- She is from the PAP.
- It is a privilege for Singaporean Sons to serve National Service. Being a Minister of State, on the other hand, is a thankless job.
- Because National Service is its own reward.
- Because Full-time National Servicemen get paid such a miniscule derisory amount it doesn’t even matter.
- She is the bulwark against any invasive force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nitecrawllerr
I have this question. Msia had been charging Spore 3 sens till today. How come lightning keep increasing our water bills? Poor sillyporeans. Ka ki ciak kaki lang!
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...-lim-guan-eng/
Malaysia had just avoided “financial Armageddon” after GE14: Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng
Published on 2018-06-27 by The Online Citizen
In an interview with The Malaysian Insight published on Jun 22, Finance Minister of Malaysia, Lim Guan Eng said that the nation “had just avoided financial Armageddon” through the timely change of government in the 14th General Election on May 9.
Lim was quoted as saying that had Barisan Nasional managed to stay in power under the leadership of former Prime Minister Najib Razak for even one more term, Malaysia’s debt could have risen to RM3 trillion, an amount that would have been beyond the government’s capacity to repay.
“Look at the way the money was spent? Look at the bags of cash, jewellery, super yachts,” Lim told The Malaysian Insight, justifying his prediction of the RM3 trillion debt.
In a press conference in Putrajaya on May 22, Lim announced that Malaysia’s debt has surpassed RM1 trillion.
This is in stark contrast to the figure of RM686.8 billion given by the former Barisan Nasional administration.
Lim had reportedly said that the RM1 trillion debt as of Dec 31 last year included RM686.8 billion in Federal government debt, plus RM199.1 billion of government guarantees to be paid on behalf of entities that were unable to service their debts, including RM42.2 billion for Danainfra Nasional Bhd, RM26.6 billion for Prasarana Malaysia Bhd, and 38 billion ringgit for 1MDB.
The RM1 trillion figure also includes various leases for private and public projects such as school construction, police station, road-works and others amounting to RM201.4 billion.
There were also several “mini-1MDBs” where the government is paying the debts of companies that it guaranteed, he said. These debts amount to between RM500 million and RM1 billion.
“Some of these companies had no financial resources any more, so all the expenses were taken over by the government or the government has to pay for loans that these companies took out,’ according to Lim.
The Pakatan Harapan government has also decided to halt large-scale infrastructure projects, including a high-speed rail link between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, as a means to reduce government expenditure in the meantime.
In response to the Finance Minister’s statement in his interview with The Malaysian Insight, a netizen under the pseudonym of Ckone J commented:
“If BN won GE14, Malaysia would have a similar fate to Venezuela which coincidentally also had sham election right after Malaysia GE14. The only difference was that the ruling party won again. Maduro used all kinds of dirty tactics including barring key opposition figures from contesting. The ruling party had spent frivolously immediately after Chavez’s win in 1999. As a result, the country became saddled with huge debts and began defaulting on its obligations when oil price tanked in 2014. The country is a huge mess right now: people had to queue for hours just to buy toilet paper, the currency became almost worthless, there is no basic medicine, prices of everyday goods went up 5000+% annually for years due to hyperinflation, social order has broken down completely with rampant crime and people are leaving in droves. This is an example of what could happen if BN had won again. A Malaysia totally destroyed and Malaysians forced to migrate overseas to make a living. Malaysia would become a failed state where the rule of law no longer applies. […] Let this be a reminder for all Malaysians of the independence of free and fair elections and the separation of powers between all branches of government. The next time a Najib or Maduro type of politician appearing in Malaysia, [he] would likely be much more smarter and cunning, having learnt the lesson of GE14 and therefore be much harder to remove. The changes made to ensure our democratic systems are robust must be enshrined in the Constitution […] This is crucial!”
Julia Yeow, in her think-piece for The Malaysian Insight, “The view from across the Causeway”, dated Jun 25, echoes the Finance Minister’s sentiments about the possible consequences of the re-election of the previous Barisan Nasional administration:
“Just months before the 14th general election, Singapore’s ambassador-at-large Bilahari Kausikan said in an interview that he “should certainly hope Barisan Nasional and Prime Minister Najib (Razak) are returned” to power, but conceded the election results were “not my business”.
Mr Bilahari, who is policy adviser to Singapore’s ministry of foreign affairs, said while Singapore was ready to work with whoever takes charge of Malaysia, “it would “be easier to deal with some kinds of government”.
I’ll not try to make any inference as to why Mr Bilahari would think that a corrupt, kleptocratic government would be easier to deal with, but the fact is that while Najib might have been good for Singapore, his re-election would have guaranteed many more years of a Malaysia mired in racial politicking and unconstrained corruption.
[…]
In less than two months, we have already sought to trim down the excesses of the previous government, reviewed lopsided domestic monopolies and foreign deals, and reopened investigations into major financial scandals that have handicapped our country for years.
It will be many years before Malaysia can recover from the crippling effects of wastage, corruption and inefficiency, but make no mistake that we will.”
Nation fund-raising effort on reducing debt
Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad announced the setting up of Tabung Harapan Malaysia (THM) on 30 May as a legitimate channel through which Malaysians could contribute voluntarily towards reducing the country’s debts, according to The Star Online.
Economist and Chairman of Centre for Public Policy Studies, Ramon Navaratnam was quoted by MalaysiaGazette in response to THM as saying that “the country is not bankrupt yet,” and that national debt is the government’s responsibility, and it should not be extended to the people.
However, RHB Research Institute Sdn Bhd Chief Asean Economist Peck Boon Soon remarked, in a statement to Bernama on Jun 16, that Malaysia is not the first country to have a national crowd-funding initiative to alleviate the nation’s debt, as South Korea had initiated a similar campaign during the Asian Financial crisis in 1997 and 1998.
Collections for Tabung Harapan Malaysia (THM) have since surpassed the RM100mil mark, less than a month since it was launched.
A total of RM108.2 million has been collected as of 3pm on Jun 25, according to New Straits Times Online.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...oreigners-are/
Singaporeans not permitted dual nationality but foreigners are
Published on 2018-06-27 by Ghui
I note that Briton, Sir Andrew Witty was made an honourary citizen* of Singapore for his contributions to the pharmaceutical industry. While I am glad that individuals regardless of their race or nationality are being honoured for their contributions, I wonder if that is fair to Singaporeans who are not permitted to hold dual nationality?
Witty has been conferred this special status after having only spent 4 years in Singapore (1999-2003). While he may well have contributed significantly to Singapore, is it just that Singaporeans by birth don’t get a similar right if the roles were reversed?
For example, if a Singaporean living in Britain were to be conferred honourary British citizenship, he or she would have to give up their Singaporean citizenship just to accept this honour.
If Singapore does not permit its citizens to hold dual nationality, it should not be conveying this right on the citizen of another country. After all, if the recipient of such an award accepts the honour, he or she would become Singaporean which would in turn mean that the laws of Singapore would apply.
In other words, he or she should have to renounce their other citizenship to accept Singapore citizenship, It doesn’t seem equitable that Singaporeans have to renounce their Singaporean citizenship in order to be citizen of another country while a foreigner does not have to do so.
If Singapore wants to give out this award, it should then permit its citizens the right to hold dual nationality as well.
The issue of dual nationality has been raised a number of times and I understand from reports that Singapore is worried that permitting dual nationality would affect a Singaporean’s sense of belonging. I strongly disagree.
By forcing Singaporeans to choose, you are in effect alienating them. In our globalised world, the issue of dual nationality really shouldn’t be that controversial. If Singapore wants to be known as a first world country, it needs to give its citizens the same trappings as other first world citizens. The right to hold 2 passports would be among those rights.
While I congratulate Witty on his award, it rankles that we are not all treated fairly. Surely if someone who has only spent 4 years in the country can have the privilege of dual nationality then this right should similarly be accorded to all Singaporeans should they qualify for citizenship in another country.
*Honorary Citizen is the highest form of national recognition for a non-Singaporean. It is conferred for life, including the right to live and work in Singapore for themselves as well as their immediate dependent family members, but unlike Singapore citizenship, they have no voting rights or obligations to fulfill National Service.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...fake-news-act/
Malaysia promises to repeal current Anti-Fake News Act
Published on 2018-06-29 by Neyla Zannia
The controversial Anti-Fake News Act 2018 (AFN Act) of Malaysia is set to be repealed in its first Parliament sitting after its 14th General Election on 16 July.
This is according to a letter dated June 11 by Amran Mohamed Zin, the ambassador and permanent representative of Malaysia to the United Nations office and other international organisations in Geneva.
Mr Amran wrote the letter in reply to David Kaye, the UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, who raised his concern on 3 April this year.
The ambassador wrote, “I wish to inform you that the new government of Malaysia has decided to repeal the Anti-Fake News (AFN) Act. The process to do so has already begun, and a specific proposal is expected to be tabled during the upcoming parliamentary session beginning on 16 July.”
Kaye wrote to Putrajaya urging them to reject the legislation process just one day after the Dewan Rakyat passed the AFN Act, saying that the legislation did not appear to comply with the international human rights standards on freedom of expression.
The new ruling party Pakatan Harapan had earlier pledged to revoke the AFN Act in its first 100 days of taking over Putrajaya.
DAP Iskandar Puteri MP Lim Kit Siang had proposed that the media help draft a new anti-fake news law after the current one is repealed, adding that the decision was taken after some editors in the UK had agreed with the anti-fake news law.
As Malaysia sets out to repeal the highly controversial legislation passed by the Najib administration, Singapore is setting out to formulate and pass its own law to combat “fake news” which is said to be in the coming year.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...-2-weeks-jail/
Former Chief Engineer Officer COL Kek still has SMRT job waiting for him after 2 weeks’ jail
Published on 2018-06-29 by Correspondent
It was reported in the news yesterday (28 Jun) that SMRT Trains chief operations officer COL (NS) Alvin Kek Yoke Boon has been sentenced to two weeks’ jail and a fine of $4,000 for drink driving, two months after he was arrested at Woodlands Checkpoint
.
COL Kek came from SAF. In 2009, as the Deputy Assistant Chief of the General Staff (Operations Planning), he won a Public Administration Medal (Bronze) for his superior performance in his work. He was later promoted to become the Chief Engineer Officer of SAF and in 2011, he was also awarded the State Medal for his 25 years of service in the SAF.
After LG Desmond Kuek took over from Saw Phaik Hwa as SMRT chief in 2012, he brought in many former SAF men such as Lee Ling Wee, a former Air Force regular who was appointed as SMRT Trains CEO, and COL Kek who became the Director of Train Operations. But Kuek and his team seemed unable to resolve the perennial issue of train service breakdowns.
At the time when COL Kek left the SAF for SMRT, SAF paid tributes to him, “Under his (Kek’s) leadership, the Engineer Formation achieved and operationalised many new capabilities and platforms such as the Leopard 2 Armoured Vehicle-Launched Bridge and Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat, and successfully organised the National Day Parade in 2011.”
COL Kek: I drink because my dad recently passed away
During the court hearing, it was revealed that COL Kek was having drinks with his colleagues at the Temasek Club at Rifle Range Road at about 11pm on April 20. Temasek Club is the SAF Officers’ Club for both active and retired SAF officers. Its purpose is to promote “greater cohesion and interaction among the Officers”.
In his defence, COL Kek said he drank because his father had recently passed away.
He left Temasek Club at about 2.30am and drove in the direction of Woodlands, ending up at Woodlands Checkpoint at 2.55am on April 21.
He told an Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) officer there that he had entered the checkpoint by mistake and had no intention of leaving Singapore.
The ICA officer suspected that he had been drinking as he “reeked of alcohol” and instructed him to alight from the car before escorting him to an office for a breath test. He was found to have 65 micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath, nearly double the limit of 35 micrograms, and was arrested on the spot accordingly.
However, this was not the first time he was caught drink-driving. In court, it was revealed that he had previously been convicted of another drink driving offence in 2004 while he was still serving in the SAF. Furthermore, he also had several other driving-related offences, including using his mobile phone while driving in 2015 and failing to conform to a red-light signal in 1999.
In a statement to the media, COL Kek said, “I deeply regret the incident and would like to assure everyone that I will not drink and drive again.”
Suspension from work
When asked by the media about his employment status, SMRT’s vice-president of corporate communications Margaret Teo would only say, “Alvin has been suspended from work.
"
So, technically, suspension from work means COL Kek will still have his SMRT job back when he is released from jail later. In this regard, COL Kek is considred lucky to still have a high-paying job waiting for him despite his conviction and upon his release from prison.
Blogger Roy Ngerng, sued by PM Lee, was not so lucky. Back in 2014, Roy was sacked by Tan Tock Seng Hospital for “conduct incompatible with the values and standards” of the hospital and for “misusing hospital computers and facilities for personal pursuits”.
The hospital issued a public statement at the time, “TTSH has terminated its contract with Mr Roy Ngerng with immediate effect because of conduct incompatible with the values and standards expected of employees, and for misusing working time, hospital computers and facilities for personal pursuits.”
Since COL Kek was not sacked like Roy, one can only assume that SMRT must have condoned his drink-driving conduct. It’s not known if SMRT would likewise allow its train drivers to drink and drive while driving trains in SMRT.
What do you think?
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...arpark-permit/
Barrage of angry comments posted in response to Singapore MPs’ $365 annual carpark permit
Published on 2018-06-27 by Neyla Zannia
It was revealed on Monday that Elected Members of Parliament (MPs) pay S$365 for an annual permit that allows them to park at Housing & Development Board (HDB) car parks when doing constituency work and at Parliament House when on official business.
This is according to the Ministry of National Development (MND) who noted that the rate is a proportion of the prevailing HDB season parking rate since MPs do not park overnight or full day at their constituencies, adding that the permit fee was increased from S$260 in 2016.
In response to this revelation, many online readers took to the comment section and expressed their disagreement regarding the policy.
Some of our readers commented on our Facebook page.
Clarkson Lim wrote, “Citizens should also be allowed to buy an annual HDB season parking for a year at $365 irregardless of estate. Why so special? This country will still be running with or without you guys. Don’t you guys realise this FACT?!? You guys are the servants of the people, you are paid by the people. You are not above the law. Everyone should be able to have this too. Why the double standard again?!?”
Goh Rayson wrote, “Teachers don’t park overnight too. Ownself-checkmate-ownself! If MPs cannot afford to pay for parking while discharging their duties, don’t drive! There’s always Ofo and Mobike even though Obike has ceased operations.”
Tan Elvin wrote, “Using taxpayers money for their own privilege and some more cover up until someone dig it up. I think there are many more things cover up that are not known to the citizens. Very dirty government.”
Meyer Tan wrote, ‘Goes to show they are unaware how much normal citizens are paying per annum for their season parking at their car park, let alone how much more parking charges a normal citizens are paying in public car parks, to justify their bragging about MPs are also fairly paying for $365/annum for all/any public car parks on this island."
Melvin Tong wrote, “Give all civil servant Singaporeans a choice to buy this $365 at all HDB parking rates la. You MP being civil servant, why different treatment? Where is your self discipline?!”
Dilys Tan wrote, “It’s $1 per day rate vs $3 per day rate for the public. They are being paid $$$$$ to do their constituency work, so why is there a need to give them concession parking rates ? Double standard, still dare to defence, disgracefoo. They are just “elected officials” paid to carry out their duties, they are not “gods” or “emperors”! Self-entitlement & self-important. Not happy just resign.”
Thephilus Tan-Hen Wei wrote, “Earn more than $10,000, but only pay $365 per year for all kind of carparks. I earn $2,000 a month and have to pay $1080 per year only for open carpark.
So I conclude that I am more rich and generous in a poor way. Thanks them for creating this environment that make us look like a kuku.”
Muhammad Fadli wrote, “We should also have such package. Some/most of us worked from morning till night. Practically, that’s not even a full day parking.”
Peter Yow wrote, “They get elected & then becomes the master?? When the real pay master is the citizens!!! Does that make any simple sense???!!!”
Walter Gan wrote, “So most of my time I don’t park full-day at my HDB block. They should not charged full season rate as it becomes double standard since these MP only use min hours. So why should residents be paying full season rates.”
Heli Hob Poh wrote, “What is new? They have all the hidden privileges and we are all open to pay till pants drop!”
Tomy Tan wrote, “Teachers and those affected, vote wisely at next GE.”
Angeline Lee wrote, “MPs get a discount for parking when doing constituency work. All the volunteers “eat 西北风”?”
The netizens also went to comment on Channel NewsAsia’s Facebook page.
Sui Jin wrote, “Teachers also don’t work overnight. What are these policy makers thinking?”
Dawn Choi wrote, “Ermmm… Excuse me, I also do not park overnight and full day at my workplace, why I pay $1320 and not $365 annually, huh?”
Christina Loke wrote, “Why MP pay so little and their salary so super high?”
Reddot Ng wrote, “Our government is getting greedier by the days.”
Fei Chen wrote, “People also do not park their cars in HDB car parks all day long. In addition, they have to pay additional parking fees when they park their cars in another HDB car park.
What a nonsense excuse. In fact, what is the need for this explanation which draws negative views from public.”
Lin Weixiong wrote, “I don’t always stay at home too, can have 70% discount for my flat?”
Victor Lee wrote, “What rubbish they saying. I pay for two season parking when I got one car only. Just to visit parents. I don’t stay overnight also what. Rubbish excuses.”
Darryl Kang wrote, “$365 per year. That’s $1 per day for unlimited parking at HDB carpark (excluding overnight). Where do you find such good rates? So can teachers apply for such parking arrangement too?”
Georgina Lee wrote, “So Teachers park full day and overnight at their school’s carpark?!”
Tony Teng wrote, “Why can’t MPs use the parking coupons like everyone else. What’s so special about their cars, do their cars occupy less space?”
Adrian Adrian wrote, “It’s a mere small amount of money for these MPs to pay, instead of raising so much unnecessary awareness towards unfair policy. Just pay the full amount like normal people and continue with your life. Is that too much to be asking for? Sometime it’s not we looking for trouble, instead it’s you that is creating access for us to find trouble. Genius!”
Wen Kai wrote, “Doing MPS & going to Parliament House is their job! We go to work, park in our office tower carpark also need to pay full fee. We also don’t stay overnight also.”
Teo Rodney BK wrote, “Which driver actually park full time even they pay full price for it?? Teacher? Office workers? This excuse is totally flawed. Those paying full price should voice their protests. Part time MP, half price parking and full time pay. Chiak liao liao, chiak gao gao.”
Dylan Poh wrote, “AGO don’t dare to challenge MND? AGO, please wake up your idea! You want to eliminate hidden subsidies, please do so across the board.”
And here what some of them wrote on The Straits Times’ Facebook page.
Leonard Low wrote, “We pay $90 per month $1080 a year for season parking which we only use at night after a hard days work. We should also be allowed to park at any HDB by paying this amount as flat fee. If we can pay what is it to million dollar salary people.”
Bernard Low wrote, “When come to salary allowance in Singapore, our MP has to be paid market rate in order to match market. But when they buy parking, they enjoy the way below market rate and no market price can match. Do not know what logic is this.”
Say Thye Ng wrote, “Perhaps Teachers can pay $1 per day for parking in school, since they don’t park their cars in school the whole day and they don’t park overnight either. Most Teachers also don’t park their cars in school on most Sunday and public holidays and school holidays.”
Priscilla Chin wrote, “MP should pay market rate if they need to park their car. We are paying them market rate for their salary.”
Siah Jin Kim wrote, “Other vehicles also don’t park overnight at their workplaces. What kind of reasoning is this?”
Eric Lee wrote, “If MP pay is “market rate” then please pay the same parking rate as Singaporean. The same logic that apply to teacher quoted by minister should be apply to MP.”
Vince Koh wrote, “Now some Government workers who earn a fraction of what the MP are earning are paying. $110 season parking + $90 Workplace = $2400/year. Some even need to pay for 50% season at parent place $55/monthly Cannot believe the scholars came out with this explanation and expect us to digest it.”
Harbhajn Singh wrote, “By that logic, any delivery van or lorry should be entitled to the same consideration. They go all over the island but do not park all day or night. Shame.”
Bar Boo wrote, “What kind of logic is this? I am paying open car park HDB at S$960 per year (S$80 per month) and can only park at one miserable carpark at my place. This Government is just not working.”
Rash Rasheed wrote, “Since it is not a whole day parking, charged hourly. Isn’t it this is what citizen are charged? Car parks are not specially provided for you. School compound are not for public yet teacher have to pay for it. Talking of clean wage. Be fair! Don’t prata here and there to suit ownself.”
John Han wrote, “What a joke seriously. Even Sundays, parking also not free now, there are no shopping malls around. Everything also money. I don’t park my car whole day too. So why am I being charged $110 monthly?
And MPs pay only $365 per year?!”
Steven Goh Robo wrote, “While its good to come clean and clear, but sometime, I wonder do they ever consider the consequences of making such report or announcement? Wouldn’t they realise such matter will definitely draw flakes and negative sentiments from almost every sectors? Justification? Just because they don’t park there the whole day?! Seriously? Who would buy a car or vehicle then park at car park 24/7? Not even the OPCs does that. They should have thought of a better justification than this.”
Carol Tay wrote, “The more they attempt to justify themselves, the worse they make themselves look. What happened to the social inequality that 4G is trying to address? They receive special treatment because they are MPs. Just admit it. Period.”
Bernard Wee wrote, “I also do not park all day or overnight for my routine works and to visit my parent over weekends. Can I enjoy the same rate too?”
Jimmy Tang wrote, “To justify, they can always come up with millions of excuses . Take the expensive rubbish chute for example. Kbkb so much for what. I say when the time comes, just do what you think is right lor.”
Zhang Huixuan wrote, “The newspaper seriously not shy to publish this kind of news? Make teachers pay market rate for parking in schools then tell us MPs pay only $1 each day when they are earning millions. Which is tax paper money by the way. Really not pain when they slap themselves on the face?”
Sheliyan Shativelu wrote, “Personally i wish election can call as soon as possible so that we can have someone with a heart and brain to serve the nation. Really tired of PAP and their excuses. Wanna see how these so called highly educated and great souls fair in theprivate sector. Hmmm. Wonder which private sector grab our exceptionally talented George Yeo with the multi million dollar salary intact?”
Phillip Lim wrote, “Collected $16K per month in allowance which is to compensate them for expenses like these.
But ended up got a better deal by paying only $365 per year.”
Goh Beng wrote, “They earn a gargantuan pay check and yet they pay only $1 for parking everyday and have access not only to parliament but also HDB estate. What is self discipline cited?”
Seetoh CF wrote, “Teachers also don’t park overnight. Sometimes only half a day. The government is digging themselves into a bigger hole with the clean wage policy.”
Fan Teoh Hung Martin wrote, “Does it means they don’t park elsewhere? Where did they pay parking? Unless their car is at home and they take public transport. They want to 算够够, we also 算够够. They don’t understand the concept of give and take. You make eveything rigid things can’t move. Things have to flow like water in the river. Anyway all these idiots will not understand.”
Tony Chan wrote, “Those school teachers/poly/ite also never park full day. Why charge full? Family season ticket also never park whole day. Why charge full? I also never park whole day, also pay full.”
Lee Philip wrote, “Don’t make sense. There is such thing as hourly parking. I don’t park whole day and I pay by hourly parking in all HDB car parks. No exception please.”
Bar Boo wrote, “National Development Agency - NONSENSE remarks - “don’t park all day or overnight”. The fact remains they can chose topark all day or overnight if they chose to. Just look at all the great HDB parking places in Singapore (covered or open). They have so much flexibility for $365 per year while I have ZERO flexibility and I pay $960.00 per year. Don’t make us even more upset with your nonsense comments. You identify yourself and bring this up for debate. Even RC members have the privilege of parking in any car park in their neighborhood. This is why my neighbor (RC member) drive to the market just opposite our block because no need to carry groceries “from so far away” since she is entitled to park there. She even encouraged me to join the RC. I see red with this huge gap ($365 versus my $960).”
Aaron Ong wrote, “Wah I park at Hdb go watch movie also not full day sia. Plus I contribute more to the economy by spending money. Why I no $1 parking sia.”
Teh Hong Low wrote, “People doing sales run around and never park for long in the same place. They should be entitled to the same fee, paying $365 a year for parking.”
Leonard Hew wrote, “I’m already paying S$900 yearly just to park at my HDB car park and it’s only limited to the car park at my house. If we go other car park we pay additional and if never put coupon kena summon. I go other ministries if needed also need to pay. This is total rubbish. Earning so much more than common people, but many times lesser than common people. Now even teachers in school pay more than any of the ministers do. What makes them so different!? What rubbish is this?”
Ah JeCK wrote, “I wonder if anyone park his car at HDB whole day everyday? Like that why buy car?”
Here is what some of them wrote on Mothership.
Michael Tok wrote, “MND said in its statement: “The rate is a proportion of the prevailing HDB season parking rate since MPs do not park overnight or full day at their constituencies.”
More realistically it’s actually saying that the MPs don’t really spend a lot of time at their constituencies so why ask them pay so much?”
Muhd Haikal wrote, “Those 70% better do not kaopeh. U vote for 70% then you deserve. So better vote wisely for the next GE.”
Daniel Sim wrote, “When the Government imposed carpark charges for teachers, I commented that it will open cans of worms; let the worms start to come out!”
Lee Lai Lai Amy wrote, “I can’t help feeling that these politicians are here to have privileges instead of helping the people! The rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer!”
Jovan Neo wrote, “And Teachers are paying $720 annually to park in schools? Pretty ridiculous.”
Michael See wrote, “Wayang too much. Now deep rooted into the policy making. All worms start crawling. My goodness with the money you people make still do calculating over HDB parking.
What about people who struggle to make ends meet but yet have to paid normal rate. Isn’t it the same one car can occupied one lot why we cannot park at all carpark w one season ticket?? So in Singlish, what talk you about inclusive society?”
Lynn Yining wrote, “Remember the viral comment by one of the MP’s kid? “Get out of my elite uncaring face”? Well, that’s how it is. Everyone can make noise but doubt there will be any change.”
David Lee wrote, “IRAs keeps quiet on discounted car park to MPs huh. If the rate is not a market rate, a deemed market rate should be used for tax reporting.”
Pawana Wind wrote, “Teachers creates future leaders but yet have to pay more. Likewise MP work for people if you analyzed in depth both work for people but yet treated differently.”
Vicki Chan wrote, “Elected MPs also have the biggest salaries so they can afford to pay more instead of enjoying the “perks”. With they salaries they can afford to pay 100 dollars a day at the carpark and not feel any pinch.”
JoAnne Lee wrote, “Earn so much still so cheap carpark for them. Shouldn’t it be the other way round? They pay more for parking and we get $1/day parking?”
Boon Kean wrote, “Can we extend this to our teachers? I rather to see teachers get this privilege cause I see more of teachers than MPs.”
Edwin Kwan wrote, “But part time CCA Instructors at schools pay full or proportionate ? What about CCC, RC members ?”
Winson Tan wrote, “Singaporeans have always know that PAP elites enjoy extra benefits besides high pay. And this has proven to be true.”
Cedric Hoon wrote, “The MPs can afford to pay normal rate. Though not comparing the same thing. Parking concession to be given to teacher instead. MPs should have the integrity to opt out and voluntarily pay the norm rate. Collect these excess money and give to the needy community. My worthless opinion.”
Yap Kw Steve wrote, “Are the private cars of MPs considered as Public service vehicles? Why are they accorded this privilege?”
Matthew Chua wrote, “Earning so much of an obscene amount and yet pay less than ordinary citizens. What kind of leadership is this?”
https://www.facebook.com/chris.kuan....45304398992983
Chris Kuan
1 July at 02:34 ·
Edwin Tong saying that he has “seen experiences of the Western countries where the more you give, the more one asks and I think that’s really the start of the erosion of the work ethic that Singaporeans have.”
One assumes that Western workers are all lazy, incorrigible scroungers and western countries have lousy work ethic. Then how come so many of them have higher productivity and are more innovative?
The truth of the matter is there will always be scroungers, cheats and lazy buggers, and it is way off the mark to insinuate in the defence of party ideology that the entire population or for that the matter all the poor and the unemployed are scroungers, cheats and lazy buggers.
One scrounger, cheat or lazy bum, then everyone must be so and the country’s work ethic must go down the drain. Everyone must be punished.
That is the problem when the establishment speaks about inequality and poverty. They are condescending, patronizing and took too easily to extremely flawed narratives and examples to exaggerate the negativities of welfare and back their preferred approach - one that go after the few scroungers, cheats and lazy bums at the cost of denial of welfare and transfers for the vast majority.
The govie might not wish to go down that mythical slippery slope but that does not mean the poor, low income and unemployed are themselves not forced by circumstances and the govie;s approach to welfare to go down their own slippery slope.
We are meant to have a discussion about inequality and the social divide, or so we are told by the govie. But let’s quit these deeply flawed narratives and irrelevant examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kuasimi
How well is well-paid?
By Tan Hui Leng and Jasmie Yen, TODAY | Posted: 10 April 2007 1028
They expressed support for the need to pay top dollar for top talent in the public sector.
But Members of Parliament (MPs) who took part in yesterday’s parliamentary debate on the pay hike also spoke passionately about what many Singaporeans believe to be the heart of the issue: The benchmarking formula used to determine ministerial pay.
Ang Mo Kio MP Inderjit Singh noted that Singaporeans could not expect their leaders to serve based on altruism alone. “Are we willing to leave the future of the country to chance, that we will get good people who will give up their competence without caring about their salary?” he asked.
Some MPs, however, saw problems in benchmarking ministers’ pay to the private sector, pointing out to disparities in the risks taken by company chief executives and ministers and top civil servants.
Marine Parade MP Lim Biow Chuan said:
“I struggle to understand what a top Admin Officer aged 32 at grade SR9 has to worry about that will justify him receiving $363,000 a year … From many people’s perspectives, they take no personal risk and are at best, paid employees.”
Opposition MPs Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir) and Hougang’s Low Thia Khiang took issue with the fact that Singapore’s ministers are paid more than their counterparts in developed countries.
MPs like Bishan-Toa Payoh’s Mrs Josephine Teo, however, pointed out that ministers in other countries may make more money after their term in office ends, such as through public speaking.
Some MPs voiced concerns about the timing of announcing the pay revisions, especially with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) due to rise to 7 per cent in July.
Mr Singh said: “How do we answer the man-in-the-street when we’re told that about one-quarter to one-third of the expected revenue increase this year from the GST is going to be for the proposed ministerial and civil service salary increases, about $240 million, I was told?”
Mr Low also referred to the recent debate on increasing the amounts for public assistance. “It’s also ironic that we are consuming taxpayers’ money and … discussing how much more of a fraction of a million to pay civil servants and ministers while we haggle over additional tens of dollars to hand out to our needy and disadvantaged citizens,” he said.
Some MPs who supported the pay hike also suggested that the salary benchmarking could be finetuned, such as pegging ministers’ salaries to more realistic markers such as top men in private equity firms and top companies based on market capitalisation.
Quote:
MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew called for a sense of proportion yesterday, pointing out that the annual wage bill for ministers and all office holders is $46 million - or just 0.022 per cent of Singapore’s total economic output.
It was an ‘absurdity’, he said, for Singaporeans to quarrel over whether ministers collectively should be paid $10 million or $20 million more, when an economy worth $210 billion was at stake
‘The cure to all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government,’ he said in his first comments on impending salary increases for ministers and top civil servants. ‘You get that alternative and you’ll never put Singapore together again.’
Singaporeans’ asset values would also disappear, he warned, adding that ‘your apartment will be worth a fraction of what it is, your jobs will be in peril, your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people’s countries’.
He said the present system of benchmarking ministers’ pay to top private sector salaries was ‘completely above board’ and allowed the Government to recruit ‘some of the very best’ to lead the country
When it was put to him that people hoped for leaders who were willing to make sacrifices and who were not there for the money, he replied that these were ‘admirable sentiments’. But he added that ‘we live in the real world’.
His bottom line: if the Government could not pay competitive salaries, Singapore would not be able to compete and ‘we’re not going to live well’.
https://mothership.sg/2015/03/channe...smen-comments/
Channel News Asia secretly deletes article after Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo skewered online for NSmen comments
Why CNA, why?
By Belmont Lay | March 4, 2015
Ladies and gentlemen, it is Channel News Asia‘s turn to be caught with their pants down after The Straits Times was discovered to have censored Minister Chan Chun Sing’s quotes on Feb. 26, 2015.
This time, CNA took the drastic step of completely erasing an entire article from both CNA’s website as well as on Today online.
The article in question, is this piece, “Singaporeans express Budget concerns at forum”, published on Feb. 26, about feedback unit REACH’s post-Budget 2015 forum:
The article has been removed from here, here and here.
However, you can still find the piece on Google cache here and here, which even has a video.
Here is the article in its entirety:
Singaporeans express Budget concerns at forum
Some of the concerns raised by participants at the forum on Thursday include an influx of foreign domestic workers due to the lower concessionary levy, and the pay for national servicemen.
SINGAPORE: More than 100 Singaporeans gave their feedback on Budget 2015 at a forum on Thursday (Feb 26), organised by feedback unit REACH.
One concern was whether lowering the foreign domestic worker concessionary levy could cause an influx of such workers.
Senior Minister of State for Health and REACH Chairman Amy Khor gave the assurance that there is a foreign worker dependency ratio in place to control the numbers. She added that the purpose of decreasing the levy is to help the many families with caregiver needs.
Senior Minister of State for Finance and Transport Josephine Teo was also present. She addressed one participant’s suggestion that national servicemen should be paid more.
While she noted the importance of giving NSmen recognition, Mrs Teo said service for the country cannot be measured in dollars and cents.
Ms Grace Morgan, a participant at the forum, praised the Budget announcements.
“My overall impression is that it is a very inclusive Budget because it has a lot of features for the lower-income as well as the middle-income group, and I think that it ticked a lot of boxes that people wanted to be ticked,” Ms Morgan told Channel NewsAsia before the event.
She said something innocently contentious about how NSmen’s service for the country cannot be measured in dollars and cents.
Reasons for censorship?
At least one blogger noted the article’s deletion on March 3, about five days after the piece was first published online.
A few days prior to the article’s removal, Teo’s innocuously contentious comments about how NSmen recognition should not be measured in dollars and cents became a lightning rod for criticism online.
Based on this forum comment thread, the most common refrain was that why should the PAP and minister’s contributions be measured in monetary terms but not so for NSmen? Why the double standards?
It is not known if Teo was misquoted or her statement was taken out of context as the original CNA report failed to elaborate what the original question was.
REACH also shared a video of the forum highlights yesterday but did not include Teo’s comments about NSmen recognition.
Related article:
The Straits Times censors Minister Chan Chun Sing’s ‘tikam’ & ‘enjoy a windfall’ quotes about
[email protected]
Media secretly changes misleading headlines after they drew ire from Nicole Seah and other S’poreans online
Update: Business Times changed its headline from ‘chinks’ to ‘cracks’
Did The Straits Times’ celebrated senior reporter foul up with his North Korean execution by dogs story?
http://newnation.sg/2015/03/5-reason...ars-and-cents/
5 reasons Josephine Teo’s service to S’pore must be measured in dollars and cents
Posted on 04 March 2015
In a post-budget 2015 forum on Feb. 26, 2015, Minister of State Josephine Teo was asked if national servicemen should be paid more.
She said she noted the importance of giving NSmen recognition, but service for the country cannot be measured in dollars and cents.
Here are 5 reasons why only Josephine Teo’s contributions to Singapore can be measured in dollars and cents:
Only dollars and cents apply to them.
Only money can be used as compensation.
And because serving Singapore as a Minister of State is not its own reward.
Unlike what she gets, which can be counted easily because it is so much.
She is not part of Total Defence. She is Total Defence itself.
She can singlehandedly defend Singapore’s sovereignty by herself. That’s why only her contributions can be quantified in dollars and cents.
Not derisory enough:
NSFs recruits say monthly SAF allowance of $480 not ‘derisory’ enough
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...o-fulfil-them/
Chan says inflation low – ‘cost-of-living pressures’ due to difference in aspirations and ability to fulfil them
Published on 2018-07-10 by Correspondent
In Parliament today (10 Jul), Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing distributed charts to MPs in the House, showing that the overall inflation rate has been lower in the last 5 years from 2012 to 2017 compared to that of the previous 5 years.
His chart shows that the average overall inflation rate in the last 5 years was only 0.6 per cent a year, lower than the average of 4 per cent between 2007 and 2012. And for this year, the overall inflation is expected to remain low, between 0.5 per cent and 1 per cent, even as rising global oil prices are expected to increase fuel costs and electricity prices, he said.
Minister Chan commented that cost of living is a multi-dimensional issue, and the measure of how prices change over time is but one aspect of it. The gap between people’s aspirations and their ability to fulfil them can also bring cost-of-living pressures to people, he said. That is to say, the minister is implying that if people can choose to have no aspirations, they would then not be feeling any ‘cost-of-living pressures’. He is telling Singaporeans that the high-cost of living felt by them is all inside their ‘heads’
.
“Elderly Singaporeans, retirees and their families will be more concerned with healthcare affordability,” he described. “Families with young children and infants may be more concerned with the prices of milk powder and educational programmes. Yet other families may be aspiring to buy their dream house or car.”
“No single measure will express an individual’s ‘cost of living’ pressures fully, given the different needs and wants, the evolving aspirations and the potential gap between aspirations and anticipated means.”
He cited other factors that affect people’s perceptions of living costs, including a changing interpretation of what essential goods and services are for different groups, and the increase in prices of items that are consumed daily - for example, water and transport fares - which may have a disproportionate psychological impact on consumers even if the increases are not the biggest in absolute terms.
“The ‘bunching’ of price increases, like the increases in water and electricity prices this month, can also have a disproportionate psychological impact,” he said.
In any case, he outlined the Government’s strategy to manage the cost of living in Singapore:
Keeping the economy competitive
Managing the Singapore dollar
Diversifying sources of supply for items from food and water to fuel
Promoting competition to keep prices low
Managing the cost of doing business
Focusing on providing help for those with less
Giving consumers more choices
Leveraging social enterprises
“We recognise Singaporeans’ evolving aspirations for a better life for themselves and their families, and the associated stress of achieving real income growth in a volatile economic environment,” he assured.
“Beyond creating opportunities for Singaporeans to enjoy real wage growth to meet their aspirations, the Government is also committed to help Singaporeans stretch their hard-earned dollar,” he added.
And to help Singaporeans in the various areas like education, housing, healthcare, transport and among other things, the government would do this through indirect subsidies and means testing, so as to ensure that those with less receive the most help, he said.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...out-ministers/
Dr. Koh Poh Koon warns Parliament about dangers of wages outstripping productivity. What about Ministers?
Published on 2018-07-12 by Kwok Fangjie
Speaking in Parliament on Wednesday (11 Jul), Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry Dr. Koh Poh Koon said that the growth in wages of resident workers have outstripped productivity growth. In turn, this could have a negative effect on the economy.
The 4G leader said that this was as a result of a labour market tightness in industries such as construction and other services and may not be sustainable. From 2011 to 2017, real wages for resident workers rose by 1.9% per annum compared to productivity increases of 1.1%.
“If real wage growth outstrips productivity growth for an extended period, businesses will be at risk of losing their competitiveness and potentially be forced to scale back or close their operations”.
Dr. Koh added that the government had placed emphasis on increasing. For instance, the Industry Transformation map would encourage businesses leveraging on technology so that business can make better profit margins while controlling their costs.
Concluding, he said that the government “is committed to continue to work with businesses and the unions to help businesses improve their productivity and ensure that the productivity gains are shared with workers through higher wages.”
Do the million-dollar wages of PAP ministers match their productivity?
In 1994, the late Lee Kuan Yew argued the case for higher Ministerial salaries.
“If this salary formula can draw out higher quality men into politics, whatever their motivations, I say, let us have them. I make no apologies for collecting the most talented team I could find. Without them, none of you would be enjoying life today in Singapore”.
Yet things seemed to have changed some 20 years later.
In a 2015 interview with Bloomberg, Associate Professor Michael Barr said that “The current Cabinet [in Singapore] is really a Team B.” Last month, columnist Justin Hugo opined in an opinion piece on the News Lens that the high ministerial salaries for PAP leader cannot be justified given their mediocre performance.
Noting that the Ministerial Salary formulae states that the salaries of office holders “should also be linked to the individual performance.. and the socio-economic progress of Singapore Citizens”, Hugo asked if Singapore’s socio-economic progress has been stellar thus far.
He highlighted that Singapore’s “spending on social protections among the lowest in developed countries”. This led him to ask why “the government [is] intent on lining its own pockets rather than putting that money to work, [since] as many as 35% of Singaporeans living in relative poverty?”
Hugo also noted that Singapore’s economic growth or standing is not impressive. For instance, the IMF projected Singapore’s economic growth for 2018 to be a mere 2.9% while Luxembourg’s economic growth at was projected at 4.3%.
Concurrently, the Global Power City Index of 2017 - which evaluates and ranks the world’s major cities in relation to their ability to attract businesses and individuals – ranks London as the first, followed by New York and Tokyo. By comparison, Singapore was ranked fifth.
The columnist then asked: “Is it fair that Xavier 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? [Why is I that Lee Hsien Loong] earns more than six to 12 times that of the London mayor, the New York City mayor and the Tokyo governor?”
By Dr. Koh’s own measure, do you think that PAP Minister’s performance has kept up with their wages?
