Quote:
Originally Posted by
NotMyPresident
It is already long gone . Why do you think every year they make it harder for us to withdraw our CPF ???
http://theindependent.sg/temasek-say...ts-questioned/
Temasek says it does not manage CPF savings, gets questioned
By Andrew Loh - July 21, 20183079
In the past week, several postings by Temasek on its Facebook page has made claims which are being questioned by members of the public. But Temasek has also responded to the reactions by explaining its positions on these questions.
As part of its “mostly commonly asked questions about us” series, the self-proclaimed “commercial investment company” had put up several posters providing answers to these queries.
In them, Temasek claims that it “does not manage Singapore CPF savings, Singapore Government Reserves, [and] Singapore Foreign Reserves.”
In another poster, it says that it in fact “is not a Sovereign Wealth Fund” but “a commercial investment company”, and “own and manage our own assets.”
https://www.facebook.com/temasekhold...403848/?type=3
In a third, Temasek explains it operates “on commercial principles, pay taxes wherever we operate, and invests off of our own balance sheet.”
Temasek is helmed by Ho Ching, the wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. Its chairman is former minister Lim Boon Heng.
Temasek’s postings immediately drew questions and criticisms from members of the public, who challenged its assertions.
Shih-Tung Ngiam, commenting on the page on Temasek’s claim that it is not a sovereign wealth fund (SWF), but a “commercial investment company”, called it a “lie”.
“This is an outright lie,” he said. “I do not understand why Temasek keeps trying to deny that it is an SWF. What benefit do Temasek insiders get from that denial ? Singapore does not gain anything. If anything we lose points on transparency and honesty.”
But it is Temasek’s posting on the Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings that drew the most reactions from the public. The CPF is a compulsory savings plan for all working Singaporeans for retirement and housing needs, among others.
Some on Temasek’s page expressed disbelief that the fund does not manage CPF money, describing the claim as “a joke” and “fake news”, and asked Temasek where its funds for investment comes from, if not from CPF savings. Reactions also questioned the husband-and-wife relationship of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Temasek and the Prime Minister.
Temasek responded that CPF monies are invested by the CPF Board in Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS) that are issued and guaranteed by the Singapore Government.
“The proceeds from the SSGS are then invested by the government through MAS and GIC, just like how the proceeds from the market-based Singapore Government Securities (SGS) are invested,” Temasek says.
“We also do not receive any SGSS proceeds for management,” it added.
When asked to publish its financial statements, Temasek said:
“Just to clarify, as a Singapore exempt private company under the Singapore Companies Act, we’re actually exempted from disclosing financial information publicly. Nonetheless, we’ve been publishing our Temasek Review annually since 2004 as a public marker of our performance. Also, you might be keen to know that our sole shareholder is the Minister for Finance; no other investors were involved in our growth over the last 44 years.”
It then directed readers to this page for more information.
The Ministry of Finance (MOF) explains on its webpage:
“Temasek’s consolidated financial statements are audited by leading international audit firms. In addition, Temasek’s financial performance is scrutinised by bond rating agencies, which have given it a AAA credit rating.”
Temasek also publishes its investments portfolio on its website. See here.
Earlier this month, the fund reported a record net portfolio value of $308 billion.
“It is now almost three times the dotcom peak of just over S$100 billion at the turn of the millennium,” Executive Director and CEO, Temasek International, Mr Lee Theng Kiat, said then.
Chairman Lim said, “To succeed as an investor is not an end in itself. Ultimately, that success must be translated into a better and more sustainable world for our people and communities.”
Temasek is one of three government entities which manage and contribute to the reserves. The other two are the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Government Investment Corporation Pte Ltd (GIC Pte Ltd).
The actual size of the total reserves are not published but is estimated to be about $750 billion.
Only MAS and Temasek disclose their assets. GIC Pte Ltd does not.
The MOF explains “what has been revealed is that GIC manages well over US$100 billion.”
“Revealing the exact size of assets that GIC manages will, taken together with the published assets of MAS and Temasek, amount to publishing the full size of Singapore’s financial reserves,” the MOF says.
“It is not in our national interest to publish the full size of our reserves. If we do so, it will make it easier for markets to mount speculative attacks on the Singapore dollar during periods of vulnerability.
For more detailed answers to the questions which readers posed to Temasek, perhaps it is best to refer to the Ministry of Finance website for the answers.
Please click here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NotMyPresident
Now we know where the PAP MPs disappear to . No wonder the parliament is always half full . Will Singaporeans be brave enough to vote them out ?
http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2012/01/...uuuuuuuuu.html
No one cares about your pay cuts if you don’t solve their problems | Main | the mrbrown show: a minister shares his thoughts on the pay cut »
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Grace FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!
Grace Fu on her Facebook page,
about the pay cuts:
When I made the decision to join politics in 2006, pay was not a key factor. Loss of privacy, public scrutiny on myself and my family and loss of personal time were. The disruption to my career was also an important consideration. I had some ground to believe that my family would not suffer a drastic change in the standard of living even though I experienced a drop in my income. So it is with this recent pay cut. If the balance is tilted further in the future, it will make it harder for any one considering political office.
Foot, meet mouth.
My first thought was, where got loss of privacy? It’s not like Singapore media is THAT invasive.
My second thought was, the PAP slate at Aljunied GRC does need a few more MPs to make up the numbers.
I think sometimes, the most gracious way to respond to a hot topic like a ministerial pay cut is not say anything at all, lest you make people say Grace FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!
Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2012 at 09:45 AM in Random Rants | Permalink ShareThis
http://theindependent.sg/disgraceful-grace-fu/
Disgraceful, Grace Fu
By The Independent - April 30, 2016
By: Andrew Loh
So, as I had expected, it didn’t take long for the PAP to resort to below-the-belt attacks on Dr Chee Soon Juan – again.
Just a day after Nomination Day, at her party’s first rally for the Bukit Batok by-election, the Minister of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), Grace Fu, apparently launched an ad hominem volley at the SDP secretary general.
“He wants to be a full-time MP,” Ms Fu said, referring to Dr Chee. “As far as I know he’s not held a full-time job for a long time… The work experience is essential. It’ll be interesting to see if there is a referral letter from Chiam See Tong.”
First, it is a rather uncultured remark from a minister of culture. Yes, ironic.
Second, Ms Fu’s remarks would actually bring the same question to her colleagues, many of whom are helicoptered into ministries and GLCs and associations without any thread of relevant experience.
Lee Bee Wah in the table tennis association, for example.
Tin Pei Ling as some adviser in a football club.
And what about the many ministers over the years – perhaps including Grace Fu herself – who were sheltered into the ministries without any relevant experience.
Vivian Balakrishnan, an eye doctor, for example.
Or more recently, military general Ng Chee Meng as Education Minister.
But the more important thing about Ms Fu’s attack is this: Dr Chee has not been sitting idle at home all these years. Commonsense would tell you that if he did, his family would not have survived till today – given, as a fact, that Ms Fu’s party has been running him down for more than 20 years.
24 to be exact.
Dr Chee has nothing to be ashamed about.
He has been bankrupted, and jailed and fined, and has had his name dragged through the mud, with all sorts of labels pinned on him – from the mouth of the late Lee Kuan Yew to the pages of the govt-controlled mouthpieces.
Yet, he has survived, taken all this in his stride – and has not returned kind for kind.
Dr Chee, in fact, even in his rally yesterday (29 April 2016), called on his supporters to not attack the PAP’s David Ong, whose personal indiscretions have led to the by-election.
Dr Chee has nothing to be ashamed of.
Even as a student, Chee knew what it was like to struggle, as recalled by his friend and party colleague, Jaslyn Go, in the book “A Caring Family Man, An Inspiring Friend”.
“With what little money he had, he went to the United States to study for his degree,” she said. “The money he had at that time was only enough to last him for only one trimester (sic), not even one year…While most of his peers were busy partying, he was stuck, taking on odd jobs to pay for his tution fees and living expenses.”
Another of his friend, Dr Wong Wee Nam, knows his family well.
“His (Chee’s) children do not carry a handphone or play with iPads or any computer gadgets. Instead they indulge in simple pleasures like reading books borrowed from the public library.”
So, how has Dr Chee survived, financially?
He worked.
Yes, he did. Like everyone else.
And he worked hard.
His work is to write books and academic papers – as many thousands others do. And he has had to sell his books, oftentimes literally on the streets, as the bookstores here were frightened to sell them.
And he also does political work for his party, and indeed for Singapore, even helping to distribute supplies to the needy.
There is no shame in such work.
Grace Fu needs to understand that there are many different ways for a person to work. But this might be hard for someone who lamented at the cut in ministers’ salaries in 2012, even after the drubbing her party received from the electorate in the general election just months earlier.
It is worth repeating what she said then, as it shows the small mind that inhabits her head:
“When I made the decision to join politics in 2006, pay was not a key factor. Loss of privacy, public scrutiny on myself and my family and loss of personal time were.
“The disruption to my career was also an important consideration. I had some ground to believe that my family would not suffer a drastic change in the standard of living even though I experienced a drop in my income. So it is with this recent pay cut.
“If the balance is tilted further in the future, it will make it harder for any one considering political office.”
Appalling, even now.
Of course, Ms Fu later “clarified” and claimed that the public had “misunderstood” her remarks. This led to one blogger-lawyer saying Ms Fu should resign instead. (See here.)
It is unfortunate, to say the least, that DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam’s Nomination Day pledge for a clean fight in the by-election is now left asunder by his minister-colleague ad hominem attack on Dr Chee.
One can only hope that the DPM will have a quiet word with Ms Grace Fu – and tell her that her remarks, and her mindset, are unacceptably disgraceful, and lowers the office of a minister to the cesspool of dirty politics.
In the 2015 general elections, Chee gave a speech.
There was one part in which he spoke of an instance where he and his wife considered buying a box of Haagen Dazs or Ben & Jerry’s ice cream for his kids.
In the end, they chose Wall’s after looking at the prices.
But even then, his wife said they should buy it only if it was on offer.
This is what ordinary folks like us face.
Sometimes we have to make such decisions when we go grocery shopping, for example. We would only buy “luxury” items if they are on offer because it makes sense as many things in Singapore are overpriced.
But I don’t think someone like Grace Fu can really understand how we ordinary folks live.
For if she does, she would realise that the many people out there who have lost their jobs and who may be out of work for a long time would be facing quite trying times.
It is nothing to make fun of.
But if you want to know about Dr Chee – who lives in a 3-room HDB flat with his family – have a look at this video, and see if you would agree with the careless and insensitive remarks of Minister Grace Fu.
—
Published with permission from Andrew Loh’s website.
http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com/201...signation.html
Little Stories
Notes from Mr Wang’s Daily Existence
Jan 6, 2012
Grace Fu Should Consider Resignation
Singapore has the world’s most highly-paid ministers. If I recall correctly, they have held this world record for about the past 20 years. It is a record that has caused a huge amount of public unhappiness. Especially in the past decade, during which the government didn’t ever seem to be particularly impressive or outstanding.
Now, finally, ministerial salaries are going to be cut. Mind you, after these cuts (which are quite substantial in percentage terms - about 36%), the ministers will STILL hold their world record. Which must surely suggest to any half-intelligent person how grossly overpaid the ministers have been all along.
But then you get the likes of Grace Fu (who is our Minister of State for something or the other). Writing on her own Facebook wall, Fu says:
“When I made the decision to join politics in 2006, pay was not a key factor. Loss of privacy, public scrutiny on myself and my family and loss of personal time were. The disruption to my career was also an important consideration. I had some ground to believe that my family would not suffer a drastic change in the standard of living even though I experienced a drop in my income. So it is with this recent pay cut. If the balance is tilted further in the future, it will make it harder for any one [sic] considering political office.” Grace Fu.
Now, lots of Singaporeans are angry with Grace Fu. The comments have come thick, fast and furious. As of right now, her Facebook post has drawn about 1,300 comments (that’s about 650 times the average number of comments on her other Facebook postings). And of course, there is plenty of negative media attention, online and in the newspapers too.
Putting aside the other issues for now, I’m startled at Grace Fu’s lack of political sensitivity. It was really, really stupid and unnecessary of her to write such a thing. Fu wasn’t even under pressure. It wasn’t as if she was at a press conference, and a belligerent journalist had just thrown an unexpected and difficult question at her, and she couldn’t think fast enough about what best to say.
Instead - we can imagine it - there she was, relaxing in her living room, playing with her iPad, sipping a nice cup of tea, logging in to check her messages. And then suddenly, Fu decided to write what she wrote. On Facebook. Not in a private journal, not in a personal memo, but on Facebook.
She must have totally failed to foresee what would happen next.
What poor judgment! What a severe lack of foresight. And she’s a minister, for goodness sakes. Who knows what other horrible errors she might have spoken or written, on other past occasions.
Now, of course Fu is backpedalling and she has made a statement that she had been “misunderstood”. This is damage control …. for completely self-inflicted damage. LOL, that is funny.
Imagine this - you are a minister, and you say something, the public is shocked and angry. And then you say, “Oh, all of you tens of thousands of people, you’ve misunderstood me. I am the poor, unfortunate, misunderstood one.” Sing me another song, birdie.
If Grace Fu can be so badly misunderstood, then that surely says something about Grace Fu’s communication skills. It is extremely difficult to get thousands of people to misunderstand you. I am sure that I could not possibly succeed in pulling off such a feat. (But then I am not a PAP minister, I lack such talent).
However - and this will surprise many of my own readers - I am not actually angry about the content, the actual substance, of Grace Fu’s statement.
Why am I not angry?
Look - this woman is merely a product of the system. And what is the system that I speak of? It is the PAP recruitment system that Lee Kuan Yew decided to create, 20 years ago. A system that deliberately entices job applicants with world-record-setting amounts of money.
The inevitable result - the PAP attracts many talented political wannabes whose main interest is in the money. (Meanwhile, talented political wannabes who just hope to serve the nation can join the Workers’ Party - like Chen Show Mao did).
And when the money gets cut, well, you can naturally expect the PAP ministers (at least, the more money-minded ones) to get upset. Isn’t that logical? If you had come for the money, then you WOULD be upset by a pay cut, surely.
My blog post is entitled “Grace Fu Should Consider Resignation”. Sounds sensationalist, doesn’t it? But it isn’t really. (I’m not that kind of blogger, lah). Let me just explain my thinking.
It goes like this - if any minister is really very unhappy with his or her pay, then he or she can always quit. It’s not like they are being forced to be ministers.
Unhappy employees don’t perform well - we know that from our own experiences in working life. It is better for the company if they quit. It is better for themselves too, for they can go elsewhere and find another job that is more satisfying for them.
Why would we expect things to be any different for our ministers? If they are not happy with their pay, they won’t perform well. They should just quit and get a more lucrative job elsewhere (if they can, of course). After they resign as ministers, Singapore can replace them with new ministers who care less about the money, and care more about serving the nation.
So I say this to all the ministers - if you’re not happy with your pay, please quit. Now, rather than five years later. Do yourself a favour, and do the country a favour. Just get out.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/200...-months-bonus/
Two staff member of Northwest CDC received 8 months bonus?
Published on 2009-03-15 by The Online Citizen
“I want to clarify that the mayors do not decide on the salaries, the increments, the bonuses of all our staff at the CDC.
“The mayors are political appointment holders. We chair the CDC to spearhead the CDC, to build a social safety net and help the people. That is our job. If you ask me, I do not know the salaries; I do not know the bonuses of all my staff.”
Dr Teo Ho Pin, Northwest CDC’s mayor , on rumours that two staff from the Northwest Community Development Council (CDC) received bonuses of eight months last year, including the 13th month bonus.
http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2009/03/...us-fiasco.html
« Riding a newly assembled vintage bicycle on East Coast Park | Main | the mrbrown show: paddle of righteousness »
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Missing articles from ST and CNA on CDC 8-months bonus fiasco
Not sure why hor, but Straits Times and Channel NewsAsia no longer have the news articles about the Northwest CDC 8-months bonus outcry.
In case you are not aware of this, the outcry was over the fact that two staff from the Northwest Community Development Council (CDC) received bonuses of eight months last year, including the 13th month bonus.
In response to the fracas, Northwest CDC’s mayor, Dr Teo Ho Pin said, “If you ask me, I do not know the salaries; I do not know the bonuses of all my staff.”
According to Dr Teo, bonuses and salaries of CDC staff are decided by the People’s Association (PA) and the Workforce Development Agency (WDA).
People’s Association (PA) deputy chairman (and Minister in the PMO) Lim Boon Heng said, “I think we should not begrudge the few people who get very high bonuses.”
The bonuses were paid in 2008, when the economy was said to be good until the last quarter.
The missing articles:
CNA: Northwest CDC mayor says PA, WDA decide on staff pay, bonuses (link to page is empty)
Straits Times: CDC bonuses explained (404 page)
The internet moves in mysterious ways, you know. But never mind, I have the PDF of the pages, in case you want to read them.
CNA: Northwest CDC mayor says PA, WDA decide on staff pay, bonuses (Yahoo CNA news PDF)
Straits Times: CDC bonuses explained (PDF of cached page)
The deleted ST piece can also be read in Google’s cache.
Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 02:33 PM in Random Rants | Permalink
http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=2542
Astronomical public service pay and CDC staff bonuses: hallmarks of a self-serving Government
Posted on March 21, 2009 | By Ng E-Jay | 9 comments
Written by Ng E-Jay
21 March 2009
On US President Barack Obama’s first day in office, he signed an executive order instituting a pay freeze on White House staff earning over US$100,000 (S$150,000) per year.
Relating the pay freeze of his officers and public servants to the prevailing economic crisis, he said: “During this period of economic emergency, families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington.”
President Obama also spoke of the privilege of public service, saying: “… we should never forget that we are here as public servants and public service is a privilege … … some of the people in this room will be affected by the pay freeze, and I want you to know that I appreciate your willingness to agree to it, recognizing that it’s what’s required of you at this moment. It’s a mark of your commitment to public service.”
In the speech at a swearing-in ceremony for his senior staff, Obama also spoke about bringing a new sense of accountability and transparency and rule of law to Washington, saying that these “will be the touchstones of this presidency”.
Compare these words to those of our political leaders here in Singapore, and one can immediately sense a vast world of difference.
Our political leaders insist that we absolutely have to pay top dollar to attract top talent, and that justifies pegging the salaries of our ministers to that of the top earners in the private sector. Never mind that our political and electoral system in particular is designed to entrench the ruling party and literally give our ministers and senior public servants an “iron rice bowl”.
Never mind also that despite repeated grandiose claims that the high ability of our ministers makes them deserving of a paycheck of a few million each year, their reign as self-appointed political masters over the past decade has been dotted with episodes of glaring incompetence, from poor policies that have disadvantaged working class Singapore citizens in the job hunt and allowed the abuse of foreign workers at the hands of unscrupulous employers to go largely unchecked save for a few stop-gap measures and highly publicized prosecution of errant firms, to the escape of Mas Selamat Kastari who limped out of the highest security detention centre in broad daylight in 49 seconds or less. To this date, the wanted terrorist is at large and there is no news of him whatsoever, and our Home Affairs minister has the cheek to offer the lame tautology that he either in or out of Singapore.
Far from President Obama’s call for public servants to tighten their belts alongside the rest of Americans as a mark of their commitment to public service, some public servants in Singapore continue to draw salaries and bonuses consistent with economic boom times, while the rest of the population struggles to cope with the sharpest recession since World War II.
Three weeks ago, rumours surfaced on the Channel News Asia forum that two employees of Northwest Community Development Council (CDC) received bonuses of 8 months last year, including the 13th month bonus. This prompted Eugene Yeo, Chief Editor of the blog — Wayang Party Club, to write a letter to Northwest District Mayor Dr Teo Ho Pin, seeking to confirm the rumour. However, the Northwest CDC declined comment, re-directing all queries instead to the People’s Association (PA) which manages the staff at all 5 CDCs here. The PA neither confirmed nor denied the rumour, only saying that all “salaries are in line with the National Wages Council Guidelines”.
So much for transparency and accountability — a far, far cry from President Obama, who draws a mere 25% of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s salary, promising to make transparency, accountability and the rule of law touchstones of his presidency.
Dr Teo Ho Pin later replied to queries from the mainstream media, clarifying that bonuses and salaries of CDC staff are decided by the PA, and in the case of officers, by the Workforce Development Agency (WDA). Dr Teo also said: “I do not know the salaries; I do not know the bonuses of all my staff“, a completely disingenuous and unbelievable reply given that he is the Northwest District Mayor.
Dr Teo also said: “The economy only start to worsen during the last 3 months of 2008. The performance of the economy during the first 9 months is still not bad. We have to look at the matter from the entire year’s perspective. Hence, it is not unreasonable for CDC staff to receive 8 months of bonuses.”
Subsequently, Mr Lim Boon Heng defended the need for CDCs to have flexibility in rewarding staff, pointing out that is how companies around the world operate. He also said “not to begrudge the few people who got very high bonuses“.
If the CDCs had been thoroughly confident that the high bonuses paid to a few of their staff were fully justified given their supposed outstanding performance, why the need to be evasive about the issue the first time round, and for Dr Teo Ho Pin and Mr Lim Boon Heng to provide added justifications and excuses for such bonuses only after pressure had been put on them by alternative media?
While we should not begrudge paying people what they truly deserve and have worked hard for, Dr Teo and Mr Lim’s explanations fail to recognize that CDC staff and officers are public servants, and as public servants it is their duty to serve not merely out of a desire for making a good living, but also out of a sense of commitment to public service. In deep recessionary times when the rest of Singapore is struggling to make ends meet, those who are here to serve the public, the heartlanders who are fighting tooth and nail to keep their families — and our nation — afloat, ought to be willing to forgo such exorbitant bonuses as “a mark of their commitment to public service”, in President Obama’s words.
Just yesterday, the mainstream media reported that a 14 year old girl had been stabbed to death by her mother, who had not eaten for days because her daughter did not have money to buy food back. (See here.)
What happened to the social safety net that the CDC is supposed to provide for families in such dire straits?
Is this what we pay CDC staff and officers 8 month bonuses for?
We have to question the premise that we must pay astronomical salaries just to attract and retain talent, and we have to ask ourselves whether reducing public service to a mere profit enterprise will enable us to attract the right sort of people.
At the end of the day, all I see is a self-serving Government willing to resort to tortured logic to advance its own selfish ends.
https://www.facebook.com/TAVSingapor...type=3&theater
The Alternative View
Like This Page · 21 hrs ·
Trying to save face by downplaying the severity of the hacking attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Culina
Which opposition MP ?
https://mothership.sg/2018/03/sylvia...at-fight-gifs/
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...om-sylvia-lim/
Barrage of comments lashed upon on Grace Fu for demand of apology from Sylvia Lim
Published on 2018-03-08 by Neyla Zannia
Last updated on March 15th, 2018 at 11:38 am
The Leader of the House, Grace Fu, demanded Workers’ Party Sylvia Lin to apologise to Parliament regarding her comment on the goods and services tax (GST) hike, and to withdraw her statement.
Ms Grace Fu is in charge of government business and procedure and order in Parliament. She then asked Ms Lim to do so by Thursday (8 March), before the end of the ongoing Parliament sitting.
Ms Lim, MP for Aljunied GRC, voiced her suspicion that the Government had intended to introduce a GST hike immediately, but that it backed down after test balloons it floated got a negative response.
Some Cabinet ministers and senior ministers of state have come out to respond to Ms Lim’s comment, Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam and Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat stated that she was in effect accusing the Government of being untruthful.
Readers online commented on Ms Fu’s demand.
Philip Lim wrote, “Sylvia Lim asked a valid and logical question, debated objectively on the issue which was what this parliament is all about.
Sadly instead of addressing issue, the ruling party pap seems more interested in taking things to a personal level.
What is happening to this country now?”
Nicholas Guo wrote, “It’s scary to live in Singapore. When u accused govt of their wrong doing, they will sue you until your pants drop! That’s why Singaporeans chose to keep quiet.”
Benson Tan wrote, “The public is upset with the GST hike. Instead of allaying our fears, the government chose to focus their wrath on an opposition MP for querying the hike. Three ministers attacked her. Plain obvious the government does not care for us. They care for their own reputation. Vote in more opposition!”
Aston Tay wrote, “If her question reflects what all her constituents want to know, why should she apologies? I also think that the government is testing the water. What is wrong with that? We all know our government likes to do that before implementing anything!”
Muthu Balakrishnan wrote, “You know why these rotten PAP Ministers keep harping on this and chasing shadows? Because they want to distract people’s attention from the GST hike which has created a furor and promised to adversely affect PAP’s vote in the next GE.”
Augustine Kwa wrote, “Its a parliament house, not a court house.
Without ah kong, all these clowns trying to be funny and abuse their power?
One of Parliament’s main roles is to examine and challenge the work of the government through questioning ministers, debating and committee work .
The speaker allowed the question, so why should she apologize?”
Bodhi Aria wrote, ‘Why papaya keep begging for apologies . Sylvia Lim is voice behalf of Singaporeans."
Ah Teong wrote, ‘There’s nothing to withdraw or apologise. What she had said is true. We need more strong opposition who dare to speak up inside parliament. No yes sir type please."
Kent Ong wrote, “If she apologize, this implies she is apologizing on behalf of fellow Singaporeans, so are you implying we need to apologize to this PAP government?”
Boon Heong Lee wrote, “If Ms Sylvia asked a question, just answer loh. What’s the issue? No wonder we’re in such a stage because all MIW seldom ever ask questions.”
Tay Denver wrote, “Hey state media, bey sian huh? Everyday fried overnight fried rice, keep on repeating this news??? Government built state of art rubbish should got say sorry boh? Overspent in youth Olypmic got say sorry?”
Ah Hong wrote, “I prefer a parliament have healthy questions n answers than keep focusing sue and ask for apology. If misunderstanding, just answer to the questions to make it clear for everyone.”
Dolly Peh wrote, “Instead of clarifying the main issue, PAP prefer to side track and demand for apology which is more important to them.”
Voni Wen wrote, “Only raising question also became allegation. Sometimes those 10% things that were discussed in the parliament were really amusing. Some MPs raised real concerns of people. Anything also allegation. Use law to sue, then what are discussion/debates for? How would we have MP that’s willing to speak up for us? Hope Grace Fu can dedicate her time on some other topics more meaningful for our country.”
Stanley Tan wrote, “This is a ploy by the PAP, it doesn’t matter if what Sylvia said is true or not, or if the apology is warranted. They just want to keep making WP look bad, spewing words like ‘dishonest’, ‘wrong’ and constantly associate such negativity with WP. So that eventually over time the public’s perception about WP will always remain negative.”
Jimmy KF wrote, “Grace Fu do you know that you should first apologise to all Singaporeans that you waste our tax payer money just to build rubbish bin to throw all our money’s inside.”
Charlie Teo wrote, ‘Grace Fu. Please apologise to the residents of yuhua by tomorrow also for using your authority to reserve and park at their red lots. Who do you think you are to be able to reserve parking lots? You are just a public servant meaning to serve the public and not to be served."
Lionel Tay wrote, “Why apologize when she got the right to voice the people concerns? I have never seen any PAPies apologize…I only see constant arrogance and bullying.”
Shayful Kamal wrote, “Don’t apologise, your suspicion was valid. Plus we are still waiting for them to apologies for overspending on a bloody rubbish bin.”
LuCen Wang wrote, “She is voicing her suspicion. Do citizens have the right to think, believe, suspect? We need a younger generation of parliamentarians who are not so touchy.”
ShaoWei Li wrote, “We’ve just proven to the world that we are not a Democracy. Sure there’s no freedom of speech, but what’s even worse is when we cannot voice what people have in mind and every spoken word becomes a cause for litigation. Why should WP withdraw a question? Shall we surface every question raised by students, working adults, politicians etc in front of the court? Should everything published be taken as gospel? There’s no room for dialogue? Should every opposition leader be represented by a lawyer in the chambers?”
W.h. Lau wrote, “Govt good for nothing but just catching people and ask for apology. In a debate, there is always exchange of words and ideas. If they cannot take it, leave!”
Wee Chon Kiat wrote, “I guess this type of bullying tactics says it all. I don’t think you can shut everyone up my dear minister. If you doesn’t want to have a different voice then why have an election and a Parliament in the first place. Might as well shut everything down.”
Charlie Teo wrote, “Dear citizens. This is the type of people we do not want to be in parliament. Please wake up and vote her out in the next GE. Seems she is not there to serve but to be served. Vote her out in the next GE.”
Rauros Tay Cong Run wrote, “I find this oddly familiar to scenes back in Primary School days, when one child demands the apology from another child because what the latter child did was wrong in the former child’s opinion. Frankly, I seldom watch such Parliamentary speeches. And having watched this one, I am disappointed to be hearing a speech on such issues when you can obviously find more urgent issues to address. To put it more directly, considering the salary she draws, I don’t think going up to the podium to ask others to “Say sorry!” should be such a huge portion of her job scope.”
Adam Sng wrote, “When my wife brought up the topic about immigration with me, she express great sadness about the current state our country is in. Coming from someone like her who is a die hard PAP supporter, it really speak volumes about the confidence our current leaders bring.”
Lee Lai Lai Amy wrote, “What is a parliament for if you can not ask questions and resolve suspicions? What a group of petty people and bullies!”
Williams James Soh wrote, “So now, even saying test balloons is considered offensive and slanderous. Sorry state of politics when scoring points outweigh the needs of the people.”
Des Tan wrote, “Why is she keep asking people to apologize in the Parliament?!”
Alan Fong wrote, “Get Charles Chong to apologise first since it has been proven that he lied. This is even a more serious offense lying to voters.”
Ron Moraes wrote, “Sylvia, thanks for bringing up what (some) people on the ground are thinking about. It’s a healthy question which gives the chance for the ruling party to agree or refute. Otherwise it’ll always linger in (some) people’s minds.”
Darryl Kang wrote, “Actually, what is wrong with floating test balloons? You do survey before you launch something new. You check the ground sentiments before implementing something. Is there anything wrong with that? If they didn’t do it then didn’t do it. If they did, then they did. What is so bad until need to apologise?”
Raymond Koh wrote, “Should they ask all Singaporeans who think like this to apologies as well ? This bullying tactic is unbecoming. No wonder the IBs are acting so high handed as well.”
Amran Robani wrote, “Silly. Sylvia Lim raised a suspicion shared by many Singaporeans and did so without masking the fact that it was just that: a suspicion.
That helped the government on 2 fronts:
(1) Gave the government an honest and unsweetened feedback of ground sentiments; and
(2) Presented to the government an opportunity to refute and make its case.
And yet here we are, again, reading about Grace Fu demanding an apology and retraction. Groundhog day. Silly Groundhog day.”
Alvin Peh wrote, “The issues PAP are concerned and working on during LKY time vs. The issues PAP are concerned and working on today. 4th generation PAP - sounds nice but doesn’t know its priorities. Maybe Singaporeans have been paying them too much their ego is over the mountain.”
Matthew Manimaran Marsee wrote, “Shame on PAP. Workers Party voice is the citizens voice and is we the citizens having all this doughts. So if we normal citizens ask, we are sued till our pants drop then why the opposition MPs ask on our behalf. Anyway there is no use of clearing Paps name has we the citizens have lost all confidence in their Government.”
Fabian Tay wrote, “Disgrace-fu. You are in this position because your dad is LKY press secretary. Stop disgracing yourself further.”
Karlson Yap Guorong wrote, “End of the day- most PAP MP did not touch on ground issues of what Singaporeans wanted to voice out. It is good to have WP in the house to speak out those queries that Singaporeans are concerned. If voicing out is considered as allegation to government. Then it is better to have 89 seats of one party only so everyone in the house speak the same tune.”
Andy Yeo wrote, “MIWs parliament debate is totally waste of time and not constructive at all! There are many more important issues to discuss rather than wasting time to try to fix opposition party members!”
Bee Kwan wrote, “I don’t even know much about what this year budget is about and what was debated except PAP kept on pushing the point that workers party Sylvia Lim must apologise. Surely the 2018 budget is more than this right?”
Kuantangoh Spencer wrote, “Just like kids,making demand after demand,from one highly paid members to another,repeating the same over and over.
Demand usually associated with threat where responsive action will be taken to achieve its aim.In this case,she has the immunity to express her view on the motives inherent with Mr Heng’s early announcement for hike in GST.
A more pragmatic approach to prove her wrong is by your actions two year down the road.
You are wasting taxpayers money on 1st world parliament.
Move on, please.”
Ong Alan wrote, “They should be ashamed. Need to have three ministers to keep asking for a macham apology and statement retraction. WP ask questions is also because citizens want a proper answer, and not to bring a stupid boring long version which can cloud peoples’ eyes kind. All these high salary cukolds need a serious wake up call.”
Victor Seah wrote, “Focus, Ms Fu. People need you to spend quality time in parliament to discuss national policies. Defend your policy well, don’t waste time being defensive lah. People will know who are really working for them de. Dun worry.”
Chop Lin wrote, “If SL don’t apologise, just go with proper protocol and go after her according to the rules of engagement. What’s the point of repeating like a broken record asking SL to apologise again and again. Nothing better to do? if SL don’t apologise then the world will stop revolving? Parliament cannot move on to other agendas?”
Churong Chua wrote, “PAP are just like salesman. Even if they know their products have faults, they will gladly advertise as faultless and get you to buy. Once problem arise, they will find ways to rebuke the claim.
The government should already have foresight on the various financial burden way beforehand and come up with plans to tackle it but it seems they may just keep mum about it, trying to gain out trust in the various GE and once things have been settled then the ugly truth came out.”
Robert Wee wrote, “Let’s be clear : you are entitled to your opinions but you are not entitled to your facts . Desist from forcing a apology or statement withdrawal from Sylvia Lim. You win by the strength and credibility of your arguments and not by getting an apology. Your speech insults the character of the House!”
Norman Chai wrote, “You see the real evil in them. They fear that they will be replace for their greed, you can clearly see who is for the people and who is for themselves now.”
Daryl Chan wrote, “Ms Lim soundly defeated and embarrassed Mr Shanmugam the other day. Now still trying to get back at her. Petty! Please, let the matter rest. We, the people, appreciate that Ms Lim had sought to clarify this important matter. That’s what MPs are for.
Additionally, Mr Shanmugam (being the Law Minister no less) should not have interrupted when it wasn’t his turn.. Glad the Speaker censured him.
MPs are voted in to raise important questions on behalf of the people. It would be very inefficient if every single question posed risks legal action or personal attacks.”
Calvin Sim wrote, “When we were young, we were taught to ask if we got questions. Modern days in Singapore, if you got a question regarding what a citizen should know. The result is either you don’t get answer or you don’t get to wear anything below cause you will be sue till pants drop. Hai, Democracy! Pledge losing its meaning.”
Jaslyn Koh wrote, “This is so irritating and frustrating. What is wrong with the question, and is the same that most are asking so does that mean we should all apologise for our doubts and concerns. Does that mean we can never raise a question and must mince every word/phrase and accept all policies as true and only truth. Totally bizarre.”
http://theindependent.sg/from-george...earn-millions/
From George Yeo to Lui Tuck Yew there is enough evidence that ousted Ministers will continue to earn millions
By The Independent - July 1, 2016
By: S Karthigesu
PM Lee Hsien Loong in justifying the high salaries paid to Ministers in Jan 2012 said that it was necessary because when they leave office, they do not have the luxury of making millions of dollars like their counterparts in other parts of the developed world. This is what Mr Lee said:
“So Singapore is different from them (other countries which pay their political leaders much less than Singapore). I do not need to go into details but I will just skim through quickly. You look at the US – the President is paid less than me. Yes. And the last time I had the revision, the newspapers reported a certain anonymous high level resident of the White House saying that he wished he was paid the same. But the high level resident of the White House travels in Air Force One, lives in the White House, vacations at Camp David. And after they retire, they earn many times their salaries. All they have to do is to turn up for an appearance, make a few remarks, a hundred thousand dollars a time.
In three years, George Bush has earned US$15 million since retiring; Bill Clinton who retired a decade ago has earned US$75 million. His fees are about US$200,000 each time. And it is not just the President, but it is a revolving door system for many of their top officials. People who come in, serve a short while, go back out and often go back out to be lobbyists and consultants or to serve in the industries and businesses which relate to what they were working on when they were inside – whether it is defence, whether it is communications, whether it is energy. And so, you lead to conflicts of interests.” (link: http://$$$$$$$/2971KoH)
To see if this is true, let’s look at some of the PAP MPs and Ministers who vacated their office since 2011.
George Yeo
A few months after losing the 2011 GE, Mr Yeo who was Singapore’s Foreign Minister prior, joined the Kerry Group headed by Robert Kuok as its Vice-Chairman. This is what Mr Yeo said when he joined Kerry Group:
“(After 2011 GE) I spent four months at (Peking University) as a visiting scholar. During this period, Mr Robert Kuok, who heard I was thinking of the presidency, said ‘Don’t do it; it’s not for you.’ Now Mr Robert Kuok, I knew since 1989. He was in Singapore and he asked a friend, he said “Introduce to some of the new ministers.” So he hosted me to a dinner at the Shangri-la hotel, and as a young man at 34, 35 years old, I was very flattered, because he was a big name. But I found him to be very deep and wise…
I would never have asked him for a job. A Singaporean friend asked him, ‘Why not offer George a job?’ and he knew me, so he did. I said, ‘What am I going to do?’ And he said, ‘You just join first, round pegs will find round holes,’ he said. We didn’t even negotiate a contract at the time!”
So George Yeo joined one of Robert Kuok’s companies without even knowing what he was going to do.
Who is Robert Kuok? This is how one blog describes the man:
“Let me tell you another tale about Robert Kuok. At one time he bought over the old site of the Great World (an amusement center near River Valley Singapore). He wanted to develop it and submitted plans to the Singapore Govt which imposed very high fees on his project. He abandoned the project, and moved all his Singapore operations to Hong Kong and China.
One year Deng Xiao Peng paid a visit to Singapore, and LKY invited Deng to an official dinner. Deng had one request to LKY to invite Robert Kuok to join.LKY did just that, and Robert Kuok flew in the same day to join the dinner.” (link: http://$$$$$$$/29fmtHk)
So if the blog describing Robert Kuok is true, Mr Yeo got a job from a man recommended to Mr Lee Kuan Yew by Mr Deng Xiopeng. Mr Yeo was in awe of Mr Kuok, and Mr Kuok just asked him to join without even telling him what the job is.
How fortunate is Mr Yeo?
Zainul Abidin
Mr Zainul was Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and after he lost the 2011 GE, he was appointed as
Singapore’s Ambassador to The State of Israel, to The State of Kuwait and to The State of Qatar.
Lim Hwee Hua
Like Mr Yeo and Mr Zainul, Ms Lim was also ousted from office at GE 2011. Barely two months after losing her post as Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Ms Lim was appointed as a
non-executive
director at Jardine Cycle & Carriage.
The Deputy Chairman of Jardine Cycle & Carriage is Boon Yoon Chiang. He is also the Chairman/Managing Director of Jardine Matheson Singapore Ltd. Mr Boon worked as the press officer to Mr S Rajaratnam (a founding Minister of Singapore) before leaving the Ministry to work with Jardine Group. Mr Boon is also a Director of the Employment & Employability Institute, a subsidiary of the Singapore Labour Foundation (link: http://$$$$$$$/299Ud9S), and is also Member of the Competition Appeal Board.
Ms Cynthia Phua
After losing the 2011 GE, Ms Phua who was an MP at Aljunied GRC, continued in her job as the General Manager of
NTUC
Fairprice Co-operative Ltd (link: http://$$$$$$$/296QJiu).
Ong Ye Kung
Mr Ong made a debut as PAP’s candidate in GE 2011. He contested in Aljunied GRC, but lost. After losing the contest, he went on to hold several posts including as independent director of
SMRT
, as Chairman of
Employment & Employability Institute
and as Director of
Keppel Corporation
, before riding on the coattails of Minister Khaw Boon Wan to be elected from the constituency of Sembawang. He is now the Minister for Education
(Higher Education and Skills).
Lui Tuck Yew
And as another writer pointed out in TISG, Mr Lui who resigned as Transport Minister before GE 2015, found employment as a director in a
company founded and run by grassroots leaders
. The company said that it has “reviewed, assessed and concluded that Mr Lui Tuck Yew possesses the requisite qualifications and work experiences” to be its independent director. But at the same time, it also said that it would arrange for Mr Lui to
“receive relevant training to familiarise himself with the role and responsibilities of a director”.
(link: http://$$$$$$$/29kIMcl)
Conclusion
From George Yeo to Lui Tuck Yew, there is enough evidence that Ministers who leave public office will not suffer from not being able to find a job to feed their families. Even if our Ministers are not savvy enough like their American counterparts “to turn up for an appearance, make a few remarks, (and earn) a hundred thousand dollars a time”, they certainly can continue to make millions even after leaving office.
In raising carpark charges recently Minister Lawrence Wong justified it by saying that it has to be benchmarked against cities in first world countries. If carpark charges must be benchmarked against first world cities in developed world, why not the salaries of Ministers?
TEO SER LUCK SAYS BYE BYE AFTER MAKING AT LEAST $12M AS PAP POLITICIAN LAST 11 YEARS
http://theindependent.sg/govt-reveal...ack-is-lauded/
Govt reveals Singhealth data hack half a month after discovering breach, yet SPH says Govt’s response to hack is “lauded”
By Jewel Stolarchuk - July 21, 2018
The Business Times, a publication by Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), cited just two sources and claimed that the Government’s response to the massive Singhealth data breach has been “lauded”.
This, despite the fact that the breach that affected 1.5 million patients was only announced yesterday – 16 days after unusual activity was first detected on Singhealth IT databases on 4 July; 10 days after the Ministry of Health was given confirmation that the unusual activity was due to a cyber attack on 10 July; and 8 days after the authorities made a police report.
In making the point that the Singapore government has been praised for how it has handled the breach so far, the Business Times cited two sources.
The first, PwC partner Tan Shong Ye, noted that the government “responded swiftly” to the incident and said that it is “good that action was taken immediately after the threat was detected to minimise the risk of further data exfiltration.”
The second source, cybersecurity company FireEye’s Asia Pacific branch president Eric Hoh, said that he hopes more governments would follow Singapore’s lead in disclosing breaches.
Considering the scale of the breach, the time it took the authorities to disclose the breach and the fact that the two sources simply noted that the Government’s response is “good,” Singaporeans responding to the Business Times’ article were puzzled over why the publication angled the story as such:
COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY TO BE CONVENED AFTER CYBER-ATTACKERS TARGETED PM LEE AND STOLE 1.5 MILLION SINGHEALTH PATIENTS’ RECORDS
“I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE ATTACKERS WERE HOPING TO FIND,” PM LEE SPEAKS ON SINGHEALTH’S CYBERATTACK
