PDA

View Full Version : ministers' pension



proud owner
11-05-11, 08:36
can someone verify this please ?

if this is true .......its a real scandal

http://easyapps.sg/sgep/admin/file.aspx?id=145

hopeful
11-05-11, 08:55
How come that lawyer didnt cite which section of the Act?
Easier for public to search and verify for themselves.

Laguna
11-05-11, 09:52
tax free as well?

lifeline
11-05-11, 10:08
How come that lawyer didnt cite which section of the Act?
Easier for public to search and verify for themselves.


just google part or whole paragraph and you will find it.

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?actno=1978-REVED-219&doctitle=PARLIAMENTARY%20PENSIONS%20ACT%0A&date=latest&method=part&segid=888373251-000067


so even opp mps who serve > 2 terms are also entitled.

Regulators
11-05-11, 10:09
Does it mean TPL just needs to work as mp till she is 35 years old to get pension for life? OMG

lifeline
11-05-11, 10:12
Does it mean TPL just needs to work as mp till she is 35 years old to get pension for life? OMG

8/27 * 1500(incl cpf) = 444pm

ysyap
11-05-11, 10:13
Does it mean TPL just needs to work as mp till she is 35 years old to get pension for life? OMG2 terms means she'll be 37 by then. Wah.. but I don't think the pension scheme is for MP. It's probably only for ministers and office holders (as explained in the attached document). MPs receive allowances on top of their daily jobs so its their jobs that will take care of their retirement... but they probably get more from the allowance as MP than their daily job's salary??? :doh:

hopeful
11-05-11, 10:15
why opposition cst and ltk didnt point this out?
Also never want to reveal their wealth?
Not as noble as you thought!!!!
Nmp also have or not?

devilplate
11-05-11, 10:16
pension scheme only for office holders

proud owner
11-05-11, 10:22
pension scheme only for office holders

i used to go to Air supply concerts ....

until one year ... i realised they are so old and could hardly reach those notes ..

when it came to high notes, he pushed the mic towards the crowd ... and the fans will sing ...

and year after year they come to spore ...

i cant help but think ... these are the last few chances for them to rip the fans ... and retire


the same for our deargovt ... in the last few years they jacked their salaries ...

just like Air Supply ... trying to squeeze out as much as possible from the fans before they retire

westman
11-05-11, 10:22
why opposition cst and ltk didnt point this out?
Also never want to reveal their wealth?
Not as noble as you thought!!!!
Nmp also have or not?

NCMP Steve Chia did asked and LHL respond... See below for what happened...
Full details can be found here: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/11/a-contrast-of-two-schemes-the-annuity-scheme-and-the-pension-scheme/

The following article was first published in 2007, amidst the debate on changes to the CPF scheme. With the current spotlight on the retirement issue and the government exhorting Singaporeans to “work longer to save for old age (http://business.asiaone.com/Business/News/Story/A1Story20101102-245242.html)“, we thought it would be good to revisit the matter and consider the disparity between ministers and ordinary Singaporeans when it comes to funds for retirement. (See the exchange between then-NCMP Steve Chia and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.)
By Andrew Loh
The current debate on the issues of retirement, compulsory annuities and the CPF shows up 2 stark contrasts.


For ordinary Singaporeans, the annuity scheme – to put it simply – is basically a “pool fund” where the old support the old when they retire. When they pass away, their contribution to the fund is used to support the ones who are living, those 85 and above.


For government ministers, their “retirement” scheme is something from way back in the past. I am talking about the Pension Scheme for the Administrative Service (AS). (This includes prime ministers, senior ministers, speakers, ministers of state, mayors, parliamentary secretaries and political secretaries.) (link) (http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:QsUvRun6sGYJ:app.psd.gov.sg/data/Reply%2520to%2520ST%2520forum%2520letters_4Apr07.pdf+ministers+pension&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=sg)

Yes, the pension scheme is still being implemented today, for the AS.

Former Non-Constituency Member Of Parliament (NCMP) Steve Chia had asked then deputy prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, about this – in Parliament, 2004:

“Sir, how does the Deputy Prime Minister expect citizens to take the uncertainty of retirement planning under the CPF, which is a defined contribution scheme, at their own cost, whereas Ministers and public officers themselves are under a guaranteed and defined benefit pension scheme, using taxpayers’ money? In other words, their CPF may run out before the citizens die whereas qualified Ministers are taken care of by the taxpayers’ money until they die. Am I right to say that?”

DPM Lee’s reply was that yes, Administrative Officers (AO) are on the pension scheme and that the government is “going on market terms”. He also added that:

“There is no free lunch.”

(See the exchange between Mr Chia and DPM Lee at the end of this article.)

“No Free Lunch”. Really?

The question which some of us have is: “Why are Singaporeans being asked to contribute to what is effectively a pool fund – through the proposed compulsory annuities scheme – so that surviving elderly Singaporeans can have “$250-$300” per month, while ministers’ retirement are taken care of by the pension scheme, funded again by taxpayers?

Does not the dictum “No Free Lunch” apply to ministers as well?

And: Why is the pension scheme retained for the Administrative Service when it was phased out for “majority of the civil service since 1986”? (link) (http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:QsUvRun6sGYJ:app.psd.gov.sg/data/Reply%2520to%2520ST%2520forum%2520letters_4Apr07.pdf+ministers+pension&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=sg)

Another question is: Why are our ministers still on the pension scheme when they are already being paid the highest salaries in the world, in any government anywhere on earth?

According to the Prime Minister’s Office, in a letter to the press in April 2007:

“The maximum pension for a Minister drawing a total annual salary of $1.2 million is $176,500 per annum …” (link) (http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:QsUvRun6sGYJ:app.psd.gov.sg/data/Reply%2520to%2520ST%2520forum%2520letters_4Apr07.pdf+ministers+pension&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=sg)

Elderly Singaporeans, aged 85 and above, can expect only $250 to $300 per month from the annuity scheme. As my colleague, Sze Hian (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/08/24/unanswered-questions-about-cpf-changes/#more-451) said, assuming 1.5 per cent inflation, the $250 to $300 monthly annuity, is equivalent to $149 to $178 today.

This is more astounding when you consider that Singaporeans have one of the highest savings rate in the world!

What else do ministers get?

Paying government leaders an appropriate remuneration has been debated and the government, at least in the foreseeable future, is not going to budge. Indeed, their salaries will be “revised” upwards again at the end of this year and one more time next year. (link) (http://app.sprinter.gov.sg/data/pr/20070409992.htm)

Further, the government also increased the GDP Bonus for ministers. According to Minister Teo Chee Hean:


“We will increase the bonus to a norm payment of 3 months if the economy grows by 5%. The minimum payment will remain at zero if the economy grows by 2% or less. The maximum will be increased to 8 months if the economy grows by 10% or more.” (link) (http://app.sprinter.gov.sg/data/pr/20070409992.htm)
And the Performance Bonus (which all administrative service officers receive):

“We will increase the Performance Bonus by 2 months for officers at this level, to a norm of 7 months.” (link) (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/269330/1/.html)
Making sense of it all
To summarise, ministers receive the highest salaries in the world, they also receive pensions (either after they leave the service or reach 55. There are also active ministers who are presently 55 or above 55 and who are also receiving pensions at the same time. See below exchange between Steve Chia and DPM Lee), they are given a GDP Bonus of anywhere from 3 months to 8 months (conditional on the GDP) and a Performance Bonus of 7 months.

Looking at all these dizzying numbers, should one begrudge the ministers such remuneration? Perhaps not, but as leaders elected by the people, leaders who are suppose to set the tone for society, much more is expected.
The Great Affective Divide – resurrected?
There is a certain sense of unease among Singaporeans – when they compare what their leaders are earning and what they are struggling with.

The widening income gap is indeed well and truly upon us. And it is not just an income gap.

I would say there is also a moral gap. An affective divide (http://www.geocities.com/eril_project/gad.html), to borrow from Catherine Lim. A return of disaffection.
(http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/03/28/pap-and-the-people-a-return-of-disaffection-revisited/)
How do you explain to an 85 year old that he will only be receiving $250 to $300 per month when he stops working, even with an annuity scheme? (This sum is not much more than the $290 which those on Public Assistance receive from the government, which is for “subsistence”.)
And that when he passes away, he cannot delegate the money to his children or spouse (unless he opts to pay a higher premium) and that it will go into a “pool” to support other 85-year-olds and above who will also receive $250 to $300 per month? (link (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/295348/1/.html))
How do you explain to someone who would have worked some 40, 50, 60 years that he will only have $250 to $300 per month when he no longer is able to work?
Moral authority, moral leadership
As in this article (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/04/12/damage-control-by-the-prime-minister/) published earlier, the question of moral authority or moral leadership re-surfaces.
The question of moral authority is something which some government ministers have denied or brushed aside. Minister in charge of the Civil Service Teo Chee Hean was quoted by Channelnewsasia as saying:
“It is wrong to think that a bigger pay would undermine the moral authority of the government.”(link) (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/specialreport/news/269573_34/1/.html)
But isn’t this happening right now? That people are questioning the government’s and the ministers’ moral authority? That there is this perception – real or otherwise – that the government (and ministers) are so well-paid that they can no longer empathise with the average Singaporean?
That ministers’ retirement needs are taken care of by tax payers money through the Pension Scheme while tax payers have to fend for themselves when they retire, if ever they do?
Annuities for Singaporeans, pension for ministers?

In the words of Catherine Lim, be mindful of the affective gap (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/04/05/be-mindful-of-the-affective-gap/).

Additional note:
I do not wish to harp on the vast gap between what the rich deserve and what the average Singaporeans will get as retirement pay-outs. But, if we accept the premise that our leaders deserve such handsome retirement benefits, one still cannot help but ask: how can anyone, especially an aged person, make do with just $250 or $300 a month in Singapore?
This is not just a debate on equity, i.e. what is realistic and fair, but on what’s right by a caring government and those in high positions who have the power to decide what to give themselves as their old age nest egg and what to dole out to those without the power to demand something more.
Certainly, our leaders should not be so tight fisted with the people of Singapore. They should instead do something positive and right to reduce the misery of the lower income, who form a substantial number of Singaporeans.

westman
11-05-11, 10:32
Another article in TOC..

By Andrew Loh

It is interesting to hear the prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, declare that he will donate his salary increment to charity at a time when the government’s moral authority is being questioned. The prime minister said:
“To make it quite clear why I’m doing this, and also to give me the moral standing to defend this policy with Singaporeans, I will hold my own salary at the present level for five years. Whatever increases (I get), I will donate to suitable good causes.” (TODAY, front page, April 12, 2007)
The interesting part is his use of the term “moral standing”.
It was only a few days ago, also in parliament, that the minister in charge of the civil service, Teo Chee Hean, said :
“It is wrong to think that a bigger pay would undermine the moral authority of the government.” (channelnewsasia (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/specialreport/news/269573_34/1/.html))
So, why did the prime minister suddenly announce that he will be donating his pay increment to charity in order to “give me the moral standing”? Did not minister Teo say that bigger pay would not undermine the “moral authority of the government”?

The government did not anticipate the outcry?
One reason could be that the government did not expect or anticipate the huge outcry that the issue has created among Singaporeans. Perhaps the thinking was that the economy is doing well with record jobs being created, that Singaporeans will understand and accept the rationale behind the move.
But as this article (http://hammersphere.wordpress.com/2007/04/01/a-collision-of-money-and-morality/#more-22) says, Singaporeans see it as a moral issue – and not simply as one of getting the best to be in government.
In short, Singaporeans expect those in public service to be judged on an additional set of criterias besides being good technocrats or bureaucrats.
Government underestimated the importance of moral authority?
The other reason for the prime minister’s action could also be that the government itself underestimated the importance of moral authority that Singaporeans place on those in leadership positions.
Although some, like the Straits Times, may term singaporeans’ reactions as “knee jerk”, there is a deeper reason for the outcry. And this is the perception that the ‘elites’ are reaping the fruits of rewards which are created by the effort of everyone – the poor and less fortunate included.
This is where I suspect the issue of moral authority comes in.
Giving the least in our society – those on public assistance – just a measly $290 per month (which is an increase of only $30 per month), compared to a minister’s increment of $33,333 per month, raises the questions of priorities, and the moral standing of the government.
The sharp contrast in the difference of the increment for public assistance ($30) and for ministers ($33,333) brings the question of moral authority into very acute focus.
Damage control
Thus, looking at the issue, it is not really surprising that the prime minister would declare that he is effectively freezing his own salary increase and donate his increment to “suitable good causes”.
It is a political move.
A political move to try and assuage singaporeans’ anger over the matter – and, as the PM himself said, to give him the “moral standing to defend the policy with Singaporeans”.
Whether this will work is left to be seen.
The PM’s move in fact has thrown up more questions such as: Why did he not do it earlier? What about the rest of the ministers? Will they donate their increment to charity as well? Even the president’s salary is now being brought into question (TODAY, April 12, 2007, Voices).
Where do we go from here?
There is no question of the government turning back or put this increment of civil servants’ salaries on hold. It’s a done deal right from the word go.
Parliament does not have to vote on the proposal.
How Singaporeans will accept – or not accept – this salary hike will depend on whether the government can deliver in the next 4 years or so. The same issues are still there – widening income gap, ageing population, foreign talents, rising cost of living, etc.
With this increase in ministers’ salary, the pressure is now on the PAP government to deliver. Singaporeans will – indeed, should – keep an eye on the performance of the government from now on.
And with this latest pay hike, the standards and results expected of the government have just jumped a few notches.
Damage control or not – with or without moral standing or moral authority.
—————————————
PM Lee, at his swearing-in ceremony after last May’s General Elections (referring to 2006 GE):
“We must not allow ourselves to be divided between haves and have-nots, or winners and losers … if we let a politics of envy drive a wedge between us, our society will be destroyed, and all will suffer. That must never happen.”
(Channelnewsasia (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/211213/1/.html))

westman
11-05-11, 10:35
Parliament exchange between Steve Chia & LHL on Pension Scheme...

Parliamentary exchange between NCMP Steve Chia and DPM Lee Hsien Loong, 16 June 2004:
Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what is the justification for keeping Ministers on the pension scheme when all other public and civil servants have been converted to the Central Provident Fund scheme.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the civil service phased out pensions for most of the public sector in 1986, it consciously decided to retain the pension scheme for officers in a small number of key services, one of which is the Administrative Service. Administrative Officers need deep knowledge and long experience of policy issues. The service takes in some recruits mid-career, but it continues to rely heavily on officers who have joined at the entry level. For these reasons, the pension scheme remains relevant to them. As part of their overall package, pensionable officers receive lower CPF contributions than non-pensionable officers. Political appointees are also on pensions because their terms of service follow those of Administrative Officers.
Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, how does the Deputy Prime Minister expect citizens to take the uncertainty of retirement planning under the CPF, which is a defined contribution scheme, at their own cost, whereas Ministers and public officers themselves are under a guaranteed and defined benefit pension scheme, using taxpayers’ money? In other words, their CPF may run out before the citizens die whereas qualified Ministers are taken care of by the taxpayers’ money until they die. Am I right to say that?
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is an entire package. When we calculate the salary, we look into how much a person receives now, how much he receives in the CPF, and how much he can expect to save in pensions. And when a person retires, he has a choice of having a pension stream for the rest of his life or taking a commuted lump sum at the point of retirement. In fact, as a matter of fact, nearly everybody who retires prefers the commuted lump sum. Because you take a lump sum, you invest it, you do what you want. If it runs out, it runs out. There is no free lunch. If you do not have your CPF, you have the pension. If you have the pension, you have less CPF. So it all adds up to a finite amount. The Member’s implicit question is: are the Ministers enriching themselves again? And the answer is, we are going on market terms and, if anything, we are paying below what the market is.
Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Clarification from the Minister. Does any serving Minister who turns 55 actually receive both salary and pension at the same time? If yes, should he be serving?
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I believe the answer is yes. That is the rule for the civil service, and the Ministers follow the civil service rules.

Regulators
11-05-11, 10:39
I think our govt ministers can be likened to andy hui more, every year coming to singapore to dig money from concerts and trying to show people that he is still an icon and relevant to the music industry. pay me $100 to go to his concert I also not interested
i used to go to Air supply concerts ....

until one year ... i realised they are so old and could hardly reach those notes ..

when it came to high notes, he pushed the mic towards the crowd ... and the fans will sing ...

and year after year they come to spore ...

i cant help but think ... these are the last few chances for them to rip the fans ... and retire


the same for our deargovt ... in the last few years they jacked their salaries ...

just like Air Supply ... trying to squeeze out as much as possible from the fans before they retire

ysyap
11-05-11, 10:51
I think our govt ministers can be likened to andy hui more, every year coming to singapore to dig money from concerts and trying to show people that he is still an icon and relevant to the music industry. pay me $100 to go to his concert I also not interestedYou don't go so you belong to the 40% but there are still other 60% who are willing to pay $100 and some even $150 to go listen... there are some good oldie who still can serenade the crowd but most oldie CMI already lah... :spliff:

westman
11-05-11, 10:54
You don't go so you belong to the 40% but there are still other 60% who are willing to pay $100 and some even $150 to go listen... there are some good oldie who still can serenade the crowd but most oldie CMI already lah... :spliff:

Absolutely Hard Truth. :2cents:

med80009
11-05-11, 16:47
Become MP for two terms also get pension for life at 50% last drawn allowance.

wenqing
11-05-11, 16:55
why opposition cst and ltk didnt point this out?
Also never want to reveal their wealth?
Not as noble as you thought!!!!
Nmp also have or not?

It was brought up between 2001 - 2006 period by Steve Chia before.

It is old topic.

No point bringing it up over and over again.

Regulators
11-05-11, 17:36
Can you talk with some sense? When we dispute high ministerial salaries, what has that got to do with the personal wealth of the opposition? High ministerial salaries of ministers are funded by ppl's money which is the why it has become a point of contention. The personal wealth of opposition members did not come from taxpayers money so it is no concern to anybody.
why opposition cst and ltk didnt point this out?
Also never want to reveal their wealth?
Not as noble as you thought!!!!
Nmp also have or not?

hopeful
11-05-11, 18:09
It was brought up between 2001 - 2006 period by Steve Chia before.

It is old topic.

No point bringing it up over and over again.

can dont be daft or not? Just because PAP say no need to reveal doesnt mean opposition also dont reveal.
No difference between PAP and opposition.
Where is moral authority to put PAP to shame? :doh:

wenqing
11-05-11, 20:18
can dont be daft or not? Just because PAP say no need to reveal doesnt mean opposition also dont reveal.
No difference between PAP and opposition.
Where is moral authority to put PAP to shame? :doh:


9 days is short time to cover so many issues plus rebutting slanders from PAP.

If you want cover all issues. Vote in more WP then.

Campaign time, Minister salaries were covered but cannot remember if pensions too.

Maybe you can search youtube.

Do not depend on ST and CNA.

hopeful
11-05-11, 21:48
9 days is short time to cover so many issues plus rebutting slanders from PAP.

If you want cover all issues. Vote in more WP then.

Campaign time, Minister salaries were covered but cannot remember if pensions too.

Maybe you can search youtube.

Do not depend on ST and CNA.

fair enough not enough time during campaign. Now LTK and 5 friends in parliament. Will they hold a press conference every year to reveal their assets, income and taxes paid???
Did steven chia start the ball rolling by revealing his own wealth?

Regulators
12-05-11, 00:23
Our ministers are really shameless!!! :doh: :doh: :doh:

MPs agree to freeze their own salaries at £65,738
Move agreed without Commons vote after MPs were told to be 'in step' with British workers or risk public anger


Ben Quinn
The Guardian, Tuesday 22 March 2011
Article history

The move will bring MPs into line with most public sector workers. Photograph: PA
MPs last night agreed to freeze their £65,738 salaries without a Commons vote after they were told to be "in step" with workers around the country or risk public anger.

The move brings MPs into line with most public sector workers, whose pay has been frozen for two years. The Senior Salaries Review Body, whose recommendations have been implemented since 2008, had suggested a 1% rise.

However, there was disagreement when the leader of the House, Sir George Young, said MPs' pay should be set by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which is disliked by many MPs.

The decision has angered many backbenchers on all sides of the House with some believing they are underpaid and others who do not agree that they should have to vote on their own salary.

Many are also angry about curbs placed on their expenses in the wake of the scandal over abuses.

Sir George told MPs the Government had to take "difficult decisions" across the public sector, including imposing a two-year pay freeze for those earning over £21,000.

He said: "Colleagues must now decide whether their constituents would welcome Parliament exempting itself from this policy and thus insulating itself from decisions that are affecting households up and down the country.

"Or whether, as I believe they should be in step with what is being required of other public servants. I believe it is right for us as MPs to forgo the pay increase which the current formula would have produced."

The call was backed by the Shadow leader of the House, Hilary Benn, who said: "The public would find it very hard to understand if we got a pay rise when they are not getting a pay rise and that is why we will support the motion."

Labour MP John Mann (Bassetlaw) said he was against MPs having to vote on their own salaries, insisting that "the principle of Members' salaries should be set by a body entirely independent of Parliament".

He said: "Having been through the pain (of the expenses scandal), but the pain is not over, having been through that, having eventually determined that we should determine our own pay, having agreed the principle, we suddenly get back to where we started.

EBD
13-05-11, 10:05
fair enough not enough time during campaign. Now LTK and 5 friends in parliament. Will they hold a press conference every year to reveal their assets, income and taxes paid???
Did steven chia start the ball rolling by revealing his own wealth?

As stated by others.

The point of contention is that the millions earned by ministers comes from the taxpayer.
If they are self made millionaires no one will care how much money they have.

Opposition member like CSM will no doubt be a millionaire but due to their own private enterprise.

Personally I couldn't give a damn how much any of them have. PAP ministers included.
It's publicly stated how much they earn from the taxpayer - let them contend on that alone, which I believe is the question most are asking.

ysyap
13-05-11, 10:27
Whether we like it or not, their salary is here to stay. No point arguing and saying its unfair. Think we can only criticize on their effectiveness in policy implementations and stuff... :doh:Uniquely Singapore... Welcome to Singapore! :D

Regulators
14-05-11, 12:24
There are 3.5 million voters and 1.4 million voters voted against the pap. Out of the 1.4 million, I dare say almost all are unhappy with the way ministers are paying themselves ridiculous salaries from taxpayers money and that is a large part of the population. If this were to take place in uk, there would be street protests immediately, but our govt knows that majority of singaporeans are docile and thus they are unreserved about taking singaporeans for granted.
As stated by others.

The point of contention is that the millions earned by ministers comes from the taxpayer.
If they are self made millionaires no one will care how much money they have.

Opposition member like CSM will no doubt be a millionaire but due to their own private enterprise.

Personally I couldn't give a damn how much any of them have. PAP ministers included.
It's publicly stated how much they earn from the taxpayer - let them contend on that alone, which I believe is the question most are asking.

devilplate
14-05-11, 12:40
There are 3.5 million voters and 1.4 million voters voted against the pap. Out of the 1.4 million, I dare say almost all are unhappy with the way ministers are paying themselves ridiculous salaries from taxpayers money and that is a large part of the population. If this were to take place in uk, there would be street protests immediately, but our govt knows that majority of singaporeans are docile and thus they are unreserved about taking singaporeans for granted.
Ard 2.5mil voters altogether rite?

All unhappy abt minister pay except ministers n wanabes:p

Toking abt uk....hmm....wat r their problems today? Care 2 share?

hopeful
14-05-11, 13:21
As stated by others.

The point of contention is that the millions earned by ministers comes from the taxpayer.
If they are self made millionaires no one will care how much money they have.

Opposition member like CSM will no doubt be a millionaire but due to their own private enterprise.

Personally I couldn't give a damn how much any of them have. PAP ministers included.
It's publicly stated how much they earn from the taxpayer - let them contend on that alone, which I believe is the question most are asking.

Look I also don't give a damn about ministers' salaries.
However, if opposition want to whip up the crowd, to score points and perhaps win a few more votes, then revealing their own wealth first would be a moral advantage.

The advantage that opposition has is that most of their wealth is from private enterprise.
Now how about ministers and PAP MPs? Do their wealth come mostly from ministerial pay and director fees of GLCs?

Also opposition reveal own CPF statements, so that the minister who smiled when he saw CPF statement also will reveal what is the amount that makes him smile.

It would be interesting to see if ministers, MPs deposit more into CPF, or just legal bare minimum. If bare minimum, then opposition can attack PAP that PAP themselves dont believe in CPF......

Asked the health minister's how he paid S$8 only, so that the poor can also pay S$8 for operation. If he reveal that he pay like $5000 in premiums annually, the opposition also can attack how is healthcare affordable....

Always compare and contrast ad nauseum.
Now where is the opposition demagogue when you need one. NS maybe???

devilplate
14-05-11, 13:39
Dun nid ....

Just nid to shout: 1ST WORLD PARLIAMENT!

kingkong1984
14-05-11, 14:09
1st world salary already

hopeful
14-05-11, 14:13
1st world salary already
not 1st world salary.

Out of the world salary.

Regulators
14-05-11, 14:52
You still don't understand the point of contention :doh: nobody is interested in the private wealth of ministers, just the allowances they get from public funds that has to be used in an accountable way
Look I also don't give a damn about ministers' salaries.
However, if opposition want to whip up the crowd, to score points and perhaps win a few more votes, then revealing their own wealth first would be a moral advantage.

The advantage that opposition has is that most of their wealth is from private enterprise.
Now how about ministers and PAP MPs? Do their wealth come mostly from ministerial pay and director fees of GLCs?

Also opposition reveal own CPF statements, so that the minister who smiled when he saw CPF statement also will reveal what is the amount that makes him smile.

It would be interesting to see if ministers, MPs deposit more into CPF, or just legal bare minimum. If bare minimum, then opposition can attack PAP that PAP themselves dont believe in CPF......

Asked the health minister's how he paid S$8 only, so that the poor can also pay S$8 for operation. If he reveal that he pay like $5000 in premiums annually, the opposition also can attack how is healthcare affordable....

Always compare and contrast ad nauseum.
Now where is the opposition demagogue when you need one. NS maybe???

EBD
14-05-11, 19:00
Look I also don't give a damn about ministers' salaries.
However, if opposition want to whip up the crowd, to score points and perhaps win a few more votes, then revealing their own wealth first would be a moral advantage.


I think you are totally missing the point.

I didn't say I don't give a damn about the ministers salaries. I don't care about any politicians private wealth accrued from business, family or other means.

It is the ministers salary that comes out of the taxpayers pocket that is the concern.

I agree , the opposition should reveal how much money and wealth they have obtained from the TAXPAYER. That would be moral and even no?

azeoprop
14-05-11, 19:09
MM Lee, SM Goh to quit Cabinet

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/mm-lee--sm-goh-to-quit-cabinet.html

:beats-me-man:

jezz
14-05-11, 19:14
MM Lee, SM Goh to quit Cabinet

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/mm-lee--sm-goh-to-quit-cabinet.html

:beats-me-man:

smart move...

resign after election

they kept saying give to the younger generations to lead

devilplate
14-05-11, 19:36
MM Lee, SM Goh to quit Cabinet

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/mm-lee--sm-goh-to-quit-cabinet.html

:beats-me-man:
Quit cabinet but continue to serve the grc?:confused:

amk
14-05-11, 20:09
I hope LKY dun quit GIC.

mcmlxxvi
14-05-11, 20:40
Time has come to step down.

Leave while there is no major damage. You dont wanna be around the next elections when PAP falls to 50% or even below of votes...

At least i fondly remember MM as the founding father and SM as the one to introduce alternative voices and acceptance in government.

Or you can remember MM for the failed SuZhou projects and SM for the government whos who earning peanuts salary

But how will the future pan out under LHL? Great state of unknown.

Watch out for stock market ripples come Monday... :scared-1:

ysyap
14-05-11, 20:49
SM and MM are merely doing their bit to walk their talk after so many own goals... to earn back some respect for PAP... wise move...:D

ysyap
14-05-11, 20:51
Quit cabinet but continue to serve the grc?:confused:Why not? There are many non ministers serving in GRC as well...:spliff:

ysyap
14-05-11, 20:52
Time has come to step down.

Leave while there is no major damage. You dont wanna be around the next elections when PAP falls to 50% or even below of votes...

At least i fondly remember MM as the founding father and SM as the one to introduce alternative voices and acceptance in government.

Or you can remember MM for the failed SuZhou projects and SM for the government whos who earning peanuts salary

But how will the future pan out under LHL? Great state of unknown.

Watch out for stock market ripples come Monday... :scared-1:They can still be around as MPs in next GE, just not ministers drawing :scared-1: salary for others to shoot... just $15k a month... :D

mcmlxxvi
14-05-11, 20:55
Why not? There are many non ministers serving in GRC as well...:spliff:

GRC = Government-official Retirement Club
GRC = Great Recreation Committee

kingkong1984
14-05-11, 21:03
The cab is too small for so many drivers, you need a cockpit for that.

amk
14-05-11, 21:24
Watch out for stock market ripples come Monday... :scared-1:

Market has long been waiting for an excuse to correct.
I'll be exiting... Doesn't look good.:(

ysyap
14-05-11, 21:26
So what's the next unexpected news to hit the papers in the subsequent days??? One by one, people quit, etc... Hmmm... Singapore govt movement has never been this interesting and succulent!!! :D

linchong84
14-05-11, 21:55
Both of them quite old already. And by quitting, they allow PM to consolidate power and be the only one people look at for directions and orders. I feel this is a good thing. If monday market goes down, those sellers also boliao and kiasi..

Regulators
14-05-11, 21:55
They can quit for all I care, I am more interested in how much more they are going to dig from public funds to pay for their pensions. I can probably make an exception for lky whom I still respect despite his many own , but not for lao goh
MM Lee, SM Goh to quit Cabinet

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/mm-lee--sm-goh-to-quit-cabinet.html

:beats-me-man:

ysyap
14-05-11, 21:58
Just when you think election is over, more news are surfacing... WP Sylvia Lim just quitted her full time job as a polytechnic lecturer of 12 years to concentrate on serving the people. Anyway, I think it is a right decision coz she's taking over from where PAP lost so much vote last week. She will work hard to relocate the dormitory, if its even possible... :doh:

ysyap
14-05-11, 22:01
They can quit for all I care, I am more interested in how much more they are going to dig from public funds to pay for their pensions. I can probably make an exception for lky whom I still respect despite his many own , but not for lao gohDon't worry too much, there can't be more than 25 years between both of them. What I cannot stand is if TPL serve 2 terms as MP and retire at 37, she gets pension that can last potentially for 40 years!!! :scared-4: That is our money... Btw, she's already half way there after winning her first 5 years in parliament. :scared-2:

Regulators
14-05-11, 22:09
They should set am she and not the number of terms served. The ideal age for an mp to start being eligible for pension is 55, that is if they have served at least two terms. The ministers don't seem to be doing what they preach to the people :doh:
Don't worry too much, there can't be more than 25 years between both of them. What I cannot stand is if TPL serve 2 terms as MP and retire at 37, she gets pension that can last potentially for 40 years!!! :scared-4: That is our money... Btw, she's already half way there after winning her first 5 years in parliament. :scared-2:

chiaberry
14-05-11, 22:09
Marine Parade residents might feel aggrieved at SM quitting. Some had voted to keep him in. If they knew he wasn't going to stay, they might have preferred to vote Opp to get in NS rather than TPL.

ysyap
14-05-11, 22:15
Marine Parade residents might feel aggrieved at SM quitting. Some had voted to keep him in. If they knew he wasn't going to stay, they might have preferred to vote Opp to get in NS rather than TPL.SM still staying to serve Marine Parade residents... just not in the capacity of a SM. Anyway, whether he's SM or just an MP, he still commands great respect from Singaporeans.. :D

DC33_2008
14-05-11, 22:42
We will see quite a bit of saving with MM and SM leaving the cabinet. At least 6-7 million per year. Pension for them is about one-tenth of the minister salary. MM will continue to be MP and Chairman of GIC, etc.
They can quit for all I care, I am more interested in how much more they are going to dig from public funds to pay for their pensions. I can probably make an exception for lky whom I still respect despite his many own , but not for lao goh

amk
14-05-11, 23:06
What I cannot stand is if TPL serve 2 terms as MP and retire at 37, she gets pension that can last potentially for 40 years!!! :scared-4:

I thought MP elected after 1995 no longer has pension ?

amk
14-05-11, 23:11
They can quit for all I care, I am more interested in how much more they are going to dig from public funds to pay for their pensions.

Hmmmmm I wonder what these 2 old men did to you to make you hate them so much.... They may be arrogant, but they do deserve respect.

taggy
14-05-11, 23:16
Hmmmmm I wonder what these 2 old men did to you to make you hate them so much.... They may be arrogant, but they do deserve respect.

Like your post :)

teddybear
14-05-11, 23:29
More than enough to raise hardship allowance by more than $100 pm rather than argue over $30? Using the argument of "do you want 3 meals in hawker centre, food court or restaurant?", similar analogy can also be asked of them: do you need GCB to live or just small size bungalow to need $3m pa salary (out of the world salary) + pension or $1m salary (already more than pay of US president) without pension?
Ask PAP leaders: Is CPF really good? If no good why force down the throat of everybody & remove pension scheme? If CPF so good then why they the leaders don't lead by example by all changing to CPF rather than hanging to their pension scheme? This give people impression that they are preaching one thing to the people while they themselves do another.


We will see quite a bit of saving with MM and SM leaving the cabinet. At least 6-7 million per year. Pension for them is about one-tenth of the minister salary. MM will continue to be MP and Chairman of GIC, etc.

devilplate
15-05-11, 00:00
Bey sian meh...keep toking abt their pay...now pension...lol

Bey song den become opposition volunteer la....next GE takeover the govt n boot pap out lor....actions speaks louder den words mah rite?:p

ysyap
15-05-11, 07:32
Here is a sitiuation where its the old guards who r quitting like GY, MM and SM. They are all under the pension scheme. Its natural that they therefore qualify for it. This applies to civil servants too. Most of the older ones are in the scheme too. What remains unclear is whether the new blood also enjoy this scheme now that amk mentioned its been taken out in 1995... or u guys already know it still applies in ministers but no longer in civil servants???:spliff:

Komo
15-05-11, 08:48
They can return back or donate to the unfortunate. It will be a very good gesture.

DC33_2008
15-05-11, 12:26
I thought civil servants then were given a choice to continue with pension or to opt for non-pension scheme. Those who opt out then made a bad choice even though they were given a better deal then by making the switch. Now, a lot of them must be really upset with the rising medical cost.
Here is a sitiuation where its the old guards who r quitting like GY, MM and SM. They are all under the pension scheme. Its natural that they therefore qualify for it. This applies to civil servants too. Most of the older ones are in the scheme too. What remains unclear is whether the new blood also enjoy this scheme now that amk mentioned its been taken out in 1995... or u guys already know it still applies in ministers but no longer in civil servants???:spliff:

proud owner
15-05-11, 13:45
They can quit for all I care, I am more interested in how much more they are going to dig from public funds to pay for their pensions. I can probably make an exception for lky whom I still respect despite his many own , but not for lao goh


so shrewd .... to quit now

think about it ...

first the people complain abaout their pay ...

then now we are talking about the pension scheme ...

in time to come it will be a public debate ... and may end up having the parliament debate and decide to change the pension scheme

quitting now .. means they will enjoy the pension nder the old scheme ...any changes will only affect those still serving ..

hahaha how smart

proud owner
15-05-11, 13:47
SM still staying to serve Marine Parade residents... just not in the capacity of a SM. Anyway, whether he's SM or just an MP, he still commands great respect from Singaporeans.. :D


between the 2
i respect GCT more ... he was more open to 'listening' ...

the older one has hearing problem

teddybear
15-05-11, 13:51
Pensions have been REMOVED for all civil servants EXCEPT the Elite Administrative Services (i.e. superscale civil servants) and Ministers. Pensions have been discontinued for MPs since 1995. If CPF so good that they are introduced for all lower-rank civil servants, why are the higher-rank still hanging on to pension instead of all being switched to CPF scheme? :beats-me-man:
The clarification they made are still quite vague and didn't explain a few things:
1) What are the criteria to determine the max?
2) What are the "salary" they refer to for non-pensionable component? Do these include the performance bonuses, GDP-linked bonuses, etc?
3) More details please. The more they try to clarify with such long statements but yet lack essential details, the more people will sense that they are still not telling all. Is there anything to hide? They say all on public record but yet you ask anybody on the street and none can tell you that they know how their pension are exactly calculated.
4) Why just serve 8 years and they get pension? They peg their pay to private sector, yet want to have pension that private sector don't have? Have about pegging accountability to private sector as well? Didn't do their job well and they should lose their job?
5) Why after 50 years old and they get pension? Didn't they say CPF withdrawal must be extended again and again from 55 years old to 60 to 62 years old? Why their eligibility age for pension didn't get extended just like CPF?
6) If somebody is working, cannot withdraw CPF at 55 years old. Why should they be working and yet draw pension at the same time? Just because they are Ministers and Elite AS? Their policies don't seem to treat all Singaporeans equally? :doh:


Here is a sitiuation where its the old guards who r quitting like GY, MM and SM. They are all under the pension scheme. Its natural that they therefore qualify for it. This applies to civil servants too. Most of the older ones are in the scheme too. What remains unclear is whether the new blood also enjoy this scheme now that amk mentioned its been taken out in 1995... or u guys already know it still applies in ministers but no longer in civil servants???:spliff:

proud owner
15-05-11, 13:59
Pensions have been REMOVED for all civil servants EXCEPT the Elite Administrative Services (i.e. superscale civil servants) and Ministers. Pensions have been discontinued for MPs since 1995. If CPF so good that they are introduced for all lower-rank civil servants, why are the higher-rank still hanging on to pension instead of all being switched to CPF scheme? :beats-me-man:
The clarification they made are still quite vague and didn't explain a few things:
1) What are the criteria to determine the max?
2) What are the "salary" they refer to for non-pensionable component? Do these include the performance bonuses, GDP-linked bonuses, etc?
3) More details please. The more they try to clarify with such long statements but yet lack essential details, the more people will sense that they are still not telling all. Is there anything to hide? They say all on public record but yet you ask anybody on the street and none can tell you that they know how their pension are exactly calculated.
4) Why just serve 8 years and they get pension? They peg their pay to private sector, yet want to have pension that private sector don't have? Have about pegging accountability to private sector as well? Didn't do their job well and they should lose their job?
5) Why after 50 years old and they get pension? Didn't they say CPF withdrawal must be extended again and again from 55 years old to 60 to 62 years old? Why their eligibility age for pension didn't get extended just like CPF?
6) If somebody is working, cannot withdraw CPF at 55 years old. Why should they be working and yet draw pension at the same time? Just because they are Ministers and Elite AS? Their policies don't seem to treat all Singaporeans equally? :doh:




slowly but surely singaporeans are beginning to question ... it may be a little late ...

thats the problem when the people placed their entire life and trust on ONE person ...

the HE says go west ... you go ... when HE says go east ...you go east..

who has the biggest power and authority and wealth in N Korea ?
arent our country similar to N korea in many ways ?

is ours a democracy? or a modern faux communism ?

mmhhmmm a very modern form of communism

devilplate
15-05-11, 15:22
between the 2
i respect GCT more ... he was more open to 'listening' ...

the older one has hearing problem
Founder of sg leh....luckily separated from msia.....if not sg will be worse den jb

At his age, u expect him to listen?

He is a man tat will do things if he tink he is right....even the whole world oppose him

So far he hf been right.....lets see aljunied residents will repent anot:p

devilplate
15-05-11, 15:25
Pensions have been REMOVED for all civil servants EXCEPT the Elite Administrative Services (i.e. superscale civil servants) and Ministers. Pensions have been discontinued for MPs since 1995. If CPF so good that they are introduced for all lower-rank civil servants, why are the higher-rank still hanging on to pension instead of all being switched to CPF scheme? :beats-me-man:
The clarification they made are still quite vague and didn't explain a few things:
1) What are the criteria to determine the max?
2) What are the "salary" they refer to for non-pensionable component? Do these include the performance bonuses, GDP-linked bonuses, etc?
3) More details please. The more they try to clarify with such long statements but yet lack essential details, the more people will sense that they are still not telling all. Is there anything to hide? They say all on public record but yet you ask anybody on the street and none can tell you that they know how their pension are exactly calculated.
4) Why just serve 8 years and they get pension? They peg their pay to private sector, yet want to have pension that private sector don't have? Have about pegging accountability to private sector as well? Didn't do their job well and they should lose their job?
5) Why after 50 years old and they get pension? Didn't they say CPF withdrawal must be extended again and again from 55 years old to 60 to 62 years old? Why their eligibility age for pension didn't get extended just like CPF?
6) If somebody is working, cannot withdraw CPF at 55 years old. Why should they be working and yet draw pension at the same time? Just because they are Ministers and Elite AS? Their policies don't seem to treat all Singaporeans equally? :doh:
U better become a volunteer or opp candidate n boot pap out la....u got 5yrs to prepare for next ge:D

devilplate
15-05-11, 15:27
slowly but surely singaporeans are beginning to question ... it may be a little late ...

thats the problem when the people placed their entire life and trust on ONE person ...

the HE says go west ... you go ... when HE says go east ...you go east..

who has the biggest power and authority and wealth in N Korea ?
arent our country similar to N korea in many ways ?

is ours a democracy? or a modern faux communism ?

mmhhmmm a very modern form of communism

Communism? Totally opposite la....

More like those qing dynasty...haha

ysyap
15-05-11, 15:35
Their policies don't seem to treat all Singaporeans equally? :doh:Every Singaporean is unique based on their merits and strength... don't complain can liaoz... just be contented with our property discussions... :D

teddybear
15-05-11, 15:43
Why need to do so? Just need to raise awareness of all these to people everywhere in Singapore can already. Internet is now more powerful than rallying on the street! You talk nonsense / bullshit, people will nabbed you! And the record will be there for the next 10 years for people to search back, read, and remind them (not just goodies <1 year before and hoping that people forget the rest)! :p


U better become a volunteer or opp candidate n boot pap out la....u got 5yrs to prepare for next ge:D

ysyap
15-05-11, 15:43
Communism? Totally opposite la....

More like those qing dynasty...hahaAs Pu Yi abdicated his throne, our dear MM abdicates his too.... the end of an era! But the reasons behind the end of the qing dynasty is so so different from the end of this Singapore based era. :D Our MM did so so much for Singapore but not the other one... :spliff:

ysyap
15-05-11, 16:03
The Prime Minister's Office (http://sg.search.yahoo.com/search?p=Prime+Ministers+Office+Singapore&#38;fr=fp-today&#38;cs=bz) has dispelled rumours of seven-figured pension payouts paid to retired ministers annually.
In a letter to the mainstream media (http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20110514-278804.html) on Friday, the PMO said that retired ministers who serve 18 years or more receive a maximum annual pension payout of about one-tenth of their annual salary.
According to the Public Service Division figures for 2009, an entry-grade minister received an annual salary of $1.57 million while a Prime Minister's salary was $3.04 million.
On Friday, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean told The Straits Times the PMO saw the need to clarify the situation because of "misinformation" that has been circulating on the Internet after the General Election.
Rumours being spread online said Foreign Minister George Yeo would continue to receive a seven-digit pension sum every year, even after stepping down as a Minister (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/foreign-minister-george-yeo-leaves-politics-061849910.html).
DPM Teo said, "I'm not surprised that it (the misinformation) causes some consternation. So it's best to just state what the actual position is and the actual position is quite different from the misinformation that has been going around."
To qualify for a pension, ministers have to serve at least eight years as a political office-holder and be at least 50 when they step down.
Their pension is determined based on the pensionable component of the monthly salary, which has been frozen since 1994, the PMO said in the letter signed by Tan Kee Yong, secretary to the Prime Minister.
A minister qualifies for the maximum pension of two-thirds of this pensionable component of his monthly salary after having served as an office-holder for 18 years. The pension is less if he has served for a shorter period.
The letter said Members of Parliament elected after January 1995 are not eligible for MP pensions, but ministers appointed after 1995 are eligible for ministerial pensions.
Civil servants from the elite Administrative Service and intelligence service officers also receive pensions after a certain number of years in service.
Explained DPM Teo, "There's a very specific reason for a small group of officers to still be on pensions because there is a premium in this case for long-term service in order to provide consistency of policy and implementation.
"But in any case, the value of the pension is fully taken into account as part of a minister's total pay package when we make comparisons with the private sector benchmarks."
The PMO also revealed that the Parliamentary Pensions Act, amended in 1982, for an eligible office-holder to receive a pension at 55 while he holds office is being reviewed.
DPM Teo said, "We are looking at that again because employment and re-employment terms have been changing over the years."
"The retirement and re-employment situation has been under review for quite some time and there have been some changes in the practice, so we want to make sure that this is appropriate still."

Regulators
15-05-11, 16:16
I don't hate them and I think hate is too strong a word. Maybe the word annoyed is more appropriate. But seriously, I can say they are not as respected now by many as before. The lky and gct I once knew no longer exist
Hmmmmm I wonder what these 2 old men did to you to make you hate them so much.... They may be arrogant, but they do deserve respect.

land118
15-05-11, 17:15
I don't hate them and I think hate is too strong a word. Maybe the word annoyed is more appropriate. But seriously, I can say they are not as respected now by many as before. The lky and gct I once knew no longer exist
Suppose u meant the humble side of both of them no longer exit. In ST today, they was a picture of LKY sweeping the streets and GCT mingling with soldiers in the field...

proud owner
15-05-11, 17:21
The Prime Minister's Office (http://sg.search.yahoo.com/search?p=Prime+Ministers+Office+Singapore&fr=fp-today&cs=bz) has dispelled rumours of seven-figured pension payouts paid to retired ministers annually.
In a letter to the mainstream media (http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20110514-278804.html) on Friday, the PMO said that retired ministers who serve 18 years or more receive a maximum annual pension payout of about one-tenth of their annual salary.
According to the Public Service Division figures for 2009, an entry-grade minister received an annual salary of $1.57 million while a Prime Minister's salary was $3.04 million.
On Friday, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean told The Straits Times the PMO saw the need to clarify the situation because of "misinformation" that has been circulating on the Internet after the General Election.
Rumours being spread online said Foreign Minister George Yeo would continue to receive a seven-digit pension sum every year, even after stepping down as a Minister (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/foreign-minister-george-yeo-leaves-politics-061849910.html).
DPM Teo said, "I'm not surprised that it (the misinformation) causes some consternation. So it's best to just state what the actual position is and the actual position is quite different from the misinformation that has been going around."
To qualify for a pension, ministers have to serve at least eight years as a political office-holder and be at least 50 when they step down.
Their pension is determined based on the pensionable component of the monthly salary, which has been frozen since 1994, the PMO said in the letter signed by Tan Kee Yong, secretary to the Prime Minister.
A minister qualifies for the maximum pension of two-thirds of this pensionable component of his monthly salary after having served as an office-holder for 18 years. The pension is less if he has served for a shorter period.
The letter said Members of Parliament elected after January 1995 are not eligible for MP pensions, but ministers appointed after 1995 are eligible for ministerial pensions.
Civil servants from the elite Administrative Service and intelligence service officers also receive pensions after a certain number of years in service.
Explained DPM Teo, "There's a very specific reason for a small group of officers to still be on pensions because there is a premium in this case for long-term service in order to provide consistency of policy and implementation.
"But in any case, the value of the pension is fully taken into account as part of a minister's total pay package when we make comparisons with the private sector benchmarks."
The PMO also revealed that the Parliamentary Pensions Act, amended in 1982, for an eligible office-holder to receive a pension at 55 while he holds office is being reviewed.
DPM Teo said, "We are looking at that again because employment and re-employment terms have been changing over the years."
"The retirement and re-employment situation has been under review for quite some time and there have been some changes in the practice, so we want to make sure that this is appropriate still."



its confirmed

they are reading our forum

i only posted this pension thing tis week ... and Fri got reply ?


nice

we should post more here ... and get things right ...

so far all my posts ...
about PAP not being good parents, pension , .. have been answered ...

i will post more ...

my next important post will be about our education systems ... and our tax money ... and about schools in prime districts ....

devilplate
15-05-11, 17:23
They got the info from other websites....this forum too exclusive...nid to register

proud owner
15-05-11, 17:25
Founder of sg leh....luckily separated from msia.....if not sg will be worse den jb

At his age, u expect him to listen?

He is a man tat will do things if he tink he is right....even the whole world oppose him

So far he hf been right.....lets see aljunied residents will repent anot:p

i dont deny he has done good for singapore ...

i just dont like some of the policies and the way the govt do things ..
very unfair to the people ...

and the laws .. very discriminative ..
a similar crime committed by a male and a female have 2 very different punishments...

as a results the girls of today ..commit worse crimes

take for example...school bullies ... those committed by girls included torturing other girls ...
and yet in that group of torturers, boys and girls ...with the boys younger than the girls .. the identities of the girls were withheld while the boys were exposed ...

WHY ?

and whatever happened to CJ Yong P H ?
has he retired and fled the country ?
i hear he is residing in shanghai ...

proud owner
15-05-11, 17:27
They got the info from other websites....this forum too exclusive...nid to register

well it means that people from other sites are reading ours and posting on theirs ..

which is also good

devilplate
15-05-11, 17:29
well it means that people from other sites are reading ours and posting on theirs ..

which is also good
I tink the pension thingy was circulated b4 u post it....

proud owner
15-05-11, 17:31
Suppose u meant the humble side of both of them no longer exit. In ST today, they was a picture of LKY sweeping the streets and GCT mingling with soldiers in the field...


sweep one time and people remember for life ?

come on .....

have people forgotten how he bought Scott 28 at a discount, when exposed ...he claimed he didnt know .. and that he bought becos it had lift landing on each floor and was good for old folks ...

and they never lived in it ...

why didnt the paper re post that news..??? and let people read about the other 'dirty' things ?

why no article ever written about how much money spore spent and wasted in Su Zhou project ?

i only ask that all be clean .. and dont be Class 95...only want to hear the good things

in the case the paper only want to report the goods abt them ..
and the bads of the Opps

thats unfair ...

proud owner
15-05-11, 17:33
I tink the pension thingy was circulated b4 u post it....

well maybe i dunno

but i am glad ... someone is reading

i can only say .. that i strongly beleive there are more ugly things about the govt ...just that its not exposed yet ...

devilplate
15-05-11, 17:38
well maybe i dunno

but i am glad ... someone is reading

i can only say .. that i strongly beleive there are more ugly things about the govt ...just that its not exposed yet ...
Cfm alot

Last time many death accidents in army....mostly covered up

ysyap
15-05-11, 21:38
in the case the paper only want to report the goods abt them ..
and the bads of the Opps

thats unfair ...What do you expect? What is fair??? Nothing! Having said that, I feel that GE 2011 is by far the fairest, if that is the point of contention. :D Going forward, hopefully the next GE will be fairer than the last!!! :spliff: PAP have always heard the voices of the people ... now they appear to be acting on it le... it can only be better from now!!!

kingkong1984
16-05-11, 00:00
Technology, the solution. New media is the one key factor in the outcome.

ysyap
16-05-11, 07:49
After talking so much about SM Goh and MM Lee, what about SM Prof Jayakumar? Is he still SM or has he quitted???

land118
16-05-11, 08:13
After talking so much about SM Goh and MM Lee, what about SM Prof Jayakumar? Is he still SM or has he quitted???

In recent 18th ASEAN summit early this month, he represent PM ...still, but I thought he also retire from politics..., din stand in GE right?

http://app.mfa.gov.sg/2006/lowRes/press/view_press.asp?post_id=6974

ysyap
16-05-11, 08:45
So now its really PM's call le... very stressful leh.. if next GE, PAP lose more seats, then cannot blame SM, MM own goal le... All is PM le... :doh:

devilplate
16-05-11, 08:50
So now its really PM's call le... very stressful leh.. if next GE, PAP lose more seats, then cannot blame SM, MM own goal le... All is PM le... :doh:
Gd wat...mm lee vy old liao....

Both mm and gct r vy disconnected to the people oredi

ay123
16-05-11, 09:36
Hmmmmm I wonder what these 2 old men did to you to make you hate them so much.... They may be arrogant, but they do deserve respect.

sigh.....is all about $$$$$

ay123
16-05-11, 09:40
between the 2
i respect GCT more ... he was more open to 'listening' ...

the older one has hearing problem

The older one believe wat he believe and don listen to nonsense. this is one of his quality for success. is hard to please all so is better to do things tat u think right then to listen n try to please all. IT WONT WORK!!

ay123
16-05-11, 09:42
slowly but surely singaporeans are beginning to question ... it may be a little late ...

thats the problem when the people placed their entire life and trust on ONE person ...

the HE says go west ... you go ... when HE says go east ...you go east..

who has the biggest power and authority and wealth in N Korea ?
arent our country similar to N korea in many ways ?

is ours a democracy? or a modern faux communism ?

mmhhmmm a very modern form of communism

does spore go around begging for aid????

ay123
16-05-11, 09:48
sweep one time and people remember for life ?

come on .....

have people forgotten how he bought Scott 28 at a discount, when exposed ...he claimed he didnt know .. and that he bought becos it had lift landing on each floor and was good for old folks ...

and they never lived in it ...

why didnt the paper re post that news..??? and let people read about the other 'dirty' things ?

why no article ever written about how much money spore spent and wasted in Su Zhou project ?

i only ask that all be clean .. and dont be Class 95...only want to hear the good things

in the case the paper only want to report the goods abt them ..
and the bads of the Opps

thats unfair ...

when lky was in power last time do u think he cannot do abuse his authority to accumulate his wealth? do u think sporean don benefit from country growth since last time? do u think he is so desperate of getting tat silly discount from developer?

ysyap
16-05-11, 10:05
does spore go around begging for aid????Singapore has reserves to last the country for the next decade... No need to beg... in fact its compromising on Singapore's sovereignty as a country... hahaha!!! :sleep:

proud owner
16-05-11, 10:32
when lky was in power last time do u think he cannot do abuse his authority to accumulate his wealth? do u think sporean don benefit from country growth since last time? do u think he is so desperate of getting tat silly discount from developer?


whether he was desperate or not only he and LHL knows ..

BUT as a PM ...how can he not know that he was getting a discount ?

Scott 28 was in the news cos people queued up over night ... he ought to know

proud owner
16-05-11, 10:37
when lky was in power last time do u think he cannot do abuse his authority to accumulate his wealth? do u think sporean don benefit from country growth since last time? do u think he is so desperate of getting tat silly discount from developer?

he probably thought the people respected him ... and wouldnt mind that he jumped Q .... and got a disc

afterall he was the PM ... and that the people SHOULD BE happy to live in the same block as the PM ... '

too bad ...he thought wrong

ysyap
16-05-11, 11:22
he probably thought the people respected him ... and wouldnt mind that he jumped Q .... and got a disc

afterall he was the PM ... and that the people SHOULD BE happy to live in the same block as the PM ... '

too bad ...he thought wrongHe's not even living there!!!

proud owner
16-05-11, 11:38
He's not even living there!!!


exactly


so what can we say ?

he was investing / speculating ? or spare cash ... QE at that time alerady ?

whatever the case .. buying and not staying ... he would have done some homework on that project ... or at least someone has done that part .. to make him put $$ into it ...

so ay123 .... tell me ... how could he not know that he was given a discount ?

tell me he wasnt lying when he said he was not aware of a disc given to him

ST will NEVER ever print anything on this part ...

so much for your idol ... clean and transparent ...

ysyap
16-05-11, 11:43
I know of investors who know nuts about properties but just give the cash to the friend or housing agent and say 'do whatever you want with this cash but return me everything plus profit'. So it can really be he don't know.. hahaha!!!

ay123
16-05-11, 12:00
exactly


so what can we say ?

he was investing / speculating ? or spare cash ... QE at that time alerady ?

whatever the case .. buying and not staying ... he would have done some homework on that project ... or at least someone has done that part .. to make him put $$ into it ...

so ay123 .... tell me ... how could he not know that he was given a discount ?

tell me he wasnt lying when he said he was not aware of a disc given to him

ST will NEVER ever print anything on this part ...

so much for your idol ... clean and transparent ...

so a minister cannot even buy a property? even if he is buying for investment, is there anything wrong? he built spore with high regards of transparency, why would he want to tarnish it with the discount?

proud owner
16-05-11, 12:17
so a minister cannot even buy a property? even if he is buying for investment, is there anything wrong? he built spore with high regards of transparency, why would he want to tarnish it with the discount?

nobody said they cannot buy properties

but to say he was not aware hes gotten a discount is a lie to me ..

a Prime minister ...and his son .. bought properties wihtout knowing the market price ?? what a joke ..

everytime they did somethign wrong..just blah blah and 'move on'...

so did WKS
so did MBT

all yur idols .. so transparent .. we are able to see thru them ...while you cant

proud owner
16-05-11, 12:20
not going to debate with you on this anymore ..
hes stepped down ..
good for him
can rest and enjoy life

were we surprised ? maybe

but i am not

i was surprised it took him so long to finally give up

case close .........

devilplate
16-05-11, 12:26
not going to debate with you on this anymore ..
hes stepped down ..
good for him
can rest and enjoy life

were we surprised ? maybe

but i am not

i was surprised it took him so long to finally give up

case close .........
Anything juicy abt obama? Got some anti-obama websites....hehe

ysyap
16-05-11, 12:29
Anything juicy abt obama? Got some anti-obama websites....heheMost things abt him is in the open... it is as juicy as you want it to be... :D

Laguna
16-05-11, 12:33
well maybe i dunno

but i am glad ... someone is reading

i can only say .. that i strongly beleive there are more ugly things about the govt ...just that its not exposed yet ...

Yeo Chow Tong?

ay123
16-05-11, 13:37
Anything juicy abt obama? Got some anti-obama websites....hehe

perception. ppl always find the place greener and better at the opposite. :beats-me-man:

westman
16-05-11, 13:48
perception. ppl always find the place greener and better at the opposite. :beats-me-man:

Not true! 60.1% agreed that PAP is greener and better.
Not sure how you came up with this perception....:sleep:

ay123
16-05-11, 13:59
Not true! 60.1% agreed that PAP is greener and better.
Not sure how you came up with this perception....:sleep:
no i mean when u live here u will find another country greener n better

ysyap
16-05-11, 14:02
Anything juicy abt obama? Got some anti-obama websites....heheWhy are u so random? What do you want to find out about Obama??? :D

devilplate
16-05-11, 14:34
Why are u so random? What do you want to find out about Obama??? :D
Proudowner stays in us mah....may hf juicy stuff:D

Obama is the world leader wor....his actions will affect all of us

taggy
16-05-11, 14:49
may i ask a random question also :D

when parliament open Mr LKY and GCT will become backbencher ?
i never see them sit at the back before mah :D
i assume they cannot dun attend right? since they may need to voice out on behalf of respective grc :D

ysyap
16-05-11, 14:54
may i ask a random question also :D

when parliament open Mr LKY and GCT will become backbencher ?
i never see them sit at the back before mah :D
i assume they cannot dun attend right? since they may need to voice out on behalf of respective grc :DNot all MPs attend parliament... Not compulsory. They can still sit in front lah, I'm sure... it doesn't matter where ministers and MPs sits, right? Or is there such segregation? :spliff:

taggy
16-05-11, 15:03
Not all MPs attend parliament... Not compulsory. They can still sit in front lah, I'm sure... it doesn't matter where ministers and MPs sits, right? Or is there such segregation? :spliff:

if they dun attend, wait ppl will complain they take 15k mp allowance waste tax payer money liao :D

hopeful
16-05-11, 15:29
if they dun attend, wait ppl will complain they take 15k mp allowance waste tax payer money liao :D

But if they attend and tv cameras caught them napping how? :doh:

ysyap
16-05-11, 15:41
But if they attend and tv cameras caught them napping how? :doh:Yup... its always more prudent to be caught off TV than on TV doing the wrong thing... hahaha!!! Already caught several MPs like that le... :ashamed1:

Regulators
16-05-11, 16:29
Bro, the separation from malaysia was out of no choice, LKY wanted a merger which was why he cried on national tv when there was no merger. Everyone calls him a visionary, but I don't see it that way coz he never wanted a separation and wanted singapore to still be under malaysia. LKY happens to be in the right place at the right time doing the right things under adverse circumstances of separation. I call him a survivor and a resourceful man, but never a visionary. The singapore now is also shaped by many of his right hand men like goh keng swee
Founder of sg leh....luckily separated from msia.....if not sg will be worse den jb

At his age, u expect him to listen?

He is a man tat will do things if he tink he is right....even the whole world oppose him

So far he hf been right.....lets see aljunied residents will repent anot:p