Forum Index
this forum welcomes all forumers who appreciate decent and well thought out views and discussions. all forumers are encouraged to accept that different forumers have different views and often there is no absolutely right or wrong views.
Menu
 Forum IndexHome
FAQFAQ
MemberlistMemberlist
UsergroupsUsergroups
RegisterRegister
ProfileProfile
Log in to check your private messagesMessages
Log inLogin/Out

Quick Search

Advanced Search

Links
mysingaporenews
Singapore River Tour
Singapore Education
Singapore Orchids
littlespeck
ypapforum
Singapore Hosting
Sample Link 2
Sample Link 2

Who's Online
[ Administrator ]
[ Moderator ]


Google Search
Google

http://www.phpbb.com
Gems of Parliament
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2013 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

WP’s Art of War
The debate on the AIM saga in Parliament is intriguing. The revelation of the appointment of a husband and wife team to develop the TCMS for Aljunied, their appointment as managing agent (did I get this part right), the no tender award to one bidder, the development of another expensive TCMS, the management agent fee and the appointment and award of contract to party related people, all seems so blatantly in defiance of public scrutiny and exposing the WP to obvious attack by the PAP. The question begs to be answered is why is the WP doing these? They must know that they will become easy target and plenty of uncomfortable questions would be asked.
What is the strategy of the WP to voluntarily expose so many obvious gaps and seemingly not too appropriate things that they have done? Now the PAP side is so happy with this salivating opportunity to blow the WP apart for the very same faults that WP is questioning the PAP. Practically everything the WP pointed out as flaws of the PAP is being repeated, reenacted in the AHTC. Strange, very strange indeed.
And Sylvia is so confident to defy Teo Ho Pin to make a complaint to the CPIB for any wrongdoings on the WP’s part, or else shut up. She must have known something that we don’t. She must have known that any complaint and subsequent investigation are likely to make WP look better and maybe make PAP looks badder. Can this be the case?
The first hint of a successful coup de tat is the surprising revelation of readily available TCMS packages. By not going for it, by sticking to the same process of developing a new package at enormous cost, the WP is also looking a bit silly, when the truth is that a much cheaper generic package is readily available. The question thus is why the WP did not go to the market for a cheap and workable package and chose to follow the same process, to develop another expensive animal? They did not know?
The bigger question, why was this not done in the first place by the PAP when the latter knew that such a package is available? Maybe when the tender was called for the development of the $23.8m package, Boon Wan was not in the MND and could not advise them of this cheap alternative.
Everyone is now watching whether Teo Ho Pin would bring the case to the CPIB. And if he does, what else would be revealed that are applicable or similar to both camps and screwing one side would screw the other side harder? So far, the WP seems to be doing exactly what the PAP has done and religiously following them like saying, what you can do, I can do also. And if it is alright for you, it must be alright for me. Is this the strategy of the WP?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hawker Centre cleaning – Politics is about scoring political points
It is amazing but not surprising that the cleaning of a hawker centre and who should pay for it could drag on for months and wasting so much of Parliament’s time and the time of Ministers and MPs.
Should not this be a simple case of administrative procedures? The cleaning of a hawker centre is not something new and has been going on for years. All the precedents are there as to whether the hawkers should pay or it is part of the cost that the hawkers have been paying monthly.
Why is this dragging on and on, and after yesterday’s Parliament session it does not seem to end and many more months of scratching at each other will go on. Is this an in thing, to bitch over such issues in Parliament when it should have been settled over a few meetings in the Minister’s office or in the Town Council?
But of course, this is all about politics, about scoring political points, about integrity, about being honourable, about bitching in Parliament over an administrative and procedural matter, and about everything and about nothing.
Should the Speaker of Parliament tell the contending parties to sort it out over a meeting outside Parliament? Or should the issue continue to be aired in Parliament to see who is the more honourable one or who has more integrity over this matter? Or is Parliament a venue to see who is better in debating?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stylo milo Vivian in Parliament
The most impressive part of the 10 minutes broadcast on Parliament after the news was all about Vivian. At least that was the only thing I could remember. He was a class of his own. He dressed very well, dressed to kill, looked very good and spoke damn well. Indeed he was a very polished debater. He peppered his lecture in Parliament with well measured tone and body language. This is fine art. Great stuff. I gave him full marks for presentation.
When he was speaking the floor listened intently in silence. No one moved. Hsien Loong and all the ministers were there, in deep thoughts, listening or maybe thinking very hard about something else more important, that I am not sure.
It would be nice to know what were in their minds. Were they so impressed and overawed by the articulate performance of Vivian, the smooth talking minister? Or were they thinking that he should cut it off as such matters of ‘I said this, he said that, I am more honourable, he is not, he is lying, she is untruthful’, though well executed, should be said somewhere else and not in Parliament?
It is really interesting to know what were in the minds of the ministers and MPs then. Unfortunately there will be no answers to this. But overall it was a great performance by Vivian. In oratory skills, none in Parliament could come close to him. His parting shot to Low Thia Khiang was superb one upmanship, a little patronizing, but he got away with it.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hawker centre cleaning – The mysterious quotation
In Parliament, Vivian referred to a quotation by the AHPETC’s contractor, ATL Maintenance Pte Ltd to the market association as evidence that the Town Council is asking for double payment for the cleaning of the ceiling of the hawker centre.
“The first irregular event is ATL’s quotation delivered by hand on the 19th of February 2013… the hawkers have never asked for a quotation. Mr Low (WP’s chief, Low Thia Kiang) has met with the hawkers. They have told him the same thing. Secondly ATL is your own private contractor. When your own contractor issues a quotation for $7,200 to the hawkers asking for payment for work which you say is already covered by your contract – that amounts to a demand for double payment for the same quantity of work.,” Balakrishnan said, adding that he also had witnesses from meetings who could verify events. Quoted from YahooNews Online
Sylvia Lim said the quotation was requested by the market association:
“This quotation was requested by the market association and does not coincide with their annual obligation to clean the high areas under the town council contract.” Quoted from YahooNews Online.
What is the main issue here? A quotation by AHPETC’s contractor, ATL Maintenance Pte Ltd delivered by hand to the market association. Why did ATL send a quotation to the market association? Was it a request for quotes by the association or ATL voluntarily sent them a quotation? Sylvia Lim said the quotation was requested by the market association.
What is the truth? Is this so difficult to prove? Did or did not the market association asked for the quotation? If yes, why? If not, why should ATL send them a quotation? Who instructed the ATL to send an unsolicited quotation?
Could someone provide the answers to solve the mystery of this red hot quotation? Who asked for it or who instructed for it to be sent to the market association?
One possibility, ATL sent it under instruction from AHPETC which could lead to the assumption that AHPETC is expecting the hawkers to pay for it. And this is likely to be Vivian’s position.
The second possibility is that the market association asked for it. This will mean that ATL just responded to a request for quotes and this has nothing to do with the AHPETC’s intent to demand for payment unless they have already told the market association and this gave them the reason so ask for a quote. One point to ponder, the market association can ask for quotes from other maintenance company as well. Is this the only quote they asked for and received?
A third possibility, nobody asked or instructed ATL to send the quotation to the market association. They just sent the quotation without knowing why? And they know who to send the quotation to. This will be another mystery to solve.
The above questions would be an interesting puzzle for Sherlock Holmes to solve. Let’s see who is the first to come up with the full answers to complete the puzzle.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did anyone say the WP was sleeping and not doing anything?
The hottest issue in cyberspace these few days is not the haze or the near epidemic dengue situation with record numbers of people having dengue. The hottest issue is who should pay for the cleaning of a hawker centre’s high ceiling. And this has led to the WP being grilled by the PAP and how hard they had to work to defend themselves. And mind you, they had to work very hard and very smart and had to be very careful as the debate in Parliament would be in the air after the 9.30pm news. Can’t imagine what would be shown if the WP made a mess of it and could not defend themselves effectively.
For the few hours in Parliament, I believe both parties would have spent a lot of time and resources preparing their positions, how to attack or defend the points raised. For the amount of money they are getting, it is really hard work. It is a tough battle with 7 fairly new WP MPs other than Low Thia Khiang, against the full force of the PAP MPs and the veteran ministers. And the last session on the cleaning of the hawker centre must be so important that it was nearly full house in Parliament. This is quite a rare experience.
Let’s put our hands together for the parliamentarians on both sides for working so hard to debate on these national issues for the good of the residents.
Did anyone say that the WP MPs are not working, or the PAP MPs are not working? To be a WP MP means a lot of pressure. Doing too little for the people sure kena walloped. Saying too much of the wrong thing lagi chiat lat. Go to Parliament means one month cannot sleep, got to prepare to ward off attacks from all corners. Must wear protective gears just in case.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The PMO has spoken on the hawker centre issue

Today, 12 Jul, the PMO has issued a 9 point justification on why Vivian Balakrishnan had to take the WP to task on the issue of integrity in Parliament. I just quote the second point here and to use it for a poll I set up on the top right of this page in www.mysingaporenews.blogspot.sg.

‘Good politics is first and foremost about integrity. Singapore has succeeded because we have honest, upright people in politics: people who can be trusted to uphold the public interest, to speak the truth even when it is inconvenient, and to admit mistakes when things go wrong. This is how we have built trust between Singaporeans and their leaders, worked together to build the nation and improved everyone’s lives.’

How many people believe that we have honest and upright people that can be trusted to do the right thing? Please indicate your take in the poll on the right.

I want to clarify here that whatever a person votes, it may be right or wrong, but it is definitely what the person perceives or thinks so. For example if everyone thinks that the govt does have honest and upright people, it can be a statement of truth. And that is good. On the other hand, the majority may not think so, and this can also be a statement of truth, which then is bad. But if this is false, and if the govt has honest and upright people but the people do not believe so, this in itself is another problem. It simply means that the people do not trust the govt and have a very bad impression of the govt. And the govt really needs to conduct an investigation as to why it is like dat.

The best result is for the majority of the people to think that the govt has honest and upright people that can be trusted to do the right thing for the people, and that this is also the truth.

So please vote accordingly on what you perceive or think.

Cheers.

Let me add further that this cleaning of hawker centre thing is really a very small issue. It is nothing compares to the AIM issue and was best put away and moves on.
And I think it is a horrible mistake for Vivian to thrash it out in Parliament thinking that he can score a winning goal against the WP. More horrible is for the whole cabinet to think that this was a good idea to throw at the WP.

What is going to happen now is that this supposedly minor issue is going to open the Pandora Box and allow the critics of the govt to dig into a can full of worms and that may become quite embarrassing and difficult to put away. It is like the proverbial saying that people living in glass houses should not throw stones. Unfortunately things are heading in the wrong direction now. Unfortunately the emperor did not know that he is not wearing any clothes and is strutting around very confidently in his new clothes.

How would this minor issue (of course some people think it is damn big issue) end eventually and who would land with more mud on the face?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Setting the agenda, calling the shot and making monkeys running around

Just when the cleaning of the hawker centre dispute was fading away, Vivian Balakrishnan threw down the gauntlet in Parliament, calling Sylvia Lim and Pritam Singh and the WP names and challenging them to sue him in court. Initially some might have thought that this was the position of a minister trying to make his mark. Then the PMO issued one statement after another to support the stand of Vivian and confirmed that it was the stand of the Govt to hold the WP to account for what they said and done in the hawker centre cleaning issue. The Govt is questioning the integrity, honesty and trustworthiness of the WP. The Govt is taking the fight to the WP and demanding the latter to pick up the gauntlet and do battle.

Low Thia Khiang has replied that he would not pursue this matter and have a run in with the PAP that would be time consuming, energy sapping and financially draining on the limited finance of his party. A drawn out battle is something that the WP would not want to be dragged into. They would rather continue with what they have to do to serve their constituencies and not politicking to win a battle with the time and place and agenda set by the PAP. They would want to leave the matter as it is and let the people decide whether they have done wrong or whether they are worthy to be voted in again.

The PAP has in a way decided that the WP is guilty and wanted this to be confirmed in this chosen battle, preferably in court, to be judged by the court. They are taking on the roles of judge and executioner. The WP chose to have the issue be judged by the people like in Hougang and Punggol East. Let the people be the final arbiter of who is right or wrong, or who is good or bad.

The question is how important is this issue over the other major issues that are left in the air and the many national issues that the people are unhappy about? Obviously the PAP would think that this is of paramount importance and needs to be settled. The WP may disagree and want to move on to deal with other more pressing and important matters, and would see this as simply politicking and bickering for votes.

At the recent DBS Insights Asia Conference, Hsien Loong was quoted to advise whoever governs Singapore to ‘try very hard to keep the politics clean and straight, constructive,’ and, ‘where you’re solving problems and not just slogging it out, fighting with one another’. There are two points here, keep politics clean and straight, and avoid bickering and politicking to score political points. How would these points measure up with the PAP upping the temperature on the hawker centre cleaning issue and not to let it pass and not to move on?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hawker centre cleaning, time to move on
As more things are revealed in this issue of great national importance, perhaps it is time to move on as the points in question could boil down to some misunderstanding in what were said and what were written or between annual cleaning and not annual cleaning.
Can we call it a stalemate, both sides never win or never lose, call it a truce and everyone gets back to work? Some overseas blogs are even laughing at us for creating such a hooha with ministers and PMs involved. But I must respect those who think this is indeed a very serious matter of integrity and honesty and needs to pursue until every stone is turned and every straight and honest face turns crooked and red.
Shall everyone say peace? I also feel very embarrass to post about it.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vivian’s air tight case on honesty and integrity
The hawker centre cleaning issue just refuses to go away. It is quite bizarre that a small administrative misunderstanding could end up as an issue of honesty and integrity in Parliament. With all the information now on the table, I believe the issue is now pretty clear to even the Ah Peks and Ah Mahs in the market place. Let me try to summarise the case and where it is at the moment.
5 parties were involved, the NEA, Town Council and the non existent Hawker’s Association. I hope I got it right that there was no hawker association in the first place or just an informal one. Correct me if I am wrong. The hawkers in the market are not new. They have been operating there for many years and know exactly whether they should or should not pay for the scaffolding. The Town Council may be a bit new and could be expected to be raw or unfamiliar with some of the administrative stuff. But they are expected to know what they can make the hawkers pay and what they cannot. They would not dare to ask the hawkers for payment if they are not supposed to do so. This is a public matter and not something that can be hidden away. They can’t cheat the hawkers. The hawkers and the staff in the Town Council know what is happening. If they are asking for payment, it is likely be an honest mistake. There are things called honest mistakes right? The WP is denying that they did.
As for the NEA, lagi simple. They are the authority and administrator of market maintenance and Town Council matters. They must be very clear as to what the Town Council can collect and what cannot. A young executive from NEA could tell the parties in disagreement clearly who should pay for what. NEA could easily nip this misunderstanding in the bud.
It is strange and highly unsatisfactory that this little administrative misunderstanding could end up in Parliament and becomes an issue of honesty and integrity. And I believe Vivian Balakrishnan must have been convinced that he had an air tight case to prove that the WP MPs has to answer on issues of honesty and integrity. In the Parliamentary debate you could see how confident and assured he was in lecturing the WP MPs and in patronizing Low Thia Khiang to investigate his party members. And for Hsien Loong to openly state that he and his cabinet supported Vivian’s stand, it must mean that he and his cabinet too were convinced that it was a good and unquestionable case to push in Parliament. In a way Hsien Loong is putting his credibility behind Vivian’s charge.
The latest development is the revelation that two key personnel in the dispute are PAP members. This disclosure would create some doubts as to whether this is strictly an issue involving the hawkers and the Town Council or between the WP and PAP. The lawyers will use this to cast doubts into the case.
The next unfortunate things are the notes of the NEA officer and the dossier of Vivian. Apparently the NEA notes were referring to Spring cleaning and Vivian’s dossier was referring to Annual cleaning. Low Thia Khiang’s final statement in Parliament was about a misunderstanding between these two events. The Town Council thinks that it was Spring cleaning and the hawkers would have to pay for the additional scaffolding. They will not charge for Annual cleaning which they have planned for the year end.
Now, is the NEA officer clear that this is an issue of Spring cleaning? If so, why is the dossier of Vivian saying that it is Annual Cleaning? How did the word ‘Annual’ gets into Vivian’s dossier but not in NEA’s notes?
Would Low Thia Khiang stick to his position and regard this little discrepancy also as a misunderstanding and say move on, let the people be the judge? Or would he now go to Parliament with another air tight case that Vivian now has a case to answer on honesty and integrity when the NEA notes and his dossier are concerned? Would Low patronize Vivian and ask him to do an investigation into the matter to clear himself of the same accusation hurled at him?
Whose honesty and integrity are now in question?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Jan 1970
Posts: 1350

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The case of the reappearance of empty ballot boxes
The official explanation so far, after the counting is over, the ballot boxes would be disposed off by contractors. So there would no longer be consequential to the election and not really meaningful or accountable. A few seen floating around and reappearing would just reflect that the contractors were ‘slaykay’ at most, nothing to worry about. There is no need to make a case out of the five boxes found and nothing serious really. Let’s move on, this part I say one.
Two of the Presidential candidates are still not happy and smelling foul. What is the real system of checks and balance? Would all the empty boxes be part and parcel of the election process and must all be accounted and destroyed together without any one left floating around. Did they claim that something is amissed?
Presumably, this part I guess one, since I have not been a polling agent and thus would not know what is the correct procedure. Presumably, at the end of the counting of the ballots, all the ballot papers would be placed in these same ballot boxes to be transported to the High Court for safe keeping. There was no need to pack them into the same boxes according to the area or groupings they came from, but in some of the boxes would do. Presumably they were not packed into new or different boxes that were brought in for this purpose. Presumably, some boxes would be empty if all the boxes were fully stuffed.
Presumably every box was a controlled item and there would be an officer to count them and check them out, X number used for ballot papers and Y number extra were empty. Presumably the total would match and all squared up.
Then the puzzling part, should all the boxes, as they were controlled items, be sent together to the High Court and eventually be destroyed together? Looks like this is not the case and those extra boxes were left behind to be removed and destroyed by the contractors after counting was done. They became not controlled items. If this be the case, then the reappearance of the two empty boxes needs not be an issue. It was just a slip by a slipshod contractor on non controlled items.
But if the procedure is for all the ballot boxes, empty or otherwise, to be destroyed together and kept together, then people may ask how come these controlled items could be left behind as they were countables and if missing would not do? But then again, as an after event, ie, after the ballot papers had been properly delivered on the counting tables, the missing boxes would just be a technical issue and would not affect the results.
This does not mean that imaginations cannot go wild like the boxes were already missing and switched before the counting. The understanding or assumption at the moment is that they were left there after counting. Is this assumption and understanding true or reasonable? Or is this proven, a fact? This, I presume, would be playing in the minds of those who wanted to see mischief. But this is highly impossible as the polling agents would have their eyes glued to these boxes and no one could take them away without being noticed. It could only happen if there was a gap in which the ballot boxes were out of sight from the polling agents while they were on the way to the polling stations. Presumably there was no such window to begin with.
So? What do you think?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Many questions and answers in Parliament
Many questions were tabled in Parliament and the ministers were busy answering them. Somehow I find the drift not going the right direction. What are all the questions about, and what are the parliamentarians there in the first place?
Parliament has degenerated to a state of talking cock to score points for whichever party. Questions and answers were there to do just that while the interest of the people was secondary, do not really matters. At least that is my impression.
When would Parliament and parliamentarians be there to speak for the interests of the people with politics taking a break? The politickings should be set aside after the GE and all should work together or separately but putting the well beings of the people ahead of everything else. It is time to work for the people.
Roll up your sleeves and get down to work, and forget about party or whether you like that bugger or dislike his or her face. Can we have a bit of sincerity, to deal with issues as elected leaders of the people and working for the people? Do not brush aside the concerns of the people by clever or slippery answers or excuses.
Put the people first and everything will fall into place. When this is not the case, everything will be screw up as the intent is wrong, misplaced and nothing will be right. There are still a couple of years before the next GE and there is time to do things and work for the people. The results will speak for themselves.
The people are watching and the social media can be harsh to those that are just wayanging and not working for the people. The people are not daft for sure. Whether a politician is sincere and genuine will easily be recognized and be put in their place in the next GE. There is no where to run and no where to hide, and no where to talk rubbish or act silly. Those days of going with the flow and hanging on to the gravy train are over.
First base, got problems or no problem? If got problems, what are the problems and what must be done to remove the problems? Or maybe there is no problem so can continue to talk cock and sing song and be merry and enjoy the good office and the good pay and the good blessing.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Studio flats versus 2 rm flats
The big price gap between these two types of flats came up for questioning in Parliament. Boon Wan rightly said that one cannot compare apples with lemons. This really sums up what were at stake and the perceived unsatisfactory pricing. Some felt that the oldies were ripped off by paying so much for their studio flats and with so many strings attached. But then they should be happy that they were getting apples instead of lemons. Those getting lemons should not complain as the pricing was just right for lemons.
Putting this aside, the best thing coming out from the discussion is the kind of profits that studio flats could generate for HDB. In the first place the pricing for the first owner was already very high compared to the 2 rm flats. I think HDB must be making a big loss from such a sale. My apologies for the contradiction.
After 30 years, HDB would have to repossess the flat, upgrade and refurbish it, and sell it at what kind of price, you can make your guess. It is going to make another big loss I think, if the same way of reasoning applies. And the same flat would have another round to go, to be upgraded, refurbished and sold a third time to another oldie at even higher price, due to inflation and of course upgrading. And of course, HDB is going to lose another huge sum of money for reselling it a third time.
For whatever reasoning and whatever sum of huge losses, I wish that I could be the developer to build and sell these flats with the same terms. I don’t mind making all the huge losses for the good of the people.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Swee Say - minimum wage is a zero sum game
This is what Swee Say said and I fully agree with him. Setting a minimum wage is a zero sum game. When you have to make sure the low level workers be paid a minimum wage that is higher than what they are getting, it affects the overall payroll. With a cake of fixed size, the rest will have less to share.
I dunno if this same logic applies to the high pay and bonuses of top management. Is it also a zero sum game, that when they are paid so much, the low level workers must get less. Zero sum game is like that. The total sum is fixed, and when someone gets more, someone must get less.
But there are exceptions. In some circumstances, the top can get as much as they want without affecting the zero sum game formula, because the cake can be blown bigger if the supply of income is unlimited. Talented top management would know how to ensure that the money coming in is always growing and so it is alright if they are paid millions and millions. It would not affect what the low level workers would be paid. Tiok boh? The zero sum game formula thus does not apply.
What do you think?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Record questions to be asked in Parliament

117 questions will be asked in Parliament on Monday. 31 of these will be asked by opposition MPs and NCMPs. This is 26% of all questions asked by 10% of the MPs. Look at it from another perspective, 90% of the ruling MPs will ask 74% of the questions. Is this material?

Should the people be saying, wow, so many questions asked in Parliament, the MPs are working very hard and making the ministers to work very hard as well? The same kind of question can be asked, we have so many ministers, second ministers, ministers of states, senior and junior, Parliamentary Secretaries and mayors! Whew, how many mayors did we have? Best govt in numbers. Would it be better to have best govt in quality and fewer in numbers?

In number terms, we must be very well run with so many pairs of hands working and so many talents worth their pay in charge. So why have so many questions asked? Either we have too many things that need questioning because things are not right and proper, or there is a competition and a prize for the most questions asked.

We also have so many foreigners here, so they must be contributing a great deal to the economy, or they are taking a great deal from the economy or causing a lot of problems to the country and people.

Is it a case of the more the merrier, more means good, or there is something called quality. A ton of shit would not worth more than a kg of gold surely. Don’t get me wrong, I did not know what they are asking and whether these are serious or very important questions or issues to be raised. I am just saying that numbers do not necessary mean quality stuff, but can be quality stuff. 10 good quality questions can make a lot of difference. I will make an effort to watch the news and read the papers to note the 117 questions to be asked on Monday. I hope every concerned citizen too will be watching too. We know that there are many big issues and some very serious that are affecting the people. Would these be raised in the 117 questions? It would be a big disappointment if none is raised in the barrage of questions tabled.

In case those questions you think are important are not asked, do not be annoyed. Please remember that what is important to you may not be important to them and vice versa. No need to pull your hair or stomp your feet. This is the reality of politics.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TRE – The shadow Parliament
In a way the TRE is looking like the shadow Parliament where national issues are discussed furiously by the people and their representatives. Every issue is hotly debated and reflected the real feelings of the people, the tension, the angst, the misery, the pain and the frustration and exasperation, all came out as real as you can get. Though there might be some fakings, but it is hundreds of times more real than the real Parliament.
Here not only genuine issues are raised, genuine questions are also asked, issues that really affect the lives of the people. There is no time for superficiality and no material issues raised for the sake of raising just for fun.
The people’s representatives here are really the representatives of the people. If they are not and speaking against the people, they will be ‘goreng’ and chewed to pieces.
You can imagine how the parliamentarians or MPs and ministers appearing here and talking nonsense or incomprehensible things or things they wanted the people to believe are right or good for the people when they are not? They will be striped naked and whipped and torched here. Oops, cannot say such things like whipped and torched or some people will take it literally. Only figuratively like all the good things they said in Parliament, figuratively also.
What do you think, which is the more real Parliament? Or which Parliament is a talk cock session?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs All times are GMT + 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Page 13 of 15

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group. Hosted by Vodien Internet Solutions