What do you think are the achievements of Lee Hsien Loong

[kuasimi]

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/w...0498.html?_r=0

Singapore announces 60 percent pay raise for ministers

By Seth Mydans

Published: Monday, April 9, 2007


SINGAPORE — How much money does it take to keep a Singapore government minister happy? The government says a million dollars is not enough, and on Monday it announced a 60 percent boost in ministers' salaries, to an average of 1.9 million Singapore dollars, or $1.26 million, by next year.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will see his pay jump to 3.1 million Singapore dollars, five times the $400,000 earned by President George W. Bush.

In this nation where the bottom line truly is the bottom line, the argument goes, you've got to pay to get them and you've got to pay to keep them.

"If we don't do that, in the long term, the government system will slowly crumble and collapse," Defense Minister Teo Chee Hean told reporters last month.

As the minister who oversees the civil service, Teo announced the pay hikes Monday, saying: "We don't want pay to be the reason for people to join us. But we also don't want pay to be the reason for them not to join us, or to leave after joining us."

It is a pay system created in 1994 by Singapore's founder, Lee Kuan Yew, pegging the salaries of government ministers and top civil servants to the money they might earn at the top of the private sector.

Defending the system last month against an unusual public yelp of pain, Lee Kuan Yew painted a horrifying picture of a Singapore governed by ministers who earn no more than ministers anywhere else.

"Your apartment will be worth a fraction of what it is," he said, "your jobs will be in peril, your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people's countries."

Singapore has one of the most efficient and corruption-free governments in the world.

It is Asia's second-richest country after Japan, with a gross domestic product per capita of about $31,000, and Lee said it could well afford to pay its leaders top dollar.

The total of the salaries before the increase amounted to 46 million Singapore dollars a year, he said, or 0.13 percent of government expenditure - 0.022 percent of gross domestic product.

Under the government's formula, ministers are to be paid two-thirds of the median of the top eight earners in each of six professions: accounting, law, banking, engineering, multinational companies and local manufacturing.

There has been no public sign of discontent among the men and women who run Singapore, but last month the prime minister noted that they were earning just 55 percent of this benchmark.

"We don't want pay to be the reason for people to join us," Teo said Monday in announcing the pay hikes. "But we also don't want pay to be the reason for them not to join us, or to leave after joining us."

Talk of the impending pay increase drew an outcry here for weeks that included letters to newspapers and an online petition that has collected more than 800 signatures.

The average Singaporean earns something over $2,000 a month, and the government has voiced concern over a widening gap between rich and poor.

The ministerial raise comes three months ahead of a 2 percent increase in the sales tax.

Mohamad Rosle Ahmad wrote in a letter to the editor: "I am sure Enron and Worldcom paid more than top dollar for their top executives, and look where their companies are now - six feet under."

Lee Kuan Yew, whose title is minister mentor, said naysayers like this need a reality check.

"I say you have no sense of proportion; you don't know what life is about," he said last month.

"The cure to all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government," Lee said. "You get that alternative, and you'll never put Singapore together again."

He presented himself as an example: "A top lawyer, which I could easily have become, today earns 4 million Singapore dollars. And he doesn't have to carry this responsibility. All he's got to do is advise his client. Win or lose, that's the client's loss or gain."

The Straits Times newspaper quoted him as saying his current salary as minister mentor was 2.7 million Singapore dollars.

Money may buy happiness for a government minister, but some Singaporeans suggested that other motivations should also come into play for government service.

"What about other redeeming intangibles such as honor and sense of duty, dedication, passion and commitment, loyalty and service?" asked Hussin Mutalib in the Straits Times' online forum recently.

Carolyn Lim, a prominent writer, suggested in an essay in The Straits Times that Singapore needed a little more heart to go along with its hard head. "Indeed, a brilliant achiever without the high purpose of service to others would be the worst possible ministerial material," she wrote.

"To see a potential prime minister as no different from a potential top lawyer, and likely to be enticed by the same stupendous salary, would be to blur the lines between two very different domains."

The minister mentor brushed aside concerns like that.

"Those are admirable sentiments," he said. "But we live in a real world."

[kuasimi]

https://samsforum.com/showthread.php?t=642656&page=2


‘Reasonable pay will help to maintain a bit of dignity’

Member of Parliament Lim Wee Kiak of the Nee Soon group representation constituency (GRC) defended ministerial salaries by saying a reasonable payout helped maintain "dignity" for politicians.

He was quickly slammed by netizens, many of whom pointed out in various posts on the Web that "dignity" should not be justified by salary alone.

The multi-million dollar pay of ministers was a hot-button issue in Singapore's recent General Election, which saw the ruling People's Action Party win 81 out of 87 seats but at a significantly lower share of the total votes.

Following the results, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced the formation of a committee to review the "basis and level of political salaries". Any pay changes would take effect from 21 May this year.

"If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communication and Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discuss policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars because they need not listen to the minister's ideas and proposals. Hence, a reasonable payout will help to maintain a bit of dignity," Dr Lim told LianHe ZaoBao in Chinese.

In reaction, Francis Oen postedon Facebook: "Hi Wee Kiat.. Suggest you clarify your statement. Does it mean that only $ talks?! ... And if someone earns less, does it mean he cannot have dignity?"

Winnie Lim tweeted: "So according to Dr Lim Wee Kiak's theory, our ministers will ignore Obama because he earns less than all of them."

On his Facebook page, Dr Lim said that his quote was taken out of context.
"Minister's pay issue is a sensitive one. There must be a balance. After all, capable individuals who are willing to come forward to serve should not so because of pay and perks," he replied to a user's question about his quote.
He added, "On the other hand, they do have families and dependents and need to consider for retirement, etc."

[kuasimi]

https://samsforum.com/showthread.php?t=642656&page=2

How well is well-paid?

By Tan Hui Leng and Jasmie Yen, TODAY | Posted: 10 April 2007 1028

They expressed support for the need to pay top dollar for top talent in the public sector.

But Members of Parliament (MPs) who took part in yesterday's parliamentary debate on the pay hike also spoke passionately about what many Singaporeans believe to be the heart of the issue: The benchmarking formula used to determine ministerial pay.

Ang Mo Kio MP Inderjit Singh noted that Singaporeans could not expect their leaders to serve based on altruism alone. "Are we willing to leave the future of the country to chance, that we will get good people who will give up their competence without caring about their salary?" he asked.

Some MPs, however, saw problems in benchmarking ministers' pay to the private sector, pointing out to disparities in the risks taken by company chief executives and ministers and top civil servants.

Marine Parade MP Lim Biow Chuan said: "I struggle to understand what a top Admin Officer aged 32 at grade SR9 has to worry about that will justify him receiving $363,000 a year … From many people's perspectives, they take no personal risk and are at best, paid employees."

Opposition MPs Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir) and Hougang's Low Thia Khiang took issue with the fact that Singapore's ministers are paid more than their counterparts in developed countries.

MPs like Bishan-Toa Payoh's Mrs Josephine Teo, however, pointed out that ministers in other countries may make more money after their term in office ends, such as through public speaking.

Some MPs voiced concerns about the timing of announcing the pay revisions, especially with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) due to rise to 7 per cent in July.

Mr Singh said: "How do we answer the man-in-the-street when we're told that about one-quarter to one-third of the expected revenue increase this year from the GST is going to be for the proposed ministerial and civil service salary increases, about $240 million, I was told?"

Mr Low also referred to the recent debate on increasing the amounts for public assistance. "It's also ironic that we are consuming taxpayers' money and … discussing how much more of a fraction of a million to pay civil servants and ministers while we haggle over additional tens of dollars to hand out to our needy and disadvantaged citizens," he said.


Some MPs who supported the pay hike also suggested that the salary benchmarking could be finetuned, such as pegging ministers' salaries to more realistic markers such as top men in private equity firms and top companies based on market capitalisation.

[kuasimi]

https://samsforum.com/showthread.php?t=642656&page=25


https://samsforum.com/showthread.php?p=2...0#post20072890


https://samsforum.com/showthread.php?p=2...6#post20149196


https://samsforum.com/showthread.php?p=1...6#post17590716

[kuasimi]

https://singaporealternatives.blogsp...offensive.html

PAP's Internet Offensive


Saturday February 3, 1:09 PM
S'pore's PAP rebuts online critics anonymously--daily


SINGAPORE, Feb 3 (Reuters) - Members of Singapore's long-ruling People's Action Party (PAP) are posting anonymous messages in Internet forums and blogs to rebut online criticism of the party, a leading daily reported on Saturday.
The postings were an initiative driven by two sub-committees under the PAP's "new media" committee chaired by Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen, the pro-government Straits Times said, citing unnamed sources.

A government spokeswoman contacted on Saturday declined to comment.

The two sub-committees, made up of politicians and some technology-savvy party activists, were formed after the May 2006 general election, the Straits Times said. The PAP's share of the vote slid to 66.6 percent last year, from 75.3 percent at the previous election in 2001.

The panels had been set up to express the PAP's views online where there were few pro-establishment voices, the newspaper said, quoting a member of parliament who heads one sub-committee.

"The identity is not important. It is the message that is important," Baey Yam Keng was quoted as saying.

The Straits Times quoted Baey as saying that the messages were only effective if they were not "too obvious" lest they resemble "propaganda".

A PAP activist involved in posting the anonymous messages was quoted as saying that he tracked popular blogs and forums to "see if there is anything we can clarify" on controversial issues such as the impending hike in the goods and services tax.

The PAP, which has ruled Singapore since independence in 1965, has been criticised by human rights groups such as Amnesty International in the past for its curbs on freedom of expression.

Party leaders say tight regulation of public debate and the media in the city-state is necessary to maintain law and order.


The above Reuters article is derived from Straits Time article below:

Feb 3, 2007
PAP moves to counter criticism of party, Govt in cyberspace

By Li Xueying

THE People's Action Party (PAP) is mounting a quiet counter-insurgency against its online critics.

It has members going into Internet forums and blogs to rebut anti-establishment views and putting up postings anonymously.

Sources told The Straits Times the initiative is driven by two sub-committees of the PAP's 'new media' committee chaired by Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen.

One sub-committee, co-headed by Minister of State (Education) Lui Tuck Yew and Hong Kah GRC MP Zaqy Mohamad, strategises the campaign.

The other is led by Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Baey Yam Keng and Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Josephine Teo. Called the 'new media capabilities group', it executes the strategies.

Both were set up after last year's General Election. Aside from politicians, some 20 IT-savvy party activists are also involved.

When contacted, Mr Baey declined to give details of the group's activities, but he outlined the broad principles of the initiative.

It was necessary for the PAP to have a voice in cyberspace as there were few in the online community who were pro-establishment, he said.

As such, the committees aim to 'observe how new media is developing and see how we can use the new media as part of the overall media landscape', he added.

'How do we facilitate views that are pro-party and propagate them through the Internet?'

The approach reflects comments by Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui at the PAP's party conference in December. He called on younger activists to put up views 'to moderate the vitriol and balance the skewed comments' on the Internet.

But this can only work if activists are not 'too obvious' about it, Mr Baey said yesterday. Otherwise it comes across as 'propaganda'.

'The identity is not important. It is the message that is important,' he added.

One activist who is involved said that when posting comments on online forums and the feedback boxes of blogs, he does not identify himself as a PAP member.

He tracks popular blogs and forums to 'see if there is anything we can clarify' on hot-button topics such as the impending hike in the Goods and Services Tax.

But he added: 'We don't rebut everything. Sometimes, what is said is fair enough, and we send the feedback on to the committee.'

This latest initiative comes on top of a blog site with posts by 12 MPs born after Singapore's Independence in 1965.

It recognises that more younger Singaporeans are relying on the new media as a main source of information.

An Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) study conducted last year found that younger and better-educated Singaporeans relied on information from the Internet when shaping their voting choices at the last GE.

Among the opposition parties, members and supporters of the Workers' Party, in particular, post regularly on forums online.

But IPS senior research fellow Tan Tarn How wonders about the effectiveness of the PAP's campaign.

He said Internet users who post on forums such as Sammyboy tend not to be interested in 'intellectual debate' and so will not be persuaded by PAP activists anyway.

As for more serious-minded bloggers, he said the views that the activists may put out are already available in the mainstream media.

[email protected]



You may want to read Mr. Wang Says So and Xeno Boy articles on this topic. There is also a good analysis on why PAP "leaks" the "secret" operations here.

I share similar sentiments with Mr. Wang on this particular report. I am very surprised that the ST article was allowed to published.

First of all, to reveal such "secret strategy" is disastrous to PAP's internet image! Hey, c'mon, as the largest and powerful ruling party that has dominated Singapore's political scene, its members do not dare to identify themselves as PAP members when communicating with other Singaporeans on the internet platform? Are they ashame or too afraid to be identified with PAP or what?

But on second thought, I think PAP has found out that their "secret covert operations" may be too slow and ineffective in covering the whole internet sphere, thus, to "leak" this information in a hopeful bid to create fear in bloggers and internet writers.

Personally, I am proud of my past association with WP even when it was just a political party on the development path. What are the PAP members afraid of by openly declaring their association with PAP? What's the matter with them? Aren't they proud of their own party which has contributed much to Singapore's progress for the last 5 decades?

As all of you could observe from the many "anonymous" comments recorded here on my blog for the past few months, one would now really put serious doubts on whether they are really "PAP's internet fighters"! How many of these comments come from them, I really wonder!

I have hoped that one day, this PAP's secret internet offensive will be revealed to the public and thus, insisted to keep the comment column open to anonymous posters. Interesting enough, after I declare my intention of capturing all those possible agents' vicious attacks on me so that the whole world will know about it, there is a dramatic decrease in such anonymous comments!

If you read those comments in my blog, you will know why PAP wanted their internet fighters to stay anonymous. Many of the remarks are even defamatory in nature!

As a matter of fact, I have long suspected that PAP has started to carry out its "internet management" plan as far back as July 2006 when I had a meeting with a few WP members and associates. The successful application of internet by WP back in GE 2006 as well as the active engagement of WP members 2 years prior to GE 2006 has made PAP rethink about the possible impact of the new media. Prior to GE 2006, PAP has taken the view that the new media, internet, will have little impact on the political front even though that it has been dominated by anti-PAP sentiments for a almost a decade. But apparently GE 2006 has changed their mind.

The sudden increase of aggressive comments posted on my blog as well as forums right after GE 2006 is an interesting indicator of how PAP's internet fighters work. They may be very clumsy but they may be effective in a sense that I might have possibly become one of their trophy!

Well, life still goes on in the internet sphere with or without PAP internet fighters. But I guess now most people will be more skeptical when they see "Pro-PAP" or "Anti-Opposition" postings on the net... the question will always be on our mind "Hey, is this from the PAP internet fighters?"

Goh Meng Seng

[kuasimi]

https://www.facebook.com/workerspart...03398136343402


We are concerned that the government's policies will raise the cost of living and increase financial pressures on the sandwiched class. Here's a breakdown of the impact of a petrol price hike and the impending increase in GST.

[kuasimi]

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...ustain-losses/


Transport Ministry on profit making of train operators: They can't sustain losses

by Correspondent 13/07/2019



Yesterday, a member of the public, Mr Adam Reutens-Tan, wrote to ST Forum pointing out that train operators like SMRT and SBS Transit should not be focusing on profits as public service providers (‘Train operators, as public service providers, should not be focusing on profits‘, 12 Jul).

“SMRT and SBS Transit are supposed to be providing public transportation, one of several basic public services which should always remain affordable for the masses to ensure an acceptable quality of life,” Adam wrote. “Such service providers should be seen almost as public servants because they are providing a public service.”

Adam reminded that as public service providers, the train operators should not be focusing on generating increasingly higher overall profits for themselves.

In response, Ms Geraldine Low, the Director of Land Transport Division at the Ministry of Transport, wrote in to refute Adam saying that the train operators cannot keep on sustaining losses (‘Rail operators cannot sustain large losses for long‘, 13 Jul).

She pointed out that for the financial year ending on March 31, 2018, SMRT Trains reported a loss of $86 million while SBS Transit’s Downtown Line has similarly registered losses of $125 million over the past three years. “Its (SBS Trainsit’s) train division as a whole also lost tens of millions of dollars,” she added.

“No rail operator can sustain such large losses for long, without performance degradation.”

She then brought in arguments concerning the workers’ livelihoods, “As responsible employers, they also need to ensure that their workers’ livelihoods are not affected.”

“Our common objective is to deliver a reliable and affordable MRT service for all Singaporeans,” she concluded.
What happened to the profits made in earlier years?

However, what Ms Low did not disclose was that in earlier years, SMRT was making obscene profits with the bulk passed on to Temasek Holdings as dividends especially during the years when Saw Phaik Hwa was in-charge.






For example, in every financial year from 2000 to 2015, SMRT earned an operating profit in the range of $84.2 million to $197.2 million. There was never a year in which SMRT made a loss. And from FY2001 to FY2015, SMRT paid out a total dividend sum of $1.6 billion with the bulk went to Temasek.

A report from DBS in 2012 also noted that SMRT had a dividend payout policy of at least 60% of net profit, and in some years, had paid out even more than 70% of their net profit as dividends.

In fact, Saw was so busy trying to make money for SMRT and paying out dividends to Temasek that she did not want to re-invest too much money back into rail maintenance. This was disclosed at a Committee of Inquiry (COI) convened in 2012 over lapses in SMRT while under her watch.

At the COI, the Attorney-General’s Chambers, represented by Second Solicitor-General Lionel Yee, presented data showing how SMRT’s repair maintenance budget did not change much from the financial years 2002 to 2011, amid ageing assets, increased ridership and increased train frequencies. She also let go of staff to save cost, resulting in the reduction of company’s manpower cost while boosting the bottom line.

At one point in the inquiry, a member of the COI, Prof Lim of NTU, got so frustrated with the defensiveness of Saw with regard to the ‘third rail’ sagging issue that he retorted, “You knew the risks, and you didn’t do enough. You implemented cable ties.”

In any case, Saw’s livelihood was never compromised when she was working for SMRT. In an interview after she quit SMRT, she told the media then that she owns a Can-Am Spyder motorbike, a Ferrari and a Mercedes-Benz S500. In fact, her landed property was so big that the porch of her house could house all 3 vehicles.

She justified the high salary of close to $2 million that she earned every year saying that this was decided by shareholders, which of course Temasek was the major shareholder. “Every year, the shareholders get to vote. They see my package. It’s in black and white in every annual report and they approve it. So what can I say?” she argued.

So, while it’s true that train operators can’t sustain losses for long as pointed out by the Transport Ministry, it certainly wasn’t complaining when the operators were making obscene profits from Singaporeans.

[kuasimi]

What new WP MPs at Sengkang GRC will encounter:


Ng Chee Meng PPA(E) (Chinese: 黄志明; pinyin: Huáng Zhìmíng; born 8 August 1968) is a former Singaporean politician who was the Minister in Prime Minister's Office from 1 May 2018 to 10 July 2020. His previous postings included Minister for Education in charge of Schools portfolio from 1 October 2015 to 31 October 2016 in acting capacity and from 1 November 2016 to 30 April 2018 in official capacity as well as the Member of Parliament (MP) for Pasir Ris–Punggol GRC from 11 September 2015 to 23 June 2020 and has also been the Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) since 1 May 2018. He served as the 8th Chief of Defence Force of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) from 2013 to 2015, and held the rank of Lieutenant-General. He was also the Chief of the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) from 2009 to 2013. Upon retirement from military career, Ng announced his intention to enter politics, and is the highest ranking officer to join the ruling party.[1] In the 2015 Singapore general election, he was fielded to the Pasir Ris–Punggol GRC[2] and won its Punggol North seat, paving way to be a MP successfully. Ng also served as the Senior Minister of State at the Ministry for Transport from 1 October 2015 to his promotion to the Second Minister in 1 November 2016 and served till 30 April 2018.


















http://geraldgiam.sg/2009/10/how-pap...omment-page-1/


How PAP uses taxpayer-funded grassroots for political gain

Not many Singaporeans are aware of how much the taxpayer-funded grassroots have been used by the PAP for political gain.

Last week, Mr Eric Low and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, the PAP MP-aspirants who lost to Workers’ Party’s Low Thia Khiang and SDA’s Chiam See Tong respectively in the last election, grabbed the limelight for themselves by announcing HDB’s decision to upgrade lifts in Potong Pasir and Hougang.

I had written an article questioning why HDB had informed the losing candidates in opposition wards of the upgrading plans.

A Straits Times forum letter writer, Mr Muhammad Yusuf Osman, said it best when he called for the mandate that the residents gave to the elected MPs to be respected. He asked: “Under what authority did both Mr (Eric) Low and Mr Sitoh (Yih Pin) act as advisers to the grassroots organisations, given that the People’s Association is a government statutory board and should work with the elected MPs of the constituencies?”

In response, HDB and People’s Association replied that “it is the Government’s practice to implement its national programmes for residents through advisers to grassroots organisations who are appointed by the Government to gather feedback from residents.”

They forgot to mention that these “advisers” are always PAP men, whether or not they won the election.

Not many Singaporeans are aware of how much the taxpayer-funded grassroots have been used by the PAP for political gain.

Here’s a quick run down:

The People’s Association (PA), a statutory board under the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, was set up in 1960 to counter the influence of Chinese clan associations and unions on working class Singaporeans.

Like all other stat boards, it receives a yearly grant from the government to run its programmes and cover operational costs. In FY2008, PA received $280 million from taxpayers, and another $23 million in “operating income”. It spent a total of $320 million last year.

However unlike most stat boards, whose chairmen are usually the permanent secretary of the parent ministry or some other senior civil servant, PA’s chairman is none other than the Prime Minister. The deputy chairman and two other board members are PAP ministers, together with a PAP minister of state, two other PAP office holders and a PAP backbencher. Eight out of the 14 board members are PAP MPs. No other public sector board in Singapore has so many “Men in White” on it.

The PA oversees all the official “grassroots organisations”, namely the Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCC), Community Club Management Committees (CCMC), Residents’ Committees (RC), Neighbourhood Committees (NC) and the Community Development Councils (CDC). PA also runs the National Youth Council (NYC) and the People’s Association Youth Movement (PAYM), which reach out to young people.

The de facto leader of all the CCCs, CCMCs, RCs and NCs in each constituency is known as the “adviser to the grassroots organisations (GROs)”. This adviser is appointed by PA, presumably with the nod of its chairman, the Prime Minister. In PAP constituencies, PA always appoints the elected MP as the adviser. But in opposition wards, PA appoints the PAP candidate who lost in the last election, not the opposition MP.

The same anomaly is repeated in the CDCs. CDCs have a whole panel of advisers, who are by default the GRO advisers. In South West CDC, where all the component constituencies are under the PAP, it is not surprising that all the advisers are PAP MPs. But in South East CDC, there is one grinning adviser who is not an MP — Sitoh Yih Pin, the man who lost to Mr Chiam See Tong (SDA) in Potong Pasir. North East CDC also has a non-MP — Eric Low — sitting as adviser. He lost to Mr Low Thia Khiang (WP) in the last two elections, garnering just 37% of the popular vote in 2006.

Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong are completely excluded from the CDCs.

CDCs, Community Clubs and other GROs often organise events which involve a large number of residents. Most of the time, the guest-of-honour at such events is — you guessed it — the PAP grassroots adviser.

All this effectively denies the opposition MPs access to the whole array of grassroots resources that PAP MPs have easy access to. The opposition MP has to build up his own grassroot network from scratch, while PAP MPs simply inherit the control of the RCs, CCCs and CCMCs.

Most HDB dwellers will be familiar with the notice boards next to the lifts. These are managed by the RCs, which ensure that residents always aware of who their PAP MPs are by featuring their names and photos prominently on the notice boards. But in Hougang and Potong Pasir, instead of the elected MP, residents will see the losing PAP candidate’s face on the notice board every day when they go home.

Around the neighbourhood, they will also see huge banners sponsored by PA or the CCC, featuring the losing PAP candidate wishing residents during festive occasions. The Opposition is given no such banner space in PAP wards.





To round it off, the GROs are often the recruiting ground for the PAP during elections. Many grassroots volunteers are also loyal PAP men and women, who shed their supposed neutrality to don PAP all-whites during the election campaign, serving as supporters, election agents and counting agents for the PAP candidates.

The best thing of all for the PAP is that all these grassroots resources come at zero cost to the party, since it is all paid for by taxpayers — yes including those who voted for the Opposition. Unlike in other countries where political parties — just like the Opposition here — have to fund their own grassroots activities, the PAP can save its funds to be used during the election campaign.

With all these factors stacked against the Opposition, it is indeed commendable that Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang have managed to hold on to their seats for the past 20 years. The residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang have proven that sincerity and pure hard work on the ground will be rewarded.


http://geraldgiam.sg/2009/10/hdb-sho...ying-politics/


HDB should be neutral and stop playing politics
The HDB should stop letting itself become a political tool of the ruling PAP.


I am glad to learn that the opposition held wards of Hougang and Potong Pasir will finally be getting lift upgrading for their HDB blocks. This is a long overdue measure for the residents of the two constituencies, which have been strongholds of the opposition since 1991 and 1984 respectively.

Singaporeans will recall that on the eve of the polling day in 1997, then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong warned voters that opposition estates risked becoming “slums” if they continued voting out the PAP. Thus started a pattern of Third World pork barrel politics of the ruling PAP, which culminated in the 2006 election when PAP candidates Eric Low and Sitoh Yih Pin boasted that caretaker National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan had promised the two wards a total of $180 million for upgrading if residents voted for the PAP.

Fortunately, voters were too sophisticated and principled to fall for the PAP’s dirty tactics of using taxpayer money to advance their partisan political ends. Hougang and Potong Pasir voters proved that they could not be so easily swayed by money and election goodies by re-electing Mr Low Thia Khiang (Workers’ Party) and Mr Chiam See Tong (Singapore Democratic Alliance), the former with a record high winning margin.

Three-and-a-half years after those embarrassing defeats, the PAP has realised that such underhanded tactics don’t work. So now they’ve taken a different tack by promising lift upgrading to these wards just as the next election looms.

TODAY newspaper reported that the PAP’s losing candidate Sitoh had received an email from HDB informing him of this news. He lost no time in breaking the good news to residents through a news release. Mr Eric Low plans to announce the news today at a grassroots event. In addition, Mr Sitoh said he will be sending out a circular to residents in the selected blocks soon, presumably with his own letterhead proclaiming himself as the “adviser to the Potong Pasir grassroots organisations”.

I see no reason why the HDB should break the news to the losing PAP candidates. Does the HDB inform losing opposition candidates of impending upgrading in the wards they contested in, for example in East Coast or Tampines? Definitely not!

So why the double standard? Is it to give a chance to the PAP’s losing candidates to be like Santa Claus bearing good gifts for residents as if it came from them?

The PAP’s Eric Low claimed that the upgrading “is a result of our efforts over the years”. What utter rubbish! It was the Workers’ Party’s Low Thia Khiang who had asked in Parliament after the 2006 elections for the promised $100 million to be released to Hougang for upgrading. But the National Development Minister stoutly refused, saying that the funds were conditional on voters choosing the PAP.

Knowing full well that the PAP’s intention was to put opposition wards at the end of the upgrading queue, Hougang Town Council had previously gone ahead to upgrade the lifts at the blocks on Hougang Avenue 3 and 7 at the cost of some $400,000 to $500,000 of the Town Council’s own funds. A mere seven years later, HDB simply demolished those upgraded blocks, and refused to reimburse Hougang Town Council the costs for the unexpired cyclical period.

In fact, HDB’s informing of the PAP’s losing candidates of the upcoming upgrading is just the tip of the iceberg of the agency’s history of partisan political manoeuvring.

After winning the 1991 elections and assuming the chairmanship of Hougang Town Council, the WP’s Low was immediately served by the HDB with a notice to quit the premises at Blk 810 Hougang Central, which was then occupied by the PAP’s Hougang Town Council. HDB also served him with a notice of termination of its services as the managing agent for Hougang Town Council. Despite this, the new Town Council managed to overcome the obstacles put in its way, built a new premise within 6 weeks, and took over the management of Hougang estate from the HDB on 1st January 1992.

Without an office to operate from and to manage the estate, Low then took on the task of building and completing, within six weeks, the Hougang Town Council’s office. It is now located at Block 701 Hougang Avenue 2. He also successfully put together a team of councillors and staff to manage and maintain Hougang estate. Together, they took over the management of Hougang estate from the HDB on 1st January 1992.
The HDB should stop letting itself become a political tool of the ruling PAP. This is not the way a taxpayer funded statutory board should operate. Residents of non-PAP wards pay their income taxes and GST, and do their national service just like the rest of us. They should not be discriminated against.

I call on HDB chairman Koh Cher Siang, HDB CEO Tay Kim Poh, Ministry of National Development permanent secretary Tan Tee How and all the good officers working under them to exercise their rightful independence and neutrality as civil servants and resist attempts by the PAP ministers (or any future government ministers) to pressure them into executing decisions that benefit the party and not the people.

[kuasimi]

[kuasimi]

[wet365]

Originally Posted by kuasimi

https://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com/20...signation.html

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.

"Me talk nonsense. Also can sing song.

How much you pay me?"

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.

DisGraceFu cunt!!

[pakpak2001]

[QUOTE=kuasimi;20534117]http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=4237
============
Grace Fu father is James Fu, porlickticker secretery to Lee Kuan Yew something like that
anyway Grace Fou is there by merrytocracy, not backdoor or grc
think last erection she was PaP orgernehser, (anyone can confirm?)
hope she not the one who transfer NTUC Bro Ng Chee Meng to Sengkan?
of course BG Ng fell down longkang lose his minister post too. sad as e damn nice guy

[billycock]

Originally Posted by kuasimi

http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=4237
============
Grace Fu father is James Fu, porlickticker secretery to Lee Kuan Yew something like that
anyway Grace Fou is there by merrytocracy, not backdoor or grc
think last erection she was PaP orgernehser, (anyone can confirm?)
hope she not the one who transfer NTUC Bro Ng Chee Meng to Sengkan?
of course BG Ng fell down longkang lose his minister post too. sad as e damn nice guy

Nice guy won't join pappy, only greedy bastards do

[jacky43]

I asked a colleague at Ipoh Malaysia. R there warning of Malaysian Chinese not to stay out late? She said nothing. What was my full Q.

Malaysia paid S$103m for cancellation of HSR project. The malays there will go crazy because a big country got bully by a small country. Their opp parties will march all the way to Agong palace.

[AudreyJule]

Originally Posted by funboi

Another achievements.

Learn from his old man