Singapore Democrats

I will desist from saying much about this anymore.... very sian, tired and monotonous.

You guys tired too?

The govt reply makes me wonder whether we are still living in feudal system.

As taxpayers, we have every right to know, to the last dollar, how much each minister is paid.

Without basic information such as this, there is no way of knowing if the PAP govt is honest and incorruptible as it always claims.

This also raises the important questions of what happened to our hard-earned CPF money and our huge reserves.

With the latest losses,running into more than $100 billion by both the GIC and Temasek Holdings, Singaporeans have the right to demand for proper accountability from the govt.

Was sitting at a pub today having a happy hour beer. One pint. Bill came up to S$14 nett. 10% went to service charge (for bringing me a beer?? i don't blame the boss. someone has to pay for the workers.) and 7% for GST (on top of alcohol tax??)

Then saw the following line on my mobile phone news feed.

"No Cut in GST even if economy worsens" Lim Hwee Hua

We are losing jobs. Consumer confidence was hit big time in the US. We should be too. We are so expensive.

We have worked ourselves into a nice fix.

The government still writes fat cheques unto themselves. (Hey, Mah, how's the new spectacles. And Khaw, how's the new hair dye?) So who's feeling the pain? Good government means paying astronomical salaries? Small talent pool?

As Dick Lee famously said, some people just find all the excuses!

And we have to settle for peanuts (the new MOH ad)?

First they take money from you. Then they give a small portion back to you as a reminder that you are beholden to them. Then they paint you as a monkey and tell you that peanuts will do?!

My heart cries for Singapore. We trample on ourselves. A people once proud, but no more. LKY says our women will become maids in foreign countries if we choose the wrong government. What could be worse that our daughters and sons are already servants to our local Masters?

Bryan, I think much of the displeasure that you express regarding "style" might have to do with not understanding that there are many Singaporeans - with the SDP at the helm - who are trying to forge a new political culture, one which is the polar opposite of the PAP-engendered one in which deference to their authority has been put into place as a practise with the long term goal of foiling dissent and preventing themselves from being displaced from the seat of power.

The first thing to bear in mind is that you are witnessing a [b]clash[/b] of political cultures. Dr Chee is the leader of political party, and probably sees himself as an equal to the leader of another political party, which Lee Hsien Loong is.

Question: Is that or is that not a fact?

The second thing to note is that this is culture, a set of political values. Because of the many irrational reactions by the PAP to such a clashes such as with defamation suits, many Singaporeans have now blurred the lines between such [i]clashes in culture[/i] and [i]breaking the law[/i].

I ask you: would you subscribe to a culture that not only [i]does not work for you[/i], but was used to [i]harm you[/i]?

Still, it looks as if the PAP is beginning to adopt this culture albeit for 'internal use' only for the time being, possibly because it is seeing its effectiveness in problem solving. You must have read about Tharman Shanmugaratnam being grilled in Parliament over Charles Goodyear's departure from Temasek.

I have my scepticism though, when the PAP does these things. Perhaps they want to demonstrate once again to Singaporeans that opposition is not necessary in Parliament, as one of their party members wrote recently in Petir:

http://temasekreview.com/?p=11979

[color=blue][Quote][/color]

[color=black]“Going by a dictionary definition, democracy is a system in which the governing power is vested in the people, who exercise this power directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held elections. As such, [b]democracy need not involve the presence of an opposition[/b].”

The arguments of Xu bears an uncanny similiarities to that espoused by PAP leaders over the years that a western-styled democracy is unsuitable for Singapore.[/color]

[color=blue][Endquote][/color]

Still, I would ask, why is it alright when PAP members do the questioning but not when Dr Chee does?

Speaking of the Tharman Shanmugaratnam's grilling in Parliament, he is quoted as saying:

Re: [color=red]“People do want to know, there is curiosity, it is a matter of public interest. That is not sufficient reason to disclose information. It is not sufficient that there be curiosity and interest that you want to disclose information.”[/color]

[color=black]It once again shows up something I have kept pointing out: not only does the PAP not know what they are really doing, they don't know the tools of their trade either.

So,in my ongoing bid to professionalize politics in Singapore, I'll help to debunk his counterargument in light of my above comment.

First, always use the article "the" in the phrase "the public interest" because "interest" here is used in the sense of "benefit" or "advantage" as in to "look out for one's best interest". It is not used in the sense of "arousing attention or curiosity" which is how the highly-paid political incompetents in the PAP always do, and how Tharman did:[/color] [color=red]"It is not sufficient that there be curiosity and interest that you want to disclose information."[/color]

The public interest is defined as "the welfare or well-being of the general public" and thus forms the basis of transparency, accountability, and implies free speech in all matters that are on "public money and time", so to speak. It is not about how many people are or are not interested in a particular matter. Something can be in the public interest even if only two people are actually curious about it.

Thus, Charles Goodyear's departure from Temasek is in the public interest because it involves public funds.

Haven't we just been talking about linking income to value of work, and perhaps competence as well?

I know some of you guys do not read the Shucks Times (aka MSM) but there is a good coverage on what Viswa said in parliament yesterday. I think some of what he stated resonates closely with things that appear in this website.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the online ST, so I can't do cut and paste for your guys.

Sorry to interject again, but need to put this before it slips my old mind (or I get distracted by the equity market activities).

Tommy Koh also wrote an op-ed in the Shucks Times Review section today. He was talking about the [u]growing signs of materialism[/u] in our society and apparently Rajaratnam offered him a very apt quote many years ago about the problem of people "[i][b]knowing the price of everything, but the value of nothing[/b][/i]".

Have a read.

PS. Google tells me that the quote originated from Oscar Wilde.
[b][/b]
(Robox, I'm impressed that you are awake at 6am writing about a new political culture and Tharman. You can man!)

I believed many like me wish to know every each of the Ministers salary including the Seniors and President too.

It will great to include their job description as well.

This will tell whether any overlapping in their position and/or redundancy in each ministers appointment.

Of course the officer could not reveal the exact income of each Minister.....he/she will then have to include the performance bonus payable on Apr 12. As I said in a previous posting....the PB is strictly confidential and nobody but the PM and IRAS chief will know (of course the IRAS chief himself will get a substantial PB for obvious reason).
But he/she could have given the nett salaries without the PB and state so!
Only the next Govt shld PAP be toppled, will know the PBs paid out to the top echeleons and make them public!But will PAP ever be toppled?

I feel many are sick with your argument and your thinking.

The moment I see your name appear, I feel like puke.

How much did the government pay you? If it is worth million, then you are no different from greedy govt.

If is not worst a million, then you dumb to take the job and be the scape-goat.

This letter from PM's office although say nothing is very telling.

It tells us that there is no transparency nor accountability by the government to the people. We should all remember that WE, THE SINGAPOREANS & RESIDENTS are paying these fat cats and yet they will not tell us how much money they take from us to put into their pockets.

Like I've said the debate must go on and the truth uncovered. For those who find this tiresome and monotonous, perhaps another or other websites will prove more interesting and less sian.

If the office can't reveal the salary, including so-called performance bonuses, then there is something really stinking about the whole system.

It was GY who referred to the office for details on ministers' salary. Now this office is as evasive as the Hansard and the Budget tabled in parliament.

The issue of full disclosure has to be continued until the truth is uncovered.

Truth from the PAP government seems to be either in short supply or completely buried.

[color=red]"The moment I see your name appear, I feel like puke."[/color]

NissanViP, I am sorry that my name is causing you to "puke". I can recommend you that you read my latest post on "criticism" where I mentioned about mirrors. But that may cause you to vomit again.

As to whether the government is paying me : the answer is NO. What I am doing is like everyone else here - expressing opinions. That's far more important than finding scapegoats, don't you think?

Dr Chee,
You will not get the answer you look for because the figure is not going to go down well when made public.

Your safety will also be an issue because your are crossing the line into "National Security"

Since you are not afraid of going to court, you can refer to North Korea, Russia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Myanmar on how dissident are "Fixed" in the unconventional ways.

Watch your back.

[color=red]"Your safety will also be an issue because your are crossing the line into "National Security""[/color]

Dick, I really don't think CSJ's life is at stake for sending a letter to a civil servant, if that is what you meant.

Btw, you used the pseudonym "Dick" and then titled your posting "hairy dirty". I put them together and had a good laugh. Was it intentional? If so, very funny lah.

I better don't say anymore, otherwise kena banned by admin.

To Dick:
As long as net neutrality remains, Dr Chee's safety is assured.

Btw, thanks Dr Chee, I gotta a feeling if you don't speak up for us Singaporeans, the PAP are gonna up the GST to 10% in the next 5 years or so to feed the pay increase of the PAP members.

Please, some one think of a strategy to get Dr Chee eligible for elections again. It is for the good of all Singaporeans. I am very sure he will beat any PAP candidate in a SMC or even a GRC if PAP do not engage in dirty tactics, like those rigged lawsuits...

[color=red]"As long as net neutrality remains, Dr Chee's safety is assured."[/color]

Stanley, I agree with you that internet is benign as a medium. People can use it as a powerful tool to reach others.

Yet it is precisely this omnipotence that makes it potentially dangerous to others and oneself. As with most media, it is the content and what we put there that is important. The internet cannot assure anyone's safety since that is mainly determined by one exercising moderation and common sense before putting anything thereon.

I am sure CSJ is aware of this.

As to your suggestion for someone to think of a strategy to get CSJ eligible for election, why don't you start the ball rolling. The rest of us can chip in.

Minister Tharman's refusal to answer questions in parliament on Temasek shows the contempt the PAP has for such an august body.

This latest episode also goes to confirm that parliament has been turned into a mere rubberstamp of the ruling clique and is not the place to speak up on behalf of the people in an authoritarian regime.

History is replete with examples of autocracy not having lasted forever.

The dictatorial PAP rule will certainly come to an end and there's no need for CSJ and others to pay up the Lee family the "defamation amount" determined by its compliant judiciary.

[color=red]As to your suggestion for someone to think of a strategy to get CSJ eligible for election, why don't you start the ball rolling. The rest of us can chip in.[/color][size=medium][/size]

#1 Your enemy's enemy is your friend. Gather a high calibre team to take on one of the GRC

[color=red]#1 Your enemy's enemy is your friend. Gather a high calibre team to take on one of the GRC[/color]

#2 Initiate regular forums between opposition parties to strategise and pool resources. I suggest SDP seize the initiative to ... initiate this.

PS, Thanks, Eugene.

#3 Work towards a 2-party system to challenge the incumbent. Avoid further fragmentation. A Coalition Party with members specialising in what we beleive are the top 3 national issues:

=> rising cost of housing
=> affordable health-care
=> reforming education system

BryanT, sorry to not getting back sooner. Beer & chilli crab on Friday night is always good.

[color=red]#1 Your enemy's enemy is your friend. Gather a high calibre team to take on one of the GRC

#2 Initiate regular forums between opposition parties to strategise and pool resources. I suggest SDP seize the initiative to ... initiate this.

#3 Work towards a 2-party system to challenge the incumbent. Avoid further fragmentation. A Coalition Party with members specialising in what we beleive are the top 3 national issues:
=> rising cost of housing
=> affordable health-care
=> reforming education system[/color]

#4 Co-opt outspoken and outstanding NMPs such as Siew KH and Viswa as advisors, or eventually as members.

PS - Eugene, it's ok, no hurry - Beer and chili crab deserves priority once in a while.

Hi Bryan T..

I remember GY once said, his employer are the people of SG..

As his employer, and the one paying for he and his colleagues salaries, why am I not aware of how much they are paid, why as their employer also, I don't have a say in how much they should be paid?

Our so called employees are helping themselves to the millions salaries while the employers are slogging themselves to pay for their salaries..

it doesn't make sense to me..

[color=red]"why am I not aware of how much they are paid, why as their employer also, I don't have a say in how much they should be paid?"[/color]

Jaslyn, the salary ranges of the ministers, PM and President were unveiled and deliberated over in parliament, ie. the max salary is already known and openly available.

The total of basic salary plus performance bonus are within this max. It's just that the quanta of individual performance bonuses are not revealed. I argued that we should respect this confidentiality since it is a measure of how the PM assesses each minister.

We don't need to defend the performance of the ministers, and in fact, I think some of them need to "buck up". But I think that confidentiality of information about individual work performance should be respected. It's as much as how you would not want your colleagues or friends to know how much PB your boss pays you.

I have conceded quite a few times here in this website : even if the ministers' salaries are economically supportable in terms of the wide-scope of responsibilities, they are NOT morally justifiable. In the eyes of laymen, they lose their moral high-ground, ergo respect.

If forummers here want to argue that the salaries are very high, then just [b]assume that all ministers earn the max salary in the range[/b]. As Lockeliberal asked: must the detail be to the last cent?

BTW, it seems that someone has found out the salaries of individual minister, although I not sure about their fidelity. See here:

http://www.yeocheowtong.com/Salaries.html

Have a good weekend!

Re: [color=red]"...the salary ranges of the ministers, PM and President were unveiled and deliberated over in parliament, ie. the max salary is already known and openly available."

[color=black]Again, this is a segway into something that has thus far not been discussed: "How do we define "salary"?

It's something that has been on my mind since all this talk of incomes began here.

In Economics - and it's not only word use that I hope to professionalize, but conceptualize and contextualize as well - these are the usually accepted definitions:

1. A [b]wage[/b] is a rate, most usually by the hour, but can occasionally be by day or week.

2. A [b]salary[/b] is a most usually paid by the month or a by-month rate that is disbursed over shorter periods like in two installments over a month. By this definition, a salary should also be considered a wage, except that this is not about lay definitions but a definition specific to the discipline of Economics, no different from a legal definition of something being quite different from the lay definition of it.

(As an aside, to determine if someone earning a salary is working at a minimum wage [b]level[/b], just divide salary by total number of hours worked in the longest month worked.)

3. An [b]income[/b] not only encompasses both the above, but includes other sources of income like commissions, disability income, UI, old-age security income etc. It also includes [b]performance bonuses[/b].

So exactly what are we talking about when we talk about ministerial salaries. By the definition of "salary" I've given above, the PAP government has indeed been above board.

But have we first clarified if by "salary" we don't mean income?

This leads me to this quote by you:

Re:[/color] "I argued that we should respect this confidentiality since it is a measure of how the PM assesses each minister."[/color]

Where in the performance assessment exercise do the people come in especially given the fact that the people, and not the PM, are the boss?

You have talked abou respecting confidentility of ministers' performance bonuses, but you - and the Workers Party's lockeliberal - have nevr once explained [b]why[/b].

As it stands, any monies that come out of the public coffers are open to public scrutiny.

Sometimes bonus can also be in the form of shares of companies and French cooking classes, sabbatical etc... don't you want to know?

[color=red]"Where in the performance assessment exercise do the people come in especially given the fact that the people, and not the PM, are the boss?"[/color]

Robox, please forgive me (yet again) that I cannot contribute to the discussion about topics such as the accepted definition of income in the Economics discipline. It's just not my forte. Quantum can add in the cooking classes and sabbaticals if he wants.

However, I would like pick up your point on whether the people are the bosses of the ministers (and PM). Jaslyn brought up it up as well when she quoted GY (apparently) saying that "his employer are the people of SG".

Perhaps I am being dogmatic, but the correct democratic system allows the people (the so-called bosses) to exercise the "performance assessment" once during every election cycle. And no, I don't think that that assessment in term of voting results should be kept confidential.

And yes, I know, we can have another discussion about how we can improve the election process here in Singapore.

Anyway, I do not think it's practical to have all citizens collectively decide on the performance bonuses for each minister every year, if that what is being implied. I don't think Singapore government differs too far from practices in other countries in letting their PMs (or presidents) decide the PB, if applicable.

Okay, just to summarize my points so as to make it more understandable:

1. There are two definitions for "salary": the academic one, and the loose use of the word which actually approximates to "income". In the context of this discussion, it would seem as if we have been using "salary" and "income" interchangeably.

2. We have been discussing ministerial "salaries" without first determining which definition of "salary" we are using. This is important because the PAP track record has been to be pseudolegalistic in issues such as this: they could, and will definitely try and hide their lack of willingness towards accountability behind the fact that "salary" doesn't include "performance bonuses" (ie. a component of income) and they are thus not obliged to reveal their total income. But only according to the academic definition of salary.

3) But ALL details of public expenditure - including expenditure on ministerial incomes - are supposed to be held up to the public for the purposes of accountability to the same public that is paying for them.

4) So why is the discretionary component of ministerial income a top military secret?

Re: [color=red]"I do not think it's practical to have all citizens collectively decide on the performance bonuses for each minister every year, if that what is being implied."[/color]

Of course it's not practical. that's why we are pushing for representative democracy - democracy that comes from the people, and is entrusted upon the elected representatives that we trusted to bring up the issues that we are brining up.

That also means that we supposedly had previously entrusted the PM to be a good assessor of each of his ministers' performance to be in the position to grant any one of them a performance bonus.

Did this government do any of that?

Oh joy! I love our gabramen for giving us a big salary stick to beat them with whenever we get bored. It lets us poor stressed-out peasants play the great game of [b]Whack-An-Overpaid-Mole!!![/b].

Ooh, look there's a $2.5m one in a yellow T-shirt trying to but can't sing, quick hit it before it gets away!

Aiyah, just missed that $2m NTUC one with the squeaky Cheena voice! Neber mind, we get him next time he opens his mouth!

Hantum that botak Ah Pek one sneaking away with $3.5m! Yeah, that'll make his eyes water!

Those fast-moving furry ones that look like 'roos quite hard to club, huh? Must be because they're carrying a bit less loot than the others.

Watch out, there's a $4m pink sissy one and a fat $4.5m pot-bellied black one about somewhere! Extra points if you get them!

See, BryanT, it's not [i]sian[/i] at all, is it?

g_e, I reckon it can be quite exhilarating, this version of the Whac-A-Mole arcade game. You might want to get a local patent for it, since it's so "uniquely" entertaining. I am sure the SDP ra-ra gang will be ahead of the snaking queues.

But alas, my vine-swinging and triple-somersault-pike-with-one-and-a-half-twist days are over. I am not too game for such heart stomping activities; can't afford too much stress on the spluttering pump and in case it dislodges a few fossilized clots down my tubes.

You go ahead. I cheer you on from the sidelines.... all together now, "...we are pro-workers oi oi, we are pro-business oi oi, upturn the downturn...."