All out to defame our governement

last SG · 2007-06-07T10:34:23+00:00

Not in biomed business, but believe such hubs exist in many places besides Australia and Singapore. not interested in disputing what the australians have est...

will4 SG

Aljunied almost kena lost to opposition but ISD never came knocking on their residents.

oxford mushroom SG

Exactly, the opinion is divided but someone must make the final decision. The MM was against it and I was against it. But the figures are convincing...the IRs will bring revenue and more importantly, provide jobs for low-skilled Singaporeans. A cleaner in my office will not be able to earn as much as a cleaner in the IR.

Having weighed the pros and cons, the government decided this is the most appropriate decision we should take and they took it. If they made the wrong decision, they will answer for it in the polls.

Rock^Star SG

My qn was: "Why did the ST not publish the info?"

Not "Why did the govt block access to it?"

Can you differentiate between withhold and block?

Intelligent replies are appreciated.

ndmmxiaomayi SG

How much he gives his parents is his issue, that has nothing to do with you.

Address the rest.

oxford mushroom SG

Because ST does not think there is public interest? You direct the question to ST instead of making baseless allegations. You are trying to hint at a government cover-up. Prove it. NPNT!

gevo SG

Hey. Heard of the stagnant middle class before? They are a group of people whose income are relatively stagnant. From what I can remember, their income growth rate is less than 1/3 of our GDP growth. OK you can fight that it is not a good comparision to use GDP. I'll show my calculations below.

For the middle income, let's take is as the median of the population, that is the third quintile.

In 1998, their combined household income is $3374, in 2003, their income is $3379. I believe that these figures are not in real dollars.

Hence, if you go by our GDP per capita growth rate from 1998-2003,

GDP per capita Growth Rate: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/hist/gdp.html

1999: -0.73% (all figures to 2 significant figures)
2000: 12%
2001: -6.7%
2002: 2.0%
2003: 1.8%

Overall, from the period of 1998-2003, the growth is 9.5%. Those percentages are calculated from real dollars, so percentages are accurate to 2sf.

So, if the third quintile received $3374 in 1998, they should receieve $3374 x 109.5%, that is $3695. That's not the end of the story.

If we factor in inflation, as $3374 is in 1998 dollars, and the $3379 figure is in 2003 dollars, $3695 is $3784. That's a $404 difference for a middle income family for a month! Sadly, that was not to be. They didn't have $400 more to spend each month. If their income growth is following the national GDP per capita growth, they could have $400 more.

That's just one case, for the third quintile, and that's for the stagnant income.

If you consider the lowest 20% population, and the next 20%,

Lowest 20% (in nominal dollars)

1988: $615
1993: $887
1998: $933
2003: $795

Next 20%

1988: $1072
1993: $1645
1998: $2118
2003: $2059

That's a decrease even in nominal dollars! The difference is even greater if you factor in inflation!

OK, let's put all these into perspective.

The highest 20%:

1988: $5055
1993: $8469
1998: $11450
2003: $12792

The fourth quintile:

1988: $2328
1993: $3799
1998: $5162
2003: $5309

See a steady increase? Perhaps it is not very steady but it is a generally increasing pattern.

So, 60% of the population is short changed by the economy growth in Singapore. That's assuming that one-person families are considered, and yes, they are, for the 1998, 2003 data.

Umm. 2 731 805 people... That's an awful lot.

ndmmxiaomayi SG

I'm not going to dig up history, it won't happen anyway, and construction has started.

I will wait to see. If it's really good, then this matter will rest (for me). If no, I want an explanation.

oxford mushroom SG

First and foremost, please comprehend that there is a hierachy to fill in every society. Not everyone can climb the ladder and make it good. Take a toilet cleaner for example. Is the reason why she's just a cleaner because she does not work hard enough? Is a mechanic still a mechanic after 20 years because he has poor work ethics? Given the huge supply of poly and uni grads year after year, is a diploma holder still earning less than $2000/mth after years of working, a bum? Likewise, a degree holder earning les than $3000/mth after years of working, a sloth?

So what's your point? The market pays according to what it considers to be a fair price for whatever goods or services. A cleaner's skills are not valued as highly as those of a brain surgeon, hence the difference in pay and quite rightly so.

What matters is not elitism. There will always be an elite or hierachy in society as you choose to call it. What matters is that there is possibility of social mobility and our education system provides for that.

The ST senior journalist Chua Mui Hoong is a case in point. A daughter of a taxi driver, she has managed to win scholarships to get an MA from Cambridge and a Masters from Harvard. So she does better and earns more than her father. That's the social mobility this government has provided.

Jontst78 SG

Sweet, a new can of worms Razz

1. Gerrymendering. They can claim demographics, but the obvious advantage to PAP is undeniable.

2. The amendments to the constitution that keep the PAP in power, especially the Elections act. The Electoral Boundaries Review Committee is supposed to release the boundaries of the constiuencies before any GE. Historically have been to close to election day. Rendering alot of ground work useless by the opposition members.

Report----------- GE Date ------- lead time
20 June 84 ----- 22 Dec 84 ---- 6 mths
13 June 88------ 3 Spet 88 ----
8 Aug 91-------- 31 Aug 91 ----
6 Nov 96 -------- 2 Jan 97 ------

3. The amendments to the constitution to give the PM the power to appoint Judges and CJs, on short term contracts of 1 to 3 years, which means, also gives him the right to "not renew" those contracts on "unsatisfactory performance" and I leave the definition of "unsatisfactory performance" to your imagination. How can a plaintiff be involved (directly or indirectly) in the appointments of the judges presiding in the case(s)?

4. To outlaw peaceful assembly of individuals and freedom of speech. And then create speakers corner. And stop people from going in to listen to a speaker at the speaker's corner and calling a illegal assembly, even after giving a speaker a permit!

5. The boast the our courts are fair just and transparent, as we can apply to the highest court of appeal, the privy council of the house of lords in England. Then when the council overturns a judgement on JBJ, calling it a gross injustice, appeals to the council were severly restricted and then subsequently abolished.

6. Persecution of people who strongly disagree with the government. e.g Ricahrd Ho, JBJ, CSJ among others. The PAP "sledgehammer", with "Libel" engraved on one side, and "ISD" engraved on the other.

7. The lack of independent media, and the persecution of journalists that are against self censorship.

Many more, too many to list, a book on them is in progress, hopefully I finish it soon.

IMO, the govt is not a failure, but they have a long way to in terms of being sensative to the voices of the common people. Which is way, a opposition strong enough to be a threat to PAP's stranglehold on the constitution is essential. A mistake is a mistake, people make mistakes and are held accountable for them, and held accountable to the people they report to. The government should be no execption.

Yep, running a country is not an easy task, that doesn't give any government the right to ignore the people (eg. with a farce of debates) and be unaccountable for mistakes. If they take the people a little more seriously, maybe many mistakes and their fallout can be mitigated.
Doesn't give any government the right to restrict the rights of the individual. You are talking about a government leader that said "We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think"

Rock^Star SG

That was an awful lot to digest but you have put your point across. 60% of the population have seen their income stagnate or even decrease. The reason why mean income goes up every year is due to the top 40% percentile.

Jontst78 SG

Part of the problem is the lack of the safety net, or a reliable one. Like a minimum wage law. At least it encourages employment.

oxford mushroom SG

With globalisation we will see a greater income gap. The market will always go for the lowest priced good or services of similar quality. That brings down the inflation rate too.

If the skills of our workers lag behind those of cheaper economies, their salaries will drop. At the moment, our workers are still paid much higher salaries than their counterparts in China/India but our productivity is not rising fast enough to justify the salary differential. In contrast, the skills of our top earners, the professionals and high level managers are in demand because their salaries, though high, are not as high as their competitors in the MNCs and foreign firms. Therefore the salaries of our top earners will only rise. If a local investment banker does better than one in London but draws half the pay, he can expect his salary to rise even further even though he already earns 100k a month.

Globalisation benefits those with the highest productivity and who are cost-competitive. The government has to move the economy to embrace higher value services and make our population upgrade their skills to man the wafer fabs and pharmaceutical laboratories. If we haven't got the right people, we will have to rely on FT.

Rock^Star SG

Of course the market is fair and pays accordingly. My point is not everyone can hop onto this "social mobility" as you call it, despite our education system.

Anyway, how does the GST increase help the poor? Has the govt outlined any plans yet? Any idea on your end?

oxford mushroom SG

Not necessary. If you put in a minimum wage that is too high, the workers will be happy and you will cut the number of low-skilled foreign workers; but employers will move their factories to cheaper economies in Indonesia, Thailand and China. If you set the minimum wage low, that employers will use that as the maximum wage.

Artificially setting a wage distorts the market. Let the market decide the right wage.

Rock^Star SG

Based on the above in relativity to China and India, please educate me on how Japan, South Korea and even EU countries can keep their income disparity lower than us?

ndmmxiaomayi SG

I don't know how a minimum wage law will help. As Miss Fu has said before in the talk in RP, what actually defines luxurious goods?

The same thing will apply here. How minimum is minimum before it's considered that we will be able to survive with that amount?

A nice suggestion, but I don't want an abuse. I rather that we are able to take up part time jobs to fill the gap, than to have a minimum wage law that declares something unreasonable and making people more unhappy.

Jontst78 SG

And that justifies paying and employee 400-600 a mth? Do you know what the lowest 10% or 20% of households are taking home? Only when a person has enough to get by, then and only then we can talk about living within means.

Having a minimum wage law will ensure whoever is willing to work or seek employment, lives above the poverty line. Over and above the the minimum wage where the market will still decide. Yes, its true that operating costs will go up. But using FTs like steriods to pump up the GDP will cause the economy to implode or civil unrest, whichever will come first.

sourketchup SG

We would have been able to absorb lower wages better if our public housing is not so expensive.

Rock^Star SG

Why wouldn't there be public interest in income disparity? It concerns all Singaporeans, right?

Once again, intelligent replies are appreciated.

Jontst78 SG

In Depth studies need to be done, but I am speculating like somewhere in neighbourhood of $5-6 an hour.

« Previous Page Next Page »