• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

The Andrew Loh discussion thread - Merged

cleareyes

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: What is Andrew Loh's mother working as ?

I got a friend who stayed opposite FUCKTARD Andrew Loh's place at Yishun Street 81. He told me Andrew's mother always come home very late, sometimes later than 12pm.

What job is she working ? Is she holding 2 jobs ?

Poor Andrew's mum has to work so hard because of a LAZY BUM son who REFUSE to work and earn a LIVING !!

Do you know why FUCKTARD Andrew aka Darkcloud HATES E JAY ? Because E Jay is a NUS PhD student while Andrew was REJECTED by NUS and has to study overseas.

FCUKING CB use parents' hard-earned money to study and yet does not earn a SINGLE cent to support them when they are old, instead spend all his time flaming others in cyberspace !!

SHAME ON YOU !!! GET A LIFE, FUCKTARD !!!

once again you have to go so low just to attack another by bringing in their mothers

i wonder how your mother would feel if she knows what you are doing.

but hey...do you have a mother?
 

leetahbar

Alfrescian
Loyal
by doing that to other's mother, the loser is doing a greater disservice to his own parents yet he's still incorrigible. now that's shameless!
 

Monkey Loh

Alfrescian
Loyal
FUCKTARD Andrew Loh should empathize with his poor mother first !!

FUCKTARD Andrew Loh aka Darkcloud aka Wisely aka cleareyes aka Jacys wrote in TOC today about EMPATHY !!!

Since when did he have any EMPATHY for his poor mother who still have to slog at her age to support this unfilial, useless, shameless bum who at 42 years of age is still UNEMPLOYED and instead spend 24 hours a day surfing the NET ?

This is your EMPATHY, Andrew, get your own house in order first before you open that CB mouth of yours again !
 

guavatree

Alfrescian
Loyal
by doing that to other's mother, the loser is doing a greater disservice to his own parents yet he's still incorrigible. now that's shameless!

bapok fake monk PAP dog Bob Sim Kheng Hwee

you're a fucking hypocrite!

you bashed your father until bloody when he threw away your gay porn!

you called your mother LAU-CHEE-BYE when she reprimanded you for doing

fuck-all at home other than prostituting yourself round-the-clock in the net!

fucking moron!
 

HorGauGan

Alfrescian
Loyal
:eek: wtf! gem discussion discovered!!!!!!!


now PAP doggie Andrew loh hong puey sucking up to pap doggie chan chun sing!!!


publichouse.sg/categories/community/item/637-chan-chun-sing-%E2%80%93-writing-spores-welfare-cheque

Chan Chun Sing – Writing S'pore's welfare cheque

By Ko Siew Huey & Andrew Loh

Chan Chun Sing is an earnest man. When talking about policies, the minister speaks with an almost evangelistic zeal, launching into lengthy explanations about the complex considerations behind government decisions.

The Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), and Minister of State, Ministry for Information, Communications and the Arts (Mica), has been thrown into the hot seat overseeing Singapore’s welfare programmes for the needy after the General Election last year.

At a time when income inequality looms as a growing social concern in Singapore, and with calls for the political leadership to do more for the economically disenfranchised, Chan stoically defends the track record of the government from critics who charge that the Government still views “welfare” as a dirty word. The minister, however, is more interested in the substance of the programmes to help the needy than whether Singapore is recognized as a “welfare state.”

“Actually we are more ‘welfare’ than some welfare states,” Chan says, referring to the social transfers which each person in Singapore receives.

Citing housing, education and healthcare as major pillars of our social security system, Chan argues that the subsidies that are distributed through these channels far outweigh the social transfers that occur through MCYS alone.

All head, no heart?

Attempting to debunk the myth that policies are made with all head and no heart, Chan says certain programmes are put in place even though they may not make complete economic sense. He gives the example of the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme (WIS) which was introduced in 2007 and which, the Government says, is “a key pillar of Singapore’s social security landscape.”

The scheme supplements the income of workers earning less than $1,700 a month by topping up their wages. “This is a bit like subsidizing underemployment in economic terms,” the minister says. However, he adds that the top-ups would not be “justified” if they were based on productivity but the Government chooses to do it anyway. “It shows that we don’t just work on pure economics,” Chan says.

In total, about 400,000 older low-wage Singaporeans receive more than $400m annually in WIS, according to a Ministry for Manpower report this year.

To explain why the Government introduced the WIS, the minister said society has to chip in to help those who needed assistance. This was why the Government chose to go ahead with WIS even though economists had doubts about it.

“Our greatest concern”

Turning to the challenges facing Singapore, he lists as one of his main concerns the older workers with lower educational qualifications. “They are 50- years old and above, and make up one to five percent of our workforce,” Chan says. “In 10 to 20 years they will gradually be leaving the workforce. But we are never complacent. Because now people are living longer, chances are that you will still see them taking on lower income jobs. So this is our greatest concern.”

Recent changes to certain schemes have been aimed at addressing the needs of this target group. These include extending public assistance to benefit more seniors in need by relaxing the eligibility criteria as well as increasing the quantum of cash assistance.

Also, the introduction of the Retirement and Reemployment Act 2012 seeks to protect older workers and “to enable more people to continue working beyond the current statutory retirement age of 62.”

The other group that Chan thinks will face major challenges is the PMETs (Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians). Several Members of Parliament have also raised the predicaments which this group faces.

The problem, Chan says, is that with globalization, this group will have to compete for jobs with hordes of graduates from places like India and China. His fear is that the lower wages and lower cost of doing business in these countries will entice industries to locate overseas instead. It is a concern which Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has also highlighted several times.

Chan explains that with competition from countries which used to lag far behind Singapore, PMETs face tough challenges. To give this group an edge, the Government, in its 2011 Budget, announced that it “is investing S$150 million over three years to enhance the capabilities of professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs).” The training programme is to equip PMETs with “a more comprehensive repertoire of skills.”

“We need to pay a lot of attention to the lower middle band of PMETs,” the minister says, “and our challenge is to make sure that they can compete individually. [We need to make sure that] there is some inherent advantage of them being part of the Singapore team.”

Prioritization

As Singapore society changes, more demand will be placed on the Government to step in and help those in need. But with the wide array of groups needing assistance, Chan says there is also a necessity to prioritize the allocation of limited resources. “Without this prioritization, sometimes people opt out of making decisions, putting a bit of everything on each thing, which doesn’t help,” he says.

The key, he says, is to distinguish between the needs of namely two groups of people: those who cannot help themselves, and those who just need some help to stand on their feet. But besides the help schemes being implemented efficiently and effectively, what is also important is their sustainability, the minister says.

Chan gives the example of ComCare which is an endowment fund. By investing the ComCare budget every year, a steady stream of revenue is then disbursed to the sectors in need. It was because of such investments that ComCare grew to S$1.5 billion presently. The aim is long-term sustainability.

“So supposing one day in 2030 when our number of working adults has dipped quite significantly and our number of elderly has gone quite high, I don’t have to fight so hard because whatever is inside that endowment fund is actually a ring-fence for social services,” Chan says.

In short, it is not simply a question of taking from one person to give to the other. “I think from one of the principles of equity - that every generation should try to spend within its means and take care of itself by planning forward, especially when the next generation is shrinking,” the minister says. “We would otherwise pass on the burden to [the next generation], which is very unfair. So whenever people ask me, ‘Why is it that sometimes when you have a budget surplus, you don’t spend it now?’ I answer them, ‘Actually, it’s either we spend it now or we keep it to spend in the future.’ So we must find that balance.”

In finding that balance among the competing needs, “hard decisions” will have to be made, he says. “You always need to prioritize and decide how you prioritize – it’s both an art and science. For the art part you need some value judgment; the science part is how to spend it a bit better.”

Interview by Elaine Ee, Andrew Loh & Biddy Low.

Pictures by Biddy Low.

Additional contribution by Chan Ngai Meng.
 

HorGauGan

Alfrescian
Loyal
another one!!!!!

publichouse.sg/categories/community/item/627-chan-chun-sing-the-price-of-politics

Chan Chun Sing - The price of politics

By Elaine Ee / Pictures by Biddy Low

The Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), tells publichouse.sg how he views himself as a politician, how he deals with criticism, and what guides him.

It’s tough being a politician in Singapore these days. In some ways, it is even tougher being a People’s Action Party (PAP) politician. Public opinion against the PAP has grown significantly. A 50-year monopoly on power, high ministerial pay and the ruling party’s perceived privilege and elitism—combined with a widening social divide; a more vocal, demanding and questioning populace; and the open platform of the Internet—have alienated this party from many Singaporeans on the ground, as content and comments circulating freely online show. The loss of Aljunied GRC to the opposition Workers’ Party in the last General Election and the WP’s solid victory in the recent Hougang by-election, are perhaps the most prominent signs of unhappiness on the ground with the ruling party.

Yet as the people in charge of the country, PAP ministers have to find a way to stand up to all this and lead effectively.

“Do negative comments hurt me?” asks Acting MCYS Minister Chan Chun Sing, who entered politics at the last General Election. “Of course. I am human, I have emotions.”

“But comments don’t affect the decisions I make,” Mr Chan continues. “I always try to do what is right and what is good.” He accepts that some may not like him or what he does but he doesn’t “go around antagonizing people.”

Still, being in charge of a ministry which looks out for the vulnerable, the young, and the elderly is a job that easily attracts criticisms. One or two stories of neglect or insensitivities, like with the ads promoting social work which used taglines that many found patronizing, are all it takes to spark off a torrent of accusations. And these do not just affect him but also those around him, especially his family.

“The people I always try to protect from the criticisms and the personal attacks are my family,” Mr Chan, who has 3 children, says. “I shield my daughter from Facebook and even the Internet as a whole.”

Perhaps Mr Chan’s concerns stem from how some online practitioners have targeted the children of public figures in their attacks and criticisms, especially in recent times. An example is the son of 2011 presidential candidate, Dr Tony Tan, during the elections. Dr Tan’s son, Patrick Tan, was assailed by online critics for his stint during National Service and the alleged privileged treatment he received.

“My family asks me why I am going through with what I do and what I have done to deserve all this,” Mr Chan says, referring to the criticisms he has received. “My wife has said: why can’t the children just get their father back? My family doesn’t need a lot of this.”

In fact, entering politics was a difficult personal decision Mr Chan made, partly because his children are still so young. “My youngest is only four months old,” he says. “Won’t I want to spend more time with them? I have asked myself why don’t I wait till my kids are grown up, don’t need me so much and can protect themselves from all these attacks a bit better [before going into politics], and come out 10-15 years later.”

After a year in politics, he has realized that building trust with the people takes many years and that entering politics now gives him the long lead time he needs. This is also why Mr Chan feels that more people should step forward sooner rather than later. This is “so that maybe in 10-20 years’ time we have enough politicians, who are not just clever or committed—as we will always have those—but who can connect with the people because they have spent enough time with them.”

Politics did not come naturally to him. As a member of the Singapore Army for 20 years, culminating in his appointment as Chief of Army in 2010, with the rank of Major General, one senses that he is more at home in camouflage green than in all white. At least for the moment.

We ask him if he sees himself as a politician. “I have thought long and hard about this,” he replies. “It depends on how you define ‘politician.’ If you define it negatively, as it is in some countries, then we hope not to be politicians.”

He explains that if however a politician is defined as someone who is able to communicate and mobilize, which is part of leadership, then his wish is that we have more of those types of politicians, rather than politicians in the conventional sense of the word.

“These are skills that must be honed over time,” he says, referring to the 20 years it took him to earn the trust of the men and women in the army. “And I got their trust not because I was the smartest, or ran the fastest, or shot the sharpest,” the minister says. Instead, it was because he bonded with them through those 2 decades he spent with them.

In Mr Chan’s eyes, leaders are not people who just tell you nice things. “Leaders are those who are also prepared to say things that people don’t want to hear, but are able to say it in a way that people still want to listen,” he says. “The Prime Minister and I can say the same thing, and people won’t listen to me because I have not established a bond with them. People will, however, give the Prime Minister the respect because he has over 20 years of connection with the people.”

The Acting Minister admits that the long political lifespan [of the ruling party] and stable succession planning is quite unique to Singapore. “No one else is able to do this, except maybe the Chinese Communist Party,” he says. “And we are able to do this because we are a small country.”

Mr Chan describes this “unique” succession process as “unnatural.”

“In any political system by design, besides monarchies and communist systems, free and fair elections are a common mechanism to address the here and now, the emotions, rather than where we might be in the future. For most countries this works quite well. For smaller countries, like us, this is difficult though. We don’t have a hinterland; we don’t have enough ballast to run that system.”

With our political system, Mr Chan perhaps has the luxury of taking a longer-term view of having a role to play in government. And with his level of commitment and dedication to public service, it looks like he will choose to stay, taking criticisms in his stride.

------------------

Edited by Andrew Loh

With contributions by Biddy Low and Chan Ngai Meng.
 

HorGauGan

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Andrew Loh aka Darkcloud ostracized by SDP pple !!!

k9wh15.jpg
 

scratchballs

Alfrescian
Loyal
How does publichouse survive? Who funds it?

845andkey.jpg


Not sure how PH survive or who funds it, but AL still got enough money to buy a house...any one knows if he took any grants from gahment? Maybe he will blog about how much grants he take...or maybe he eat soft rice and take money from wife. shiok.
 

HorGauGan

Alfrescian
Loyal
andrewlohhp.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/715000-too-much-for-a-ministerial-office-nah/

$715,000 too much for a ministerial office? Nah.
rolleyes.gif


08/01/2012
in Singapore Politics

Seems that most people online are disagreeable with the S$1.1 million salary for ministers which has been recommended by the Gerard Ee committee.

To be clear, this S$1.1 million for a MR4 grade minister includes the bonus components.

The basic or fixed salary for a minister at the MR4 grade is S$715,000 annually.

This comes to about S$55,000 a month. (S$715,000/13 – 13 being the 13th month payment.)

It only adds up to S$1.1 million if the variable/bonus components are factored in. These are dependent on the minister/government meeting some key performance indices, as you can see from this illustration.

Interestingly, in 2000, Mr Chiam See Tong suggested that ministers be paid S$50,000 a month – “a level enough for them to maintain “a comfortable life”, with a bungalow, servants, two cars, annual holidays and funds for their children’s education.” (See here.)

In 2006, Mr Chiam changed his mind about the figure and said it should be higher.

“At the last debate in this House, on the revision of Ministers’ salaries, I suggested that at that time, we pay our Ministers SGD $50,000 a month. This time round, I suggest that we pay our Ministers SGD$70,000 per month or $840,000 a year.” (See here.)

Also interestingly, former Nominated Member of Parliament, Siew Kum Hong, writing on his personal blog, agreed with what Mr Chiam said back in 2000:

“One way to do this is to figure out what a reasonable salary for a minister would be, such that he/she can maintain a reasonable lifestyle. And by reasonable lifestyle, I would think that the salary should be enough to comfortably cover mortgage payments for a reasonably-priced landed property in a reasonable location; payments for 2 cars for the family; education for a minister’s children (including overseas education); some retirement savings; and so on.”

Siew also said that he does not “necessarily think that S$1m a year is excessive.”

It is a figure which another former NMP Viswa Sadasivan agrees with. He said “Singaporeans were reacting on an emotional level” and that “no amount will be satisfactory” to the public, or some quarters of it. (See here.)

Other opposition parties have made different suggestions which I shall not go into. But I do want to point out two fallacies which Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam made on his postings on Ms Grace Fu’s Facebook page:

He had posted that: “Entry level minister pay plus 13.5 months bonus is more likely to be $2.3 million.” As you can see from the above chart from the Straits Times, this is false.

Mr Jeyaretnam also asked whether a minister would receive two salaries and thus accordingly two bonuses if he held two portfolios. The answer was given by Gerard Ee and in his committee’s report. No, a minister only gets one salary, one bonus, no matter how many portfolios he handles. [It is surprising that Mr Jeyaretnam would asked such a question given that his party had issued a statement on the revised salaries the previous day and that surely Mr Jeyaretnam must have had read the report, he being the secretary-general of the Reform Party.]

But coming back to the issue of absolute dollars and cents.

I do not want our ministers (even if in future the opposition comes into power) to be paid so lowly that the office of minister is seen as just another office job. It is not.

A minister is at the apex of being the people’s representative, besides the President and the PM. He represents the country and its people in many ways. Thus, the office should be accorded the appropriate respect and prestige, and also to recognise the difficult and complex work they do.

We may never agree on an absolute number but I think we all can agree on the value of the office – even if we do not accept that some ministers are not worthy of them. This, however, is a separate matter. If they are incompetent, kick them out at the ballot.

But do make a distinction between the office and the person, which is an important one to make.

We do not want to see our politicians being viewed as nothing more than “second-hand car salesmen” – to reference a once-used term.

I do agree that S$55,000 (or even Mr Chiam’s latter suggestion of S$70,000) a month, or S$1.1 million a year for a minister is not excessive and is acceptable.
 
Last edited:
Top