This adviser is appointed by PA, presumably with the nod of its chairman, the Prime Minister.
In PAP constituencies, PA always appoints the elected MP as the adviser. But in opposition wards, PA appoints the PAP candidate who lost in the last election, not the opposition MP.
The same anomaly is repeated in the CDCs. CDCs have a whole panel of advisers, who are by default the GRO advisers. In South West CDC, where all the component constituencies are under the PAP, it is not surprising that all the advisers are PAP MPs.
But in South East CDC, there is one grinning adviser who is not an MP — Sitoh Yih Pin, the man who lost to Mr Chiam See Tong (SDA) in Potong Pasir. North East CDC also has a non-MP — Eric Low — sitting as adviser.
He lost to Mr Low Thia Khiang (WP) in the last two elections, garnering just 37% of the popular vote in 2006.
Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong are completely excluded from the CDCs.
CDCs, Community Clubs and other GROs often organise events which involve a large number of residents. Most of the time, the guest-of-honour at such events is — you guessed it — the PAP grassroots adviser.
All this effectively denies the opposition MPs access to the whole array of grassroots resources that PAP MPs have easy access to. The opposition MP has to build up his own grassroot network from scratch, while PAP MPs simply inherit the control of the RCs, CCCs and CCMCs.
Most HDB dwellers will be familiar with the notice boards next to the lifts.
These are managed by the RCs, which ensure that residents always aware of who their PAP MPs are by featuring their names and photos prominently on the notice boards.
But in Hougang and Potong Pasir, instead of the elected MP, residents will see the losing PAP candidate’s face on the notice board every day when they go home.
Around the neighbourhood, they will also see huge banners sponsored by PA or the CCC, featuring the losing PAP candidate wishing residents during festive occasions. The Opposition is given no such banner space in PAP wards.
To round it off, the GROs are often the recruiting ground for the PAP during elections.
Many grassroots volunteers are also loyal PAP men and women, who shed their supposed neutrality to don PAP all-whites during the election campaign, serving as supporters, election agents and counting agents for the PAP candidates.
The best thing of all for the PAP is that all these grassroots resources come at zero cost to the party, since it is all paid for by taxpayers — yes including those who voted for the Opposition.
Unlike in other countries where political parties — just like the Opposition here — have to fund their own grassroots activities, the PAP can save its funds to be used during the election campaign.
With all these factors stacked against the Opposition, it is indeed commendable that Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang have managed to hold on to their seats for the past 20 years. The residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang have proven that sincerity and pure hard work on the ground will be rewarded.
Technorati Tags: grassroots, Hougang, People’s Association, Potong Pasir
Related Posts:
Grassroots advisers are not accountable either
Low Thia Khiang: PAP is playing politics
Straits Times questions Ministry’s stand on LUP
Govt concedes argument with WP and Singaporeans
Singaporean taxpayers are footing the bill for PAP losers from previous elections to promote themselves for the next election. It does not make sense and is abuse of taxpayers money. This is why GST need to increase so that PAP and their supporters are well taken care of?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ComplainKing
Do you have any evidence to support what you are saying ???
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...-obike-issues/
On Victor Lye and OBike issues
Published on 2018-06-26 by The Online Citizen
by Willy Sum
As I ponder on the saga and discourse surrounding the People’s Action Party appointed Grassroots losers of each General Election, I can’t help but wonder how much does Singaporeans genuinely know about our lopsided political system for Victor Lye to smoke you and its implication for each successive PAP leaders who have become as “comfortable” as former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak previously was with his unchallenged status quo. All that has of course, changed with an awakened Malaysian electorate!
These PAP “Grassroots Advisors” dominating and controlling government resources in the scene is not new and have stretched as far back as Mah Bow Tan and Andy Gan when they were trying to usurp power from then-Singapore Democratic Party Member of Parliament Chiam See Tong. They were being assisted by the Citizens’ Consultative Committee chairman who in turn, reports to the “Constituency Directors” of each Community Centres located in the ward where the Workers’ Party MPs are disallowed to utilise any of its facilities. I have even seen Alex Yeo meet residents in Kovan CC together with a Ms Jessie Heng when she should really be working with the elected MP of the area! All these are made possible as PM Lee claimed that you the voter, endorsed it, in addition to there being no protest outside Parliament House over this and other hot button issues.
You should start asking yourselves, how is it that unelected political party members are allowed to “meet” residents in a non-political setting and draft letters for them despite having no mandate while even the “best losers” like Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Perera and Dennis Tan are unable to?
The answer lies in the people that are appointed to head the Attorney-General’s Chambers who have repeatedly took or refrain from taking action, in the ruling party’s favour though we know that the law has been infringed! Cases in point: The Cheng San GRC polling centre incident in 1997, the abuse of power in the 38 Oxley saga, the blatant changing of Halimah’s race and inability to challenge the vacancy in Marsiling-Yew Tee although Parliament’s intention was clear of minority representation when it enacted the GRC system which has witnessed several unpopular PAP candidates and losers of previous election being coat-tailed into Parliament!
Which brings me to the second point: Why is it that consumers are currently unable to obtain a refund of their deposits and membership fees from oBike when they absconded the local scene yesterday, pretty much like Uber and LTA, MTI does not seem to assist the affected? Bingo, it lies in the lopsided system!
When you begin witnessing more and more of such issues and can’t help but notice the inaction and rampant injustices, you know what lies ahead if you keep “endorsing” the system. Its eventual collapse will prove devastating when we learn about the truth of the state of affairs in our Country, abet the painful way! However, we can prevent this by voting wisely at the next election, purging some excess PAP MPs from East Coast, Marine Parade, Holland-Bt Timah, Marsiling-Yew Tee etc. and you will then notice real changes to the way we are governed!
p.s. Voters of Aljunied: “if the PAP government do not even listen to their PAP MPs in other wards, what guarantee do you have they’ll listen to your unelected PAP grassroots advisors?”
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...nvestigations/
Lessons for Singapore from the 1MDB investigations
Published on 2018-06-27 by The Online Citizen
by H. M. Ong
Since his electoral victory, Tun Mahathir bin Mohamad has shown the world, including Singaporeans, that he means business and is determined to make good his electoral pledge to raise the standards of living in Malaysia.
One of the many things Singapore could learn from Dr Mahathir’s administration is the political will to combat corruption.
Less than six weeks after taking office, the Malaysian Police’s Commercial Crime Investigation Department announced earlier today that items seized from six premises linked to former Prime Minister Najib Razak’s residences as part of the 1Malaysia Development Berhad probe are valued between RM900 million (S$304 million) and RM1.1 billion (S$371 million).
While he did not suggest that arrests could be made soon, the CCID chief added that his officers have recorded more than 30 statements pertaining to the investigation so far.
Based on Dr Mahathir’s recent comments on the case, it could well be soon before arrests are made.
Across the causeway, the most high-profile saga resembling the 1MDB raids took place last April when Singapore’s Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) raided the offices of several football clubs and the Football Association of Singapore as part of a probe into the alleged misuse of funds at one of the local clubs after Sport Singapore lodged a police report.
The issue centred primarily on the donation of $500,000 to the Asean Football Federation - which FAS claimed was solicited by then President Zainudin Nordin but which the donor disputed. In addition, several of Zainudin’s former colleagues in the FAS council claimed ignorance about the donation. These suggest that Zainudin could have an agenda in soliciting the donation. A deliberate attempt to demonise Zainudin for electoral gains? We don’t know.
But more than 14 months later, there has been no update despite the arrests of high-profile figures in the political, business and sporting arenas.
To be fair, just how complicated this case is as compared to the IMDB saga is known only to the CAD. Moreover, grapevine talk has it that despite some figures (contesting in the April 2017 FAS elections) claiming that they were never told by then-President Zainudin Nordin about the $500,000 donation, evidence have since surfaced which proved that their claims were false.
In other words, some of these candidates who had contested in the April 2017 elections (and who were part of the previous administration of Zainudin Nordin) were aware of the donation. This could well change the direction of the investigation. One can only hope CAD’s delay in bringing this case to the next level is due to the discovery of new evidence.
While it is best to leave the investigations to the CAD, one cannot help but wonder why our Malaysian neighbours and civil servants are able to work more efficiently than us?
The answer is clear: the pressure arising from the political will demonstrated by their top leaders. Dr Mahathir is dead serious about combatting corruption, and I hope Singapore could one day be in a similar situation.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...ir-mouths-are/
Our leaders need to put their money where their mouths are
Published on 2018-06-29 by Ghui
Singapore is indeed a land of contradictions. Depending on the situation or the day, its answers and responses are different in very similar circumstances.
On the one hand, social inequality has been cited as a chief concern in Singapore, while on the other hand, the government seems to take steps, whether unwittingly or otherwise, to strengthen the social divide rather than bridge it.
For instance, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said that Singapore would wither if society was rigid and stratified by class. Yet his government is proposing to increase Goods & Service Tax (GST) rather than income tax. I would not be the first to say that any consumer tax (especially one without exemptions) will always penalise the poor rather than the rich. By increasing GST without exempting basic necessities such as food, you will in effect be burdening the poorer people thereby widening the social chasm.
Further, PM Lee’s wife, Ho Ching, seems to have implied through the sharing of an article that she is of the view that GST has to be increased in order for more aid to be given to the needy. Is that really the case? Why not start by decreasing ministerial salaries or increasing the level of income tax for higher income earners? As a start, why not introduce exemptions on the GST exempting basic items such as food?
To add insult to injury, elected MPs (overwhelmingly PAP members) only have to pay SGD385 per annum for the right to literally park anywhere when everyone else has to fork out more than double that amount just to park at only one vicinity. How is that a social leveler when MPs who are definitely considered high-income earners pay less for more?
Minister Shanmugam has publicly stated that we cannot let inequality erode social cohesion. Why then is there evidence of policies that enhance divides rather than narrow the gaps?
Then, there is Minister Ng Eng Hen declaring that he would like Singapore to be a place for the free exchange of divergent ideas when incidences in how local dissenters have been treated is anything but encouraging of the free flow of differing opinions.
What of the constant refrain of Singapore being a meritocracy when there are arguably impressions (whether unwittingly or otherwise) of nepotism?
For a country’s political leaders to earn trust, they cannot be so confused in the message they are sending out. Put your money where your mouth is.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...d-get-monkeys/
Is it possible to pay top dollar and get monkeys?
Published on 2018-06-30 by The Online Citizen
by Augustine Low
Conventional wisdom says that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys, and the more executives are paid, the better they perform.
Not so, according to many studies. The most comprehensive study so far was undertaken by corporate-governance research firm MSCI which summarises its findings this way: “Has CEO pay reflected long-term stock performance? In a word, ‘no.’”
In the United States, one hundred dollars invested in the 20% of corporations with the highest paid CEOs would have grown to $265 over the study’s 10-year window. Meanwhile, $100 invested in the companies overseen by the lowest paid CEOS would have increased to $367.
In Singapore, the picture is no different, perhaps even worse. Management consulting firm Korn Ferry Hay conducted a study which showed that salaries of Singapore CEOs are starkly not aligned with performance.
“Pay-for-performance alignment between a CEO’s pay and the company’s profitability continues to be an issue,” said the management consultancy in a report last September.
It found that some CEOs still received bonuses when their companies were in the red, while others were paid fatter bonuses even when the company’s profits had shrunk.
What does that say about the situation at government-linked corporations (GLCs) which are known to pay top dollar to top executives?
One striking example is Neptune Orient Lines (NOL). It was reported that the company lost more than $1.5 billion while it was under the charge of former general Ng Yat Chung. To stem the losses, Temasek was forced to sell NOL to a French company in 2016.
How much did Ng receive for running NOL to the ground? A whopping $16 million at the very least, according to reports.
All he would say about the sale of NOL was: “Personally, it would be strange not to feel a little bit of regret, a tinge of this ‘sayang’ feeling.”
To rub salt into the wound, NOL turned profitable within one year of the sale to French group CMA CGM.
Now, the same Ng Yat Chung is doing his thing as CEO of Singapore Press Holdings, whose stock price has been hovering at a multi-year low.
There is a similar case to be made for other controversy-ridden GLCs such as SMRT and Keppel Corp. Not to mention Temasek where transparency is thin and the salary of its CEO, Ho Ching, is a closely guarded secret.
Now, how does everything we’ve discussed square with the notion that making our politicians and top civil servants the world’s highest paid would bring the best results for Singapore and there is no other option to ensure success?
You be the judge of that.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...e-performance/
International columnist: PAP’s high Ministerial salaries cannot be justified given their mediocre performance
Published on 2018-06-30 by Kwok Fangjie
https://international.thenewslens.com/article/98785
Writing for international website The News Lens on Friday (29 Jun), columnist Justin Hugo opined that the high ministerial salaries for PAP leader cannot be justified given their mediocre performance.
“After living in a bigger country, it is very difficult for me to wrap my head around the logic of [the People’s Action Party] that its Prime Minister and Ministers should be paid such high salaries”.
Economic Growth and City slicking
Hugo noted that the IMF projected Singapore’s economic growth for 2018 to be 2.9%, which was the same as New Zealand’s and slightly below Australia’s 3.0%. Yet the leaders of these 2 countries - Jacinda Arden and Malcolm Turnbull – are US$340,000 and $528,000 respectively.
He also drew a comparison to Luxembourg’s economic growth at 4.3%, or 1.5 times higher than Singapore’s.
Noting that their Prime Minister Xavier Bettel earns US$278,000 a year, Hugo asked if it was fair that Bettel “is presiding over a country forecast to grow 1.5 times faster than Singapore, yet [Lee Hsien Loong] pays himself nearly six times the salary?”.
Hugo then pointed to the Global Power City Index 2017, which evaluates and ranks the world’s major cities in relation to their ability to attract businesses and individuals. He noted that London was ranked first, followed by New York and Tokyo. Singapore was ranked fifth in the Index.
Hugo noted these cities “have two to five times the GDP of Singapore, yet the Singapore prime minister earns more than six to 12 times that of the London mayor, the New York City mayor and the Tokyo governor”.
Has high salaries brought about socio-economic progress?
Noting that the Ministerial formulae said that political “salaries should also be linked to the individual performance of political appointment holders, and the socio-economic progress of Singapore Citizens", Hugo asked if Singapore’s socio-economic progress is ten times that of its counterparts.
He highlighted that Singapore “spending on social protections among the lowest in developed countries. If taken as a percentage of GDP [it] is less than half of that spent in South Korea and five times less than that allocated in Japan”.
“Why is the government intent on lining its own pockets rather than putting that money to work for the as many as 35 percent of Singaporeans living in relative poverty?” Hugo asked.
“In short, the whole twist of logic and propaganda that the Singapore government uses to feed their own addiction to high salaries can only be called one thing - bullshit, as Malaysia’s new prime minister Mahathir would say”.
Hugo then concluded that “PAP has only helped themselves with the country’s money to pay themselves high salaries, while leaving unaddressed Singapore’s gaping income gap”.
Does high ministerial salaries deter corruption?
Hugo also debunked PAP’s reasoning for paying high ministerial salaries would prevent corruption. This is because “If [ordinary] Singaporeans are not paid the highest salaries, then by the PAP’s logic, Singapore should be riddled with corruption”.
Taking a look at other counties such as Germany and Taiwan, Hugo asked “if these countries are able to maintain a low level of corruption without paying their ministers such inflated salaries, what does that say about Singapore’s ministers – that they need high salaries to prevent them from being corrupt?”
He concludes that if “If the PAP insists that high salaries should simply be paid to them to prevent corruption, even as the economy performs similarly to other countries, then we are in effect giving out free money" to PAP politicians.
https://www.facebook.com/chris.kuan....44664485723641
Chris Kuan
30 June at 10:33 ·
NTUC proposes member to be NMP? Not that NMP means much but if you want an NMP to go missing in action, yeah go ahead let NTUC to have an NMP. Juz look at the teacher car park charging farrago and the deafening silence from union, you gotta ask what is the point of it all.
Now I would be the first to admit that peaceful labour relationship is very important but if labour is completely neutered (or co-opted by a government that is friendly to business), then we have nasty consequences like poor job protection, wage stagnation and erosion of benefits.
Weak labour unions also protect bad management and bad management practices lead to stuff like poor productivity and over reliance on cheap labour.
Aggressive unions are bad, so are pussycat ones. For industry to prosper, there must be a certain amount of tension or friction in labour relationship.
Without the necessary tension or friction, tripartite approach only makes life easier for business / management and the government and that means labour has to lose out. Just look at the teachers, who in position of power and responsibility is really speaking up for them.