I think the WP thread is sidetracking to becoming election news thread.
So I open a new thread.
Say and post anything you want until elections over.
Once in 5 years, after that no more and must wait another 5 years.
Junior
I think the WP thread is sidetracking to becoming election news thread.
So I open a new thread.
Say and post anything you want until elections over.
Once in 5 years, after that no more and must wait another 5 years.
Junior
http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/04...from-politics/
Elitist’ Wee Siew Kim retires from politics
Controversial PAP MP Wee Siew Kim has retired from politics. He has been a MP in Ang Mo Kio GRC for almost ten years.
Mr Wee came into public spotlight when his daughter Wee Shu Min made disparaging remarks about a fellow Singaporean Mr Derek Wee on her blog in 2006.
Mr Wee, 35, a Singaporean who works for a multinational corporation, had written in his blog on Oct 12 that he was concerned about competition from foreign talent and the lack of job opportunities for older workers here, therefore he asked the government should try to be more understanding of such employment woes.
Ms Wee, then a second year Humanities in Raffles Junior College ridiculed Mr Wee, calling him ‘old’ and ‘under-motivated’ for his views and ended by telling him to ‘get out of my elite uncaring face.’
Her comments sparked a massive outcry in cyberspace, prompting Mr Wee Siew Kim to issue a half-hearted public apology.
In a statement released to the media, Wee Siew Kim stood by her “basic point” that the well-educated should get on with challenges in life rather than complain to the government about them.
Five years later, the situation has worsened with Singapore being flooded by hordes of cheap, low-skilled foreign workers leading to the depressing of wages of ordinary Singaporeans, sky-rocketing cost of living and a widening income gap between the rich and the poor.
.
Jeremy
Junior
Watch the clip about Lim Boon Heng titled
'Minister Lim Boon Heng broke down twice' and 'Lim Boon Heng: "Life is not perfect" '
He is hinting that in PAP, things are debate behind close doors and not in Parliament because there is a need to save some his colleagues' face.
I did not know PAP faces are considered sensitive and if so, why bother be politicians and expose to public ?
Then what is Parliament for ?
The social problems far outweigh any employment benefits with casinos in front of doorstep.
Even you do not gamble, your children and grandchildren might gamble.
It distracts people from employment and create unemployment elsewhere.
http://www.razor.tv/site/servlet/seg...ews/62210.html
Then he admitted wages will stagnanting and falling and pressured NTUC to pressure government but Tin Pei Ling say income gap not reponsibility of government so who to believe ??
Tin Pei Ling wins round one.
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/sh....php?t=3185482
http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%...11-273063.html
People's Action Party (PAP) chairman and Jurong GRC anchor minister Lim Boon Heng made public his retirement plans at the launch of the Jurong Town Council's five-year concept master plan on Sunday.
Another MP, Wee Siew Kim, will also be stepping down after two terms. Mr Wee is MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC.
Their retirements make up the total number of 18 PAP MPs who will be stepping aside to give way to younger politicians.
Mr Lim, who is currently a Minister in the Prime Minister's office, takes care of ageing issues.
He is also chairman of NTUC's Social Enterprises Development Council, which oversees cooperatives such as FairPrice supermarkets, insurance and training issues.
However, he has said that he will not be running as a candidate in the presidential election, which must be held by August this year.
Lim Boon Heng in tears
At the unveiling of the seventh batch of PAP's new candidates for the coming general election, Mr Lim got emotional as he answered a question on the likelihood of 'groupthink' within the government.
He mentioned the topic of casinos, and said that there was no group-think on the casino issue.
His voice caught in his throat when he said he almost could not make his speech in Parliament, saying it was a very difficult process for him to accept the casino.
With red, watery eyes, Mr Lim continued by saying that the casino issue was one example that could be quoted to say there was no group-think.
He also gave another example about how the trade union movement was very concerned about low income.
He said during the media conference: "We saw wages stagnating, and worse still, we saw wages falling."
After emphatically saying that there was no group-think on issues such as these, Mr Lim broke into tears again.
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/sh....php?t=3185509
http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/04...meets-the-eye/
Lim Boon Heng’s ’sudden’ retirement more than meets the eye
The ’sudden’ retirement of PAP Chairman and stalwart Lim Boon Heng has taken many Singaporeans and political observers alike by surprise.
Just two days ago, when Mr Lim was attending a community event in Jurong GRC, he told the media that he would ‘go wherever he is needed’, but ‘does not see a great need’ to go to Aljunied GRC because ‘it is in great hands’.
Mr Lim was responding to news report that he may be kept as a ‘trump minister’ to be shifted to whichever GRC which faces a strong opposition on Nomination Day.
If Mr Lim has any intention of retiring, he certainly did not show it. On 9 April, he said in a media interview that the younger candidates are still being ‘tested’ to decide if they will fit the bill in all the GRCs. He even hinted that he does not rule out ’surprises’ on Nomination Day, if ‘necessary’.
It is strange that Mr Lim has announced his retirement one day later after it appeared that he was still carrying on his duties as PAP Chairman.
Did Mr Lim really plan to retire or was he forced to retire by external circumstances?
The PAP’s ‘renewal’ exercise seems to be plunging into chaos with some relatively young and experienced MPs being replaced by newbies with doubtful credentials while the oldest MP still show no sign of retiring.
.
Alan Au
Junior
http://son-of-singapore.blogspot.com...-alone-in.html
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/sh....php?t=3180242
The Conundrum of Growing Old & Alone in Singapore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao-DGAw1Q2o
A certain minister with no bloody portfolio recently mentioned that whenever he looks at his CPF statement he feel so rich.
The reality for most people however is somewhat different. It is money that is taken from you in the prime of your life, yet you never get to see it even when you are desperately in need of it.
FAMILIES: A TREND THAT IS FADING WITH THE WIND
First, let us take a look at a problem is is a trait found in most First-World countries. In the past, it was always a societal expectation that we get married, have kids and eventually grandchildren.
This was especially the case in Asian societies (Chinese especially) where marriage and having descendants was considered a sacred duty, and not to do so was tantamount to betrayal. There were all sorts of families.
Some genuinely wanted children and usually treated them well, while others probably did it only out of a sense of duty and maybe did not do such a good job of it as a result. Nevertheless, there was always a familial network of people, a support structure to depend upon.
In Singapore however, either by choice or otherwise, an increasing number of people are deciding to forgo marriage, having children or both.
Perhaps it is fortunate that I am in this position by choice, as the idea of marriage simply does not appeal to me. Others however are in this boat simply because the cost and obstacles in the way are too high and too insurmountable, and this is a tragedy of the highest order.
Marriage is a tough decision, simply because love alone is not sufficient to sustain one. It must have a solid foundation in which to flourish, and a critical part of this is a roof over their heads.
The HDB was supposed to help solve this problem by allowing young couples to have affordable homes. However, it has been hijacked by property speculators (a large number of which are "new citizens") who have jacked up the prices so high that genuine buyers are left in debt for years, even decades.
Assuming the problem of housing is solved, we then come to the problem with having children. It cost a lot of raise them, with rising basic costs and the pressure-cooker education system with have, in which one wrong move by the parents or child can condemn the child to a life of misery and poverty.
The system does not forgive mistakes, and it never forgets. This is the main reason why I never want to have children, for I do not want to subject anyone to the same torment and agony I went through from kindergarten all the way to university just because I was not "perfect" like everyone else.
GROWING OLD ALL ALONE WITH YOUR MONEY (OH RLY?)
This brings us to the main point, which is what happens if you decide to go all out and live life with no commitments to a family. A check with CPF Board reveals what happens if you still have money in your CPF accounts when you finally kick the bucket.
By default, when you pass away the money goes to your children, spouse or whatever relations you have still surviving, after paying off the horridly expensive medical bills (And Mr "I-Pay-$8-only-for-heart-ops" does not count, majority of comprehensive health care such as cancer treatments are NOT subsidised fully but that is outside the scope of this write-up).
However what happens if you die with no surviving relations? Here is where the true horror comes in. According to interstate laws,
THE GOVERNMENT GETS TO KEEP ALL YOUR MONEY AND ESTATE!!!
That is the hard and brutal truth. The money that is stolen from you every month, then stashed away where you cannot reach it, with the illusion that it is yours someday (and with the withdrawal age for Minimum Sum extended to 65, chances are you will never fully withdraw it before you die) goes to them when you die.
Even if in your last months, a friend touched your heart enough you want to left something for him or her, you cannot leave anything to him or her because he or she is not related to you. Apparently the Government thinks that we are not capable of deciding what to do with our CPF money when we die, it wants the whole pie.
And from that we can draw a terrifying conclusion, the reason why the Government does not want to actively put steps to encourage its own citizens to marry and procreate.
Because it does not want you to. It wants you to die, alone in your bed (preferably in JB instead of Singapore), so that it has a legitimate reason to take YOUR money and fatten itself instead.
It does not want you to have children, for it is far quicker and more cost-effective to import in your replacement, in the hopes that the said replacement will in turn die alone with no "inconvenient relatives" to claim the money instead.
And this is why we need a better system. And we must decide quickly, before the money which we slaved our whole lives for go instead to Herman Miller chairs and million-dollar paychecks for the people in positions of power.
I am new here...
From LBH's remarks over casino decision, PAP's MP seem like following rules
Rule No. 1) When voting in Parliament, MP die die must follow leader's direction
Rule No. 2) If PAP MP iis very confused and not sure how to vote, refer back to rule no. 1 for decision.
Daft, Dafter, Dafterest!!!!
Bricks & Mortar
So many old guards leave at 1 time, not very good. Either there is a shakeup behind close doors, or maybe more than meet the eye....Early 60s of age, still can contribute many more good years, so urgent need 20 new faces..., if good ones, 10 can already...
Junior
Tin Pei Ling beats Lim Boon Heng.Originally Posted by land118
Income Gap is indeed not responsibility of government.
Junior
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/sh...3020100&page=3
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/sh...571953&page=11
http://siewkumhong.blogspot.com/2007...-help-sir.html
This article from today's edition of TODAY talks about Singapore's version of a welfare scheme. Welfare-fearing rhetoric from our leaders aside, Singapore is not so heartless that we don't have any welfare schemes at all -- we do.
It's called the Public Assistance scheme. There are only about 3,000 households are on it. I am not sure if that's because there are only 3,000 households that need this kind of assistance, or because of the stringency of the eligibility requirements, viz. Singapore citizens who (a) are unable to work owing to old age, illness or unfavourable family circumstances; AND (b) have no means of subsistence and no family members to depend on. (underlining added)
There is a cash grant component to it, with the amounts on a sliding scale depending on household size and the number of adults and children in the household. A single-adult household is currently given $260 per month, but this number is due to rise to $290 per month.
I don't think the PA scheme was very widely-known outside of the social assistance/welfare sector, at least not until a recent exchange in Parliament between MP Lily Neo and Mr Sin Boon Ann on one side, and Minister Vivian Balakrishnan on the other, that was quite widely reported in the media.
For background, Dr Neo had earlier done a rough survey of her constituents on PA, and discovered that a fair proportion of the single adults on PA had to skip at least one meal a day to get by on $260 per month. By her estimate, a single-adult household on PA actually needed about $400 per month to get by. She had filed a PQ on it in February that was not fully discussed due to time, and also because it preceded the COS debate on MCYS and so the response given to her was "wait for the Budget debate".
I can do no better than to direct you to the TODAY article, and to reproduce the relevant exchanges in Parliament below. As for me, I think $290 per month is disgraceful. At the very least, as pointed out by SPS Amy Khor in the TODAY article, the ministry needs to justify that figure and reconcile it with Dr Neo's $400 figure.
Dr Lily Neo: Sir, I want to check with the Minister again when he said on the strict criteria on the entitlement for PA recipients. May I ask him what is his definition of "subsistence living"? Am I correct to say that, out of $260 per month for PA recipients, $100 goes to rental, power supply and S&C and leaving them with only $5 a day to live on? Am I correct to say that any basic meal in any hawker centre is already $2.50 to $3.00 per meal? Therefore, is it too much to ask for just three meals a day as an entitlement for the PA recipients?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: How much do you want? Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?
Dr Lily Neo: It is cheaper to cook for one person.
http://siewkumhong.blogspot.com/2007...tement-on.html
Perspectives
Sir, Singaporeans have been asked to put some perspective around the current $45.5 million for the political appointees, being 0.13% of government expenditure and 0.022% of our GDP.
I think there are some other perspectives that can be put around these numbers.
At the revised MR4 benchmark of $1.6 million per year, a minister who serves a full five-year term would have made $8 million.
Serve two terms, and that becomes $16 million plus a pension. Even if the minister spends a million dollars a year, there would still be $6 million left over for a retirement in style.
Meanwhile, Workfare will cost the Government $400 million a year. But it is intended to benefit the bottom 15% of the workforce.
In 2005, we had 2.36 million workers. The bottom 15% means 354,000 workers.
Workfare will cost over 7 times of the aggregate revised salaries of political appointees, but benefits 10,000 times the number of political appointees we have.
Or let’s take Public Assistance. MCYS recently announced a revision to the amounts that Public Assistance recipients will get.
Some Members felt that the amounts are still not enough, especially for one-member households.
Dr Lily Neo has calculated that a minimum of $400 per month was needed by such households, yet the revised rate for them is $290 per month.
With 3,000 households on Public Assistance, an across-the-board increase of $110 per month would mean an additional expenditure of $3.96 million a year – 7% of the amounts that we will pay political appointees every year after the revisions.
Yet, we decline to do so, fearing an erosion of Singaporeans’ work ethic, never mind that one must be unable to work to qualify for Public Assistance.
Sir, there are a lot of different perspectives that can be put around ministerial salaries.
My fear is that the singular perspective being applied, of what our ministers could potentially be earning in the private sector, ignores other perspectives that are equally valid and equally important.
We place so much emphasis on using public funds wisely, on sending the right message to society, on not inadvertently creating new problems when we address existing ones.
These same considerations must apply when we consider ministerial salaries. It is not just a question of the number, whether we can afford it or its size relative to the stakes involved.
There are other considerations involved, and other potential repercussions.
And my greatest worry is that an open-ended linkage between ministerial salaries and top earners, which is how the benchmarks work in their current form, could in the long run undermine the moral authority that a government needs to lead the people.
Newbie
and out of 21 new faces, more than half is CMI
LBH says public must subject the opposition candidates to scrunity like the pap candidates...
In first place, how can tin tin compare to CSM? even the blind can tell...
Junior
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/sh...571953&page=12
http://news.asiaone.com/a1news/20070402_story11_1.html
Civil Service : Ministers High Salaries Necessary as the job is Not Secure and thus High Risk
PSD dispels myths on ministers, civil servants pay
It responds to public's misperceptions of civil service salaries, perks and pensions
Apr 2, 2007
AsiaOne
The salaries of Singapore's ministers and top civil servants have fallen to 55 per cent of the benchmark compared to private sector, and they should be earning $2.2 million, according to the Public Service Division.
Their current salary of $1.2 million is an all-inclusive package covering bonues, and one-third of this package is currently variable.
The PSD disclosed these in response to readers' letters to The Straits Times and online comments on the pay, perks and pensions of ministers and top civil servants, after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said at the annual Administrative Service dinner on March 22, that public service salaries had fallen behind the public sector.
Details of salary changes across the civil service will be announced in Parliament on April 9.
The salaries of ministers and top civil servants are pegged at two-thirds of the median income of the top eight earners in each of six professions.
Despite the current salary shortfall, some Singaporeans have questioned if there were hidden benefits not listed as part of the salary, which would make make the civil servants' position better than it seemed.
The PSD said the figure of $1.2 million is the maximum amount they can receive, since it includes all bonuses and variable component. About one-third of this annual salary package is variable and depends on the minister or civil servant's performance as well as Singapore's economic situation, it told The Straits Times.
On pensions, the PSD said these are not calculated based on total annual salary packages, and that currently only about half of a minister's montly salary is pensionable.
And contrary to popular belief, ministers do no receive perks like free certificates of entitlement (COEs) or a waiver on maid levies and taxes, said the PSD.
Labour chief Lim Swee Say, commenting on the proposed pay rise, said it is in the workers' interest as it ensures the Government will continue to attract the top talent.
Only with good leaders would Singapore remain afloat in an increasingly competitive global economy, which in turn ensures workers will continue to have jobs, said Mr Lim.
PSD's responses to comments from the public
SALARIES
Q: Do ministers and administrative officers (AOs) get bonuses on top of the $1.2 million they receive a year?
A: Public Service Division: The annual salary figure of $1.2 million includes all components – monthly pay, mid- and year-end payments, allowances, performance bonuses and GDP bonus. There are no other payments.
Q: Do ministers holding more than one portfolio receive additional salaries?
A: A minister receives one salary, even if he holds two or more portfolios.
Q: Do ministers have key performance indicators or performance appraisals?
A: They are appraised by the Prime Minister. A large part of their pay is linked to individual performance and how the economy is doing. Currently, a third of their package is performance-related.
Q: What about the view that ministers enjoy a secure job, with none of the risks experienced by top earners in the private sector?
A: Ministers do not have guaranteed tenures. They face general elections every five years.
PERKS
Q: What kinds of medical benefits do ministers and AOs receive?
A: Ministers are on the Medisave-cum-Subsidised Outpatient Scheme, like the majority of civil servants. They do not receive any hospitalisation benefits.
Instead, ministers receive 1 per cent of salary (capped at $70 a month and at 17 months a year) paid into their Medisave. They can use this to buy health insurance plans. For outpatient treatment, it is capped at $350 a year for each minister.
Ministers co-pay 15 per cent of medical expenses at restructured hospitals. Where it is for his dependents, such as spouse and children up to 18 years, the minister co-pays 40 per cent.
But this is all subject to a cap of $350 per year. Any unused amount at the end of the year is put into the minister's Medisave account. There are no extra benefits for them or their spouse or children. Their parents do not get medical benefits.
It is similar for AOs who joined after January 1994.
Q: Do ministers and AOs enjoy additional perks?
Ans: Ministers do not receive any perks. The salary is everything there is. They pay their own COEs, ERP, maid levies and taxes. The official car can be used for official purposes only, not for personal use.
It is the same for AOs.
For networking purposes, senior AOs take up golf memberships at corporate rates but they pay subscription and membership fees out of their own pocket.
PENSIONS
Q: Do ministers and AOs receive pensions?
A: Only those who have served at least eight years as an office holder (for example, minister or minister of state) qualify for a pension.
Since 1994, the pensionable salary component at each grade has been frozen. All subsequent salary increases, whether in the form of monthly adjustments or increase in annual components, are non-pensionable.
The pensions for ministers are not calculated based on the total annual salary package each year.
Bonuses, allowances and other annual salary components are not included in the calculation of the minister's pension.
Only the pensionable portion of the minister's monthly salary is used and the actual pension also depends on the length of pensionable service. Currently, only about half of the monthly salary of a minister is pensionable.
As for post-retirement medical benefits, all office-holders, including ministers who qualify for pensions, continue on the Medisave-cum-Subsidised Outpatient Scheme. They do not get free medical after retirement.
For administrative officers to qualify for a pension, they must have served for at least 15 years. But they lose the pension once they resign from service.
As with ministers, only about half of AOs' monthly salaries are pensionable.
Also, MPs appointed after Jan 1, 1995 are no longer eligible for pensions.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE
Q: Some observers believe that under-performing AOs are allowed to remain in the service. Is this true?
A: The appraisal system is rigorous. There is an annual assessment on performance and potential by his boss, the permanent secretary.
Officers of the same seniority are then grouped, ranked and graded good, average or poor.
Non-performers are not given performance bonuses. And those who do not meet the retention requirement are asked to leave the Administrative Service.
Q: Is it true that only scholars can join the Administrative Service (AS) and once admitted, they can stay on indefinitely?
A: The AS takes in officers at all levels, including those who do not come through the scholar route. It also takes in mid-career entrants, whether from the private or public sectors.
Admission and retention criteria for the AS are much stricter than the civil service.
To remain, the officer must show the potential to become at least a Deputy Secretary or chief executive of a statutory board.
Those without this potential, even if they are good performers, will be asked to leave the AS. Some choose to resign while others continue to contribute in other parts of the public sector.
CIVIL SERVICE
Q: The civil service is said to be an iron rice bowl where poor performers are tolerated. How true is this?
A: The Civil Service takes a tough stance on under-performers. Those who do not meet job expectations are counselled and given an opportunity to improve. If they fail to do so, they are asked to leave.
In recent years, an increasing number of government agencies have been recruiting staff on fixed term contracts. Only good officers are offered permanent positions subsequently.
Readers' comments in AsiaOne forum:
While comparing the govt salaries with private sector is fine and good, it is NOT the same as there is hardly significant accountability or transparency in the performance of govt servants, administrators, ministers,etc. When the opposition challenges some of these performance issues like Shin Corp, Micropolis, etc, they or the public were not given satisfactory answers and further to this, no corrective actions were made known to the public.
Singapore already has the most well-paid civil servants and ministers in the world. It is difficult to comprehend how much more pay do the ministers and civil service need to motivate and live well.
Until the government can objectively be transparent and fully accountable in their review of the performance of each govt minister and top civil servant, it is difficult to see how the comparison between the public sector and private sector can be the same. - Chung Wui Cheng
What use is a clean government run by well-paid, well-fed civil servants and political elite that only look after the interests of the "haves" and "foreign talents" but cares little for those old and beyond "employablilty" who are subsisting on public assistance, giving them barely enough to cover their 3 meals?
Dr. Lily Neo's pleas falls on deaf ears, and we are talking about increasing salaries of those elite few that are already paid tens of thousands a month.
What kind of system are we moving towards. I don't agree a single word with any of the ministers' clamour to justify another round of hefty pay hikes for the people whom I feel are already too well paid. - NicholasI don't think that it should be pegged to the scale of the private sector. Firstly, it is a different kind of job scope. There are tools to measure the capability of the individuals in the private sector.
If they don't do well, there is no hesitation to terminate their services but does the government do that?. What if the ministers don't do their work? Will they be replaced immediately? - Chua Chin Heng
Junior
I rather subject PAP policies and candidates to more scrutiny since PAP will be forming the next government for next 5 years.
Junior
Some videos from GE 2006 I found on Internet.
Part 1 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j0UC...eature=related
Part 2 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pQZk...eature=related
Part 3 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofc3z...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXKa5...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajJNj...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRLpx...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KEjT...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOqGI...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcbBb...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVblQ...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmoT8...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsbzBySD2LU
Junior
For all election campaigning activities and photos, please go to party websites to read up and understand.
http://www.wp.org.sg/
http://www.facebook.com/workersparty
http://www.thereformparty.net/
http://www.facebook.com/thereformparty
http://yoursdp.org/
http://www.facebook.com/yoursdp
http://www.nsp.sg/
http://www.spp.org.sg/
Bricks & Mortar
This is interesting, again we are Number 1. Probably because our MPs need not be full time, so we need more...?
http://www.transitioning.org/2010/03...number-of-mps/
Singapore ranked No 1 in the world for MP’s number
WendyChong wrote:
Post subject: singapore ranked No 1 in the world again
For a small country of 5 million people or 3.6 million citizens, Singapore has an unusually large number of MPs or 1 MP per 42,857 citizens.
Do we really need so many MPs? Let us compare the size of our parliament with other Asian democracies:
1. Malaysia:
Number of elected MPs: 222 in Dewan Rakyat
Population (2009): 27 million.
MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 121,621
Monthly allowance of MP: S$2,500
2. Japan:
Number of MPs: 480 in House of Representatives
Population: 127 million.
MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 264,583
3. South Korea:
Number of MPs: 290 in National Assembly
Population: 49.5 million.
MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 170,689
4. Republic of China (Taiwan)
Number of MPs: 113 in Legislative Yuan
Population: 22.9 million.
MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 202,654
5. Thailand
Number of MPs: 480 in National Assembly
Population: 62 million
MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 129,167
6. Indonesia
Number of MPs: 690 in People’s Consultative Assembly
Population: 238 million
MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 344,928
Junior
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singa...93903-007.html
Yes to two-party system: Yahoo! users
Can a two-party system exist in Singapore?
"Yes," responded users by an overwhelming majority to the above Yahoo! Answers question we posted last week.
Last Wednesday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was reported as saying that a two-party political system is "not workable" in Singapore because there is simply "not enough top talent".
According to PM Lee, a two-party political system would lead to weaker governance.
Of the near 90 responses on Yahoo! Answers, however, almost all users felt a two-party system was worth at least a shot, and some were even willing to have one "A team" and one "B team".
Their main reason: check and balance
User Viktor said, "It has nothing to do with the competency of ruling party but it's a simple matter of "check & balance.""
It would "ensure what we have built or achieved today is being protected," he said.
"I think the current party is doing great, but like any great heroes or great organizations, when left unchecked … just may go off the path and Singapore cannot afford that mistake," he said.
"It is not about how many "A" Team or talents (Singapore has). It is about passion and (a) heart for this land," wrote Hellcat.
"As far as I am concern, I am willing to give the two-party system a try. Why? Because, the current one is out-of-touch and just too money oriented," he added.
In times of crisis such as in the 1960s, a one-party system was good as it allowed the government to steer the country without interference, but times have changed, said tamsan, who noted the opposition have "recruited some well qualified people too".
"Our education system has produced a whole lot of mature minded, experienced men and women who are as talented as those who joined the ruling party," he said.
Some star candidates that have been revealed so far include the Workers' Party's Chen Show Mao, a corporate lawyer, and Singapore People's Party's Benjamin Pwee, a former senior civil servant.
Another question that popped up was whether a lack of talent really exists in Singapore.
Does such a lack mean there is a problem with the education system, some wondered.
User angry noted that the issue is not about a lack of talent but that these talents are fearful of joining the opposition.
A minority of users, including user wong Kwai¸ agreed with PM Lee's comments.
"Instead of forming a single strong A+ Team, a two-party system will split the limited number of talents into two equally strong B Teams... why settle for mediocrity?" questioned wong Kwai.
User Malfoy T said, Singapore is not ready for a "true blue two-party type government". He felt the opposition needed more time to achieve the required "maturity, depth and sophistication".
"Singapore is after all, a "branded" country, where brands command a premium … Can the people of Singapore identify with someone like Low Thia Khiang or Sylvia Lim, as a potential PM?" he added.
Local author and political watcher Catherine Lim told Yahoo! Singapore, PM Lee's assumption of talent shortage is "open to challenge".
"Surely, at this stage in the development of our society, there are enough men and women with the intellectual calibre, professional standing, moral fibre and personal dedication to be good leaders," she said.
Many Singaporeans could "surely meet" the "PAP model of governance", which primarily calls for "efficiency, discipline, hard work, integrity and commitment", she added.
"What the PM probably means when he laments the scarcity is that there are not enough Singaporeans who would prove true to the style of the PAP model of governance, that is the style laid down by (Minister Mentor) Lee Kuan Yew," said Dr Lim.
She described this as a "stern, no-nonsense, unrelentingly pragmatic, humourless, top-down approach in leadership that rules out those who by nature or inclination are charismatic, glamorous, individualistic, independent, and boldly creative".
She added that having the PAP split into two parties — an option PM Lee revealed the party had once considered — would not work since both parties would still adhere to the same model of governance.
Dr Lim suggested one future scenario: PAP leaders who have left the party because of differences with others might re-emerge and come together to make possible a viable two-party system.
Junior
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singa...080808394.html
Why I joined the opposition: Dr Wijeysingha
As part of Yahoo! Singapore's coverage of the 2011 General Elections, we speak to new faces to look out for in the coming weeks. In the first of a four-part series, ALICIA WONG speaks to DR VINCENT WIJEYSINGHA of the Singapore Democratic Party.
Dr Vincent Wijeysingha joined the Singapore Democratic Party last July and is slated to contest in Holland-Bukit …
As a social worker, Dr Vincent Wijeysingha would assess and propose solutions to problems facing a person or family.
However, over the course of his analysis, he felt that the root of these problems stemmed from the current systems in place.
That left him with two choices: Continue in social work and support the ruling political party, or join politics to change the system.
The new face at the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chose the latter.
"Politics and social work stem from the same value base; that human beings are important and (have) the right to live a fulfilling and dignified life," stated the 40-year-old social policy doctorate holder.
Dr Wijeysingha, who is also the executive director of civil society group Transient Workers Count Too, returned to Singapore last July and joined the SDP.
Speaking to Yahoo! Singapore in a 45-minute interview, he explained that he was attracted to the party's commitment to people, families and the community.
"It is a coherent party, constructive about programmes and compassionate to the less fortunate," he said.
The changes he and the SDP will champion for include abolishing Goods and Service Tax for basic goods and removing the profit motive for public services such as housing, education and healthcare.
The party released its 10-point SDP Promise to voters on Saturday, setting out what a SDP MP would seek to achieve if elected into Parliament.
Dr Vincent Wijeysingha at the launch of the SDP Promise on Saturday. (Yahoo! Photo/Liyana Low)
Reaching out to the different strata of society
While the ruling People's Action Party frequently argues that the needy in Singapore are well taken care of, Dr Wijeysingha terms this a "false argument".
He cites bureaucracy being one of the difficulties that lower-income families face in accessing funds.
He also dealt at length on the cost of living difficulties the middle-income and high-income group face, for instance, when an elderly falls sick and needs long-term care.
Dr Wijeysingha is expected to contest in Holland-Bukit Timah group representation constituency, a place which he has close ties to.
He recounted spending almost all his weekends in Serene Centre in 1987, as his then girlfriend lived in Sixth Avenue. He also served national service in Mowbray Camp at Ulu Pandan Road.
More recently, he lived in a HDB flat at Holland Village for a few months when he returned to Singapore last July.
"I grew up in a similar socio-economic area, Seletar Hills," he shared. "So there's some sort of affinity with the needs of that community."
Living in a HDB flat also gave him an understanding of residents' needs.
"I'm not trying to pretend I'm a working class hero, I'm not. But you get to learn about the problems of living in a HDB flat."
To those worried that his 16 years away from Singapore means he is out of touch with local concerns, Dr Wijeysingha joked about the benefits of belonging to a South Asian family.
"There's always a wedding, a funeral or something. One year I came back four times, two weddings, two funerals. So you never lose touch of what's going on," he quipped.
While in the UK, he worked in child protection and later started a social work consultancy.
He would return to Singapore at least once a year and spent about a year here, in total, when he was conducting research for his PhD.
"So I don't think I've ever emotionally or intellectually left the country," he said.
Family gradually coming around
When speaking to Dr Wijeysingha, it is hard to forget his father, Eugene Wijeysingha, is the well-liked former principal of Raffles Institution, and in Dr Wijeysingha's own words, an "Establishment man".
So how did his family take the news that he would be joining opposition politics?
"It's not surprising in my family that people do social work, teaching, but when I got involved in formal politics, they were apprehensive," he said.
"When I told them it was SDP, even more apprehensive," he said, with a laugh.
But after explaining his views and including them in party activities, they are "gradually coming around," he said.
On a scale of one (least supportive) to 10 (most supportive), he believes they are now at a six.
Recalling the most important advice he has received, told to him by a close friend, Dr Wijeysingha said, "Don't ever forget why you are doing what you are doing."
Junior
http://ge2011.theonlinecitizen.com/2...ld-parliament/
Vote Workers’ Party – towards a First World Parliament
Posted by admin on April 9, 2011 in Breaking News, Workers' Party | 3 Comments
var addthis_product = 'wpp-254';var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};The Workers’ Party launched its campaign slogan and manifesto for the upcoming General Election on 9 April, Sunday, at its party headquarters.
You can view the manifesto here.
The following is the party’s media brief about the event:
http://ge2011.theonlinecitizen.com/w...20-225x300.jpg
Campaign slogan: “Vote Workers’ Party – Towards A First World Parliament”
The Workers’ Party (WP) will campaign on the slogan, “Vote Workers’ Party – Towards a First World Parliament”.
WP has chosen this slogan for the coming General Election because it believes that it is vital at this juncture of our nation building to critically assess whether our institutions of government are functioning properly, in particular, Parliament.
As we move towards Parliamentary elections in our 46th year of independence as a nation, we should ask ourselves what kind of Parliament is needed to ensure that Singapore endures for the future.
While Singapore has achieved First World standards in certain areas such as economic development and infrastructure, the same cannot be said of our model of governance.
With an overwhelmingly dominant People’s Action Party (PAP) in Parliament, there are severe limitations as to how far Parliament can check the Government, which is supposed to be one of Parliament’s key functions.
Ruling party Members of Parliament must support Government agenda, which means that the Government can steamroll its plans through the House easily.
The Workers’ Party believes that it is not in the national interest for Parliament to continue to be so overwhelmingly dominated by the PAP.
There is a real danger that Parliament will appear to be a rubber stamp for the government agenda.
No government is perfect, or infallible, or lasts forever. The ruling party must be subject to scrutiny and challenge and competition to keep it on its toes.
It is also critical that Singaporeans are not stuck with just one party able to govern, and no fall-back plan.
Alternative governments do not spring up overnight to take over when a government fails. Political experience must be built, and having members of other political parties being elected into Parliament with the people’s mandate is the start to vuilding the necessary political insurance.
Characteristics of First World Parliament
In our view, a First World parliament for Singapore would have the following characteristics:
How a First World Parliament would benefit Singaporeans
- It would consist only of Members of Parliament elected in free and fair elections, all of whom have similar voting rights due to their mandate from their constituencies;
- It would function as a robust check and balance against the Government. For this to happen, there must be a critical mass of elected MPs from the opposition parties.
- The Opposition in Parliament must also be responsible for defending national interest viz. to ensure that the Government does not take steps which hurt the people;
- Parliament must respect the Constitution and people’s constitutional rights.
If Singaporeans vote towards a First World Parliament, WP believes the following benefits would accrue to improve Singaporeans’ lives:
<A href="http://ge2011.theonlinecitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/205739_10150162751594545_729004544_6663819_4838867_n.jpg" target=_blank>http://ge2011.theonlinecitizen.com/w..._4838867_n.jpg
- There will be more thorough public examination of policies, subject to public scrutiny. This will promote greater accountability and transparency, and empower Singaporeans to make informed choices;
- The ruling party would be kept on its toes due to political pressure. It would also have to think twice about implementing harsh policies or pay a political price;
- Singaporeans will have some insurance in the event of ruling party decline;
- More diverse interests and viewpoints would be represented in the House, for better representation.
Junior
Workers' Party Launches GE2011 Campaign Slogan & Manifesto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVqJ9...embedded#at=18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6RM6...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u_WN...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKVz3...layer_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh7yM...eature=related
Chen Show Mao:
"The votes of Singaporeans will become the Worker's Party secret weapon."
Bricks & Mortar
This guy and his team is going to give PAP Dr Vivian B. a tough fight ...esp if he get good WP team members in...., stepping out of his Dad's shadow - a reputable ex RI principal. Kinda of strange why he never joined PAP...
Junior
Err....if you read the article, he belongs to SDP, not WP.
These days, people who join PAP are either self-serving, for career advancement, for the money, for the connections etc.
Gone are the days like PAP Old Guard who join to improve Singapore and for public-mindedness.
Junior
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singa...04319-900.html
PAP facing a recruitment challenge: blogger
By Elena Torrijos | SingaporeScene – 2 hours 21 minutes ago
(From left) Steven Tan, Foo Mee Har and Desmond Lee are the second batch of new PAP candidates unveiled on 23 March, …
By Seah Chiang Nee
In a departure from recent history, the powerful People's Action Party (PAP) has found it hard to recruit talent from the private sector to stand as its election candidates.
This contrasts with the past when it enjoyed widespread popularity with little problem in persuading high achievers from private and public organisations to rally to its banner.
The relative failure comes at a time when opposition parties have made significant gains in attracting quality candidates.
It is posing a setback — at least temporarily — to the PAP's plan to use the election, which is expected next month, to produce the next Prime Minister and Cabinet leaders.
Of the 18 newly-recruited PAP candidates announced, only five hailed from the private sector — an assistant professor, two lawyers and two bankers, one of whom is an executive in the government-controlled DBS Bank.
The remaining 13 — or 72 percent — were top people who had served and resigned from public office to contest under the PAP banner.
They were from the civil service, the army, the statutory boards or PAP-controlled unions. The PAP-controlled National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) contributed five.
Two army generals gave up their stars to take up politics and are tipped to be core members of the fourth generation Cabinet.
The political leaders have described it as a good, diverse team but it is obvious that the inability to attract private talent weighs heavily on officials' minds.
The paucity was confirmed by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong who admitted that the PAP had difficulty attracting private-sector high flyers to join efforts to form the PAP leadership team.
Extensive efforts, which included 200 "tea sessions" (interviews) to recruit election candidates from the private sector "have not been that successful," he admitted.
For the PAP, which has not lost a single election in the last 50 years, it is a dismal show especially in the face of a resurging opposition which seems to have less difficulty in this area.
Few analysts are predicting this will be a permanent PAP dilemma or that it will cause the PAP to lose the election, but it may have adverse consequences for the party in future.
Bringing together a diverse team comprising the best candidates is fast becoming an impossible task.
The trouble is that some of the targeted high-flyers either do not support the PAP's current strategy for Singapore or some of its political, economic and social policies.
The potential slate would include successful managers, businessmen, academicians and professionals, people that recruiters have paid special interest to.
How will it affect the future? Firstly, it could erode some of the PAP's support among voters which is already in decline over the mass intake of foreigners.
And, secondly, the reduced number of MPs from the private sector could lower the PAP's performance in Parliament.
"To have too many people with civil service or army background may not be a good idea. Parliament may lose touch with the people," one surfer said.
"What about diversity? Where are the professional social workers, the musicians and poets?" she asked.
The issue, which has become a hot topic, has prompted a National University of Singapore (NUS) undergrad to raise it with PM Lee Hsien Loong during a campus dialogue last week.
How is it, he wanted to know, that despite the high salaries, the PAP had not attracted private talents — but the opposition had.
Lee replied: "I'm not sure whether we're looking for exactly the same people. We're looking for a certain type of person ... (one with) commitment, integrity and purpose."
The preferred people, he added, were already set in their careers and not keen to change tracks or face the high risk of a political life.
Not everyone agrees with his explanation. One commentator said: "The real reason is that many of them refused to join because they disagreed with PAP policies. "They don't want to degrade themselves by having to toe the party line."
The fast expanding social media which alternates between being informative to punishing people it doesn't like, also adds to the reluctance of people to seek election for public office.
Many successful people are not prepared to have their private lives or their family members be subjected to critical scrutiny or even insults.
What is putting paid to this is the opposition's apparent success in attracting quality candidates to contest, despite all the arguments about privacy and risks.
By entering politics, an opposition candidate is generally seen as facing a higher risk of defeat or failure and financial losses than the one who stands for the PAP, with its superior resources.
"Yet they are pushing ahead with their principles, unfazed," said an admiring female undergrad — a little too innocently to describe the tough world of politics.
Not every politician who fights for the weaker team — or who joins the winning one — does so for a selfless cause.
The reward in Singapore that comes with political success can be very large — for all aspirants.
The high Cabinet salaries, which exceed those of even the richest nations in the world, have attracted top talent to help build Singapore's collective wealth.
But as the public backlash rises, it may be contributing to dissuading successful high flyers from joining the government for fear of becoming a target of criticism and even insults.
In other words, this high pay system may even deter a few potential leaders from joining the political arena.
Related Article:
Opposition: an emerging breed
A former Reuters correspondent and newspaper editor, the writer is now a freelance columnist writing on general trends in Singapore. This post first appeared on his blog, www.littlespeck.com, on 9 April 2011.
Junior
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singa...81338701.html\
‘No casino? I’ll kill myself’
Her children tried to stop her from gambling, but she threatened to kill herself.
After a two-hour stand-off on the third day of last Chinese New Year, the children's 51-year-old mother got her way and went back to the casino.
When she returned 24 hours later, she had lost S$7,000.
It was then the children gave up trying to get their mother to quit gambling. She had already racked up debts of more than S$300,000.
Speaking to The New Paper from their four-room HDB flat in Simei, accountant Jayden Liu, 24, said, "Now, we can only pray that a miracle happens before we lose her or the roof over our heads."
He recounted that his mother cried, pleaded and lashed out at her children during that confrontation. She put a stool to the kitchen window and threatened to jump after Jayden's younger sister, Jessie, 16, angrily said that they were considering applying for a family exclusion order to the casinos.
Jayden said, "We weren't sure if she'd really do it, but we couldn't take the risk. We had lost our father (to cancer) six years ago, we didn't want to lose our mother."
Taking up a job at a convenience store last December, Jessie now works Saturdays in order to pay for her math tuition and ease her brother's burden.
She also refuses to take money from him. "He should be dating and not taking on another job after office hours and over the weekends."
Jayden now works part time in a karaoke chain, and more than half his S$3,900 take-home pay goes towards paying relatives from whom he borrowed money to clear his mother's debts.
When asked by the same paper about her children's struggle, the hawker mum said, "I really don't think it's any of their business what I do, even if the creditors come hounding. If they are so unhappy, they can always move out."
On her suicide threat, she added that it was only a threat, and she never really intended to jump.
Charles Lee, a senior counsellor at Tanjong Pagar Family Service Centre, was not surprised.
"Normally, when a gambler is in a desperate situation, he will resort to emotional blackmail," he said.
Lee, who is in charge of the problem gambling counselling programme at Tanjong Pagar FSC, said that only trained and experienced counsellors can tell if a threat is real.
"While no one should take it lightly, most times, the threat could be just a threat," he said.
Lee, who has handled such cases before, advised the Liu siblings to seek professional help.
Junior
because the pap is not a compassionate party
Senior
So much daily coverage on election but until now still dunno when...waste time only.
Senior
It should be in May 2011. PAP is taking a big risk by retiring many old MPs and introducing several young un-proven ones. They didn't realise the ground is now quite unhappy with them and the opposition parties now have quite good quality candidates.
Senior
We shall see, but opposition does appear to have better chance this time round, especially WP.
Bricks & Mortar
Er....mistake, ya SDP
Senior
By ignoring the pleads of security for job and care for old age for the past few years, PAP has essentially alienating a lot of people. Suddenly now several new PAP candidates are trying to portray themselves as coming from an unfortunate background.
Junior
Junior
Err.... I thought we have excellent First World education system but not enough talent for 2-party system ?
I thought we have 14.6 % record GDP growth with record civil service salary raise and bonuses at 2010 so why so many PAP candidates rushing to identify with the poor and why Lim Boon Heng say wages fell and stagnanted? Why need workfare at all ?
I realise many PAP statements and speeches do not add up at all.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote