At age 80, can one contribute or hinder development ?

last SG · 2003-09-23T20:21:08+00:00

Harsh? You don't read the other forums on Singapore matters much do you? We can recognise his contributions to Singapore's economic development, without pl...

CenturionMBT SG

Firstly, sack the Pharoah and all in his cabinet, who are over paid and only know how to blame the world events for all our woes, and then have the audacity to ask what we should be doing when all the trouble-shooting did not give any accurate picture.

Secondly, get the Auditor-General and Accountant-General to swear loyalty and allegiance to Singapore and the Singapore Citizens - (and not to the Government who pay their salary) - this is to get them to perform conscienciously to get the true accounting of the assets and reserve of Singapore Inc.

Thirdly, listen to the second and third level management of every ministry, and get them to give their impressions as to what is wrong with their ministry, and listen to their honest solutions.

Fourthly, get the banks to ease up on the loans collection, rate of interest charged, and to be more flexible in granting loans to new start-up businesses; with the Singapore Treasury underwriting the Venture Capital to fledging Singapore new businesses - (so far it is all talk from the present Government, with frustrations from the SME and new start up continuing).

Fifthly, the Police Force and the entire Security Apparatus will have to be reviewed - with a view towards more liberal and less paranoid attitude towards Public Assembly.

Sixthly, the Justice Department will have to be revamped, with the help of independent outside legal expertise.

Seventh, the Education System will have to be revamped, with the early streaming of children during Primary Three to be abolished, and assessment to be made after Secondary ONE.

Free education until Secondary School, and a more relax environment for Political Conciousness to be developed during High School and University.

Eighth, Social and Cultural - a more liberal approach to allow for creativity in social and cultural inter-actions.

At least ONE Percent of annual surplus will be set aside for the benefit of the under-privilege and the aged.

Ninth, Tax on Income, Vehicles, and Domestic Consumption to be reviewed, with the objective of lowering the amount attributed to direct and indirect means.

Lower tax is possible with lesser Government interference in the life of all Singaporeans.

Tenth, without the Ruling Party in power, perhaps the positive findings of the Remaking of Singapore Committee can be fully reviewed and implemented - (instead of the empty lip service given by the Government to the objective of the Committee)

These are by no means comprehensive, but should form the basis of some discussion.

[/b]

Ok, i can't comment on all, but i think i will give out my honest feelings about some of your proposed changes.

/*Seventh, the Education System will have to be revamped, with the early streaming of children during Primary Three to be abolished, and assessment to be made after Secondary ONE.*/

We should implement streaming at primary 6, in conjunction with the psle.After which students are then put to schools that are suited to their different learning abilities.
If put at sec one, we have a problem.What is the criterial for primary school leavers to enter secondary school?

/*Fifthly, the Police Force and the entire Security Apparatus will have to be reviewed - with a view towards more liberal and less paranoid attitude towards Public Assembly. */

I believe the ISD should do what it needs to do, such as arresting internal threats, such as terrorist without trial.However, there are actions that i feel, is neccesary, such as keeping racial cohesion.We can't have political parties talking about some bullsh.t which could inevitably end up in violence. If one sheep starts walking the wrong direction, the rest of the herd will follow.We must correct them immediately before anything happens.However, they must not be a tool of any political party.Thankfully, i have not seen any sevear misuse of power yet.

/*At least ONE Percent of annual surplus will be set aside for the benefit of the under-privilege and the aged. */

This is not a very good solution.As you know, we are becoming an aging population, If we keep giving funds to the aged , it will tax the workning class.I rather that we educate the public to put aside some money every year, rather then we, trying to pay for them.trust me, Japan had implemented such a system, 30 years ago, when their population is growing, such a system could be implemented. However, now, the working class are burdened.I suggest that you think of an alternative system.

As for the rest rest, i can't comment because i don't know how to comment.So forgive me over that.

Atobe SG

Congratulations, CenturionMBT for your wonderful contribution, it is good that we can all make some effort - in each of our own ways - to improve our environment, even if it is within the confines of this sgForums.

Your opinions are very much respected, and while I do not wish to change your position, perhaps I can offer an alternative point of view concerning the ONE Percent of Annual Surplus for the sake of the Aged.

While I can accept your views concerning the responsibility of every individual to plan for one's retirements, you must appreciate that there remains a large group of elderly - at present - who have "missed the boat" in preparing for their retirement.

These are already in the age group of 65 years to 75 years, and from the various Charity Homes for the Aged, you will be surprised how many are actually placed in these Homes - which the Singapore Government DO NOT support in any way.

If you should visit the Charity Homes for the Aged, the majority of the Aged are from the lower income groups, in which almost everyone in the household has to eke out a meagre income to survive, with some having to take on extra second jobs.

With everyone in the household having to work, how can they look after their older folks ?

Their meagre incomes that they have, will need to be contributed to the Charity Homes to allow these Homes to take in the Aged from their family - with medical attention and medication being minimally charged at a token sum.

Those who are in the early 50's would have been working since at least the last 30 years, and would have a substantial sum in their CPF, unless the bulk is spent on the HDB Flat - with the Government soaking up the money.

What about those in the early 50's that do not hold any steady jobs for the last 30 years ? There will be drop-outs in any society, do we leave them to fend for themselves in their old age ?

With pay cuts and CPF reductions, and tight job market, can Singaporeans still afford to look after the Aged in their family, let alone plan for their own retirement ?

If the Singapore Government continue to have a "Hands Off" approach and leave it entirely to Families and Charitable Association to look after the Aged in Singapore, can the Families and Charitable Association continue to perform a high standard of care to the Aged in the present Economic Situation ?

The ONE Percent of Annual Surplus is not intended to be disbursed on any individual basis - similar to the Singapore Shares - but to allow the Charitable Associations to be able to upgrade and improve their standards of services, amenities, and equipment to look after the Aged more effectively.

Such funds will allow the Charitable Homes to accept Aged from family hardship cases, that cannot afford to look after their Aged and work at the same time.

While the Ministers and Civil Service enjoy Annual Incomes that far exceed the Singapore Cost of Living, and more then necessary to maintain a Singapore Standard of Living, many Singapore Heartlanders are facing a hard times just to pay their mortgages, daily necessities, medical, education, transport, utilities and other Government Services - let alone plan for their Old Age.

boy in blues SG

Mr. Green i 1st gotta salute you for your very compassionate suggestion. indeed, Singapore's working population has moral obligation to take care of our own needy popn since no other country would..and those TCS/Singtel charity gimmicks are insufficient since i don't even know where the bulk of the donations disappear to Question ..i rather give money to our needy than feed PAP fatter.

CenturionMBT SG

But after this scheme is implemented, there are chances that more old folks would rush down to homes, either to relieve their children of their financial burden or to simply get an income without raising a finger.If that is a case, wouldn’t the working people get bogged down with an extra burden?Besides, we have charity shows every year with collects up to 5 million annually.So itsn’t this enough?

boy in blues SG

how about those govt-aided homes 'force' employers like fast-food outlets, 7-11 or petrol kiosks to employ them? anyway, even if they OT everday also need some financial assistance. they not like fit young tramps living off national treasury.

CenturionMBT SG

On the countrary, I believe that it is a good thing that they are working and earning a living.This way, they could age actively and at the sametime, contribute to our economy. Senior citizens should be seen in this light , rather than someone who is lying there waiting for their death bed.

Viper52 SG

"Support the system that supports you". Doesn't that sound like a fair deal?

After decades of working for the good of the the country, contributing to the economy, when workers retire, and have no family support network to fall back on isn't it time for the country to give something back? Yes, there are the welfare homes and children, but whats wrong with the country doing its bit too to help older folks. They've spent decades supporting the system, isn't it time for the system to give something back after they retire?

Like the Chinese saying goes, 'Mei you gong lao, ye you ku lao' (Even if there are no achievements, there is also effort)

As for encouraging people into increasing savings, the forced+voluntary savings rate in Singapore is already the world's highest. How much more do you expect people to save?

CenturionMBT SG

For your information, even the American government, with is one of the world’s leading econmy does not provide welfare to their version of the old folks home.For their case, people rely on their own savings to ensure that they have a proper home for the aged.So we can’t have the best of everything.

Atobe SG

You are quite right that the US Government do not provide welfare similar to the Old Folks home.

However, the US Government does support certain types of "Old Folks Home" that will attend to the needs of "Old Soldiers" - as in the Veteran Hospitals for ex-Servicemen.

From time to time, certain grants are also given to certain types of Social Welfare Homes that look after the destitutes, homeless, and the aged.

The US Social Welfare system provide some degree of assistance, although we may have endless debate on the efficacy of such a system, this system remains supported by the US Government and the economy.

In my earlier response, I failed to address your point concerning the ONE Percent being taken from taxes.

Actually, my line was that if ever an amount equal to ONE Percent is taken from the ANNUAL SURPLUS of the Singapore Government Budget, this amount does not necessarily come from any tax collected from the Citizens.

The revenue that the Singapore Government has available to its Treasury is many fold, and Tax (in all its forms) is but only one part.

CenturionMBT SG

If the government does gives 1% from its surplus, i have nothing to say.As long as it does not give any burden to our working class.But have you thought of a senerio where one day we might have zero or negative growth?Then who is going to pay then?

Atobe SG

If ever the economy should slip and go into negative growth, then perhaps a cut amounting to a quarter of the Million Dollar and super scale salaries - from every minister, minister of states, permanent secretaries, and all the super scale salaried Civil Servants - will be justified, and can help make lives easier for the maintenance of the Old Folks Homes.

Do you know how many ministers we have to-date (with and without Portfolios), as well as Minister of States ?

If the Government believe that we can get by with a diet of a dish of cheap ikan kurau (or even ikan belis), kangkong and porridge on a daily basis, then why are we paying million dollar salaries, while the rest of the population earn less than ONE Percent of that amount ?

Seriously, do you think that negative growth in our budget can occur ?

It is a numbers game, with the amount of funds that the Government has to "play with" - coming from all the GLCs - and categorised as "surplusses" in holding accounts all over the place.

It is little wonder that when the late President Ong Teng Cheong requested for an accounting of the Reserves that he was supposed to look after, there was so much 'hee-hawing' from the Government.

When GST was first implemented, the result after the first year was so embarrassingly and shockingly good that the ex-Finance Minister Richard Hu had to recommend a "refund" by way of the Singapore Shares.

This is to make peace with Singaporeans by giving out Singapore Shares from time to time.

At the end of the day, if we cannot look after so many old folks in the Charity Homes for the Aged, perhaps the salary that is paid to SM LKY can go a longer way to support the many instead of supporting one 80 Year Old, who surely do not need so much money in the twilight years of his active and already prosperous life ?

CenturionMBT SG

Actually, in my honest oppinoin, (trust me , i am not siding anyone) I believe that ministers should be paid at a much higher salary.In fact, many people in the private sector actually get a pay equilivant or greater to the ministers.If ministers, being ceo of the country, don't deserve to draw that high a salary, who wants to be ministers? All the bright brains might as well go on to the private sector allowing the less intelligent people to fill up the power vacuum, which in my oppinion, is a much dangerous situation.

Yes, the old folks home should be sufficiently funded and we can see that they often get funds through regular donations. Just look at charity drives by schools.Each school could raise nearly 100000 per year.Each year, these associations gain millions of dollars in donation.So itsn't it enough for them? If you are already pretty well funded, is it fair to ask for more?

boy in blues SG

Mr. Green MP is not for swindlers who wanna make a quick buck but rather for people who are interested in designing a better lifestyle for ALL fellow citizens. but i don't think they would starve to death yet at the rate they're paid.

Atobe SG

Sure, Ministers should be paid much higher than the average Singaporean Workers, but to equate their salaries to that of a Commercial CEO ?

The salary of the US President (whose powers far exceed that of the Singapore Prime Minister) is less then a quarter of the CEO of General Motors.

The position of a Minister in the Singapore Government is no longer a "Service to the Nation", as the position of a US President is seen to be.

In Singapore, the position of a Minister is a "Life Time Career", which explains for the perpetuation of power, and the tenacity to maintain political control so as to perpetuate this power on the economic benefits derived from holding on to power.

CenturionMBT SG

Well, as i have said, this is Singapore, it is not USA.If Singaporeans don't get the pay they think they deserve, they don't work. This applies to the ministers. Why go and slog off and work for the government when the commercial side has a higher pay? After all, they have the talents.You get the picture?
In the end some not so talented people would simply fill up the power vacuum left behind by these talented people, and the country would gradually collapse by itself.

Wish SG

Any one seeking high pay must be willing to be scruntinize based on their performance.

First of all, they are overpaid. But I would say that some of the ministers might deserve the pay but the rest totally doesn't.

Atobe SG

Did LKY and his team of First Generation Leaders involved themselves in the politics of Singapore with a vision of "High Salaried" career in Politics, or did they have a loftier ideals of what Political Service to Singapore is to be ?

Will talented people not come forth to serve in politics if the Ministerial Pay is not of equal amount paid in the private sector ?

The fact that there is such a paucity of educated and talented people willing to serve in politics, is due more to the unsavory type of politics being played out in Singapore for the last 38 years.

If money can draw talent to the surface, one can only wonder what kind of talent will be serving in Government.

There has been much debate about how much Singapore Ministers have to be paid, little has been concluded, and doubtfully if our positions can find any merging paths.

« Previous Page