Vikram Nair's u-turn

[Perspective]

I am not impressed by Vikram's approach to WP MPs but only because he takes to the old trick of distorting his opponent's position then attack the distorted position. Otherwise, as a PAP MP, I don't expect them to carry WP's position sky high.

What I am unimpressed with is now his u-turn on his approach.

Many PAP MPs have done the same and apologised later as well, which means that if he was more observant, he would have seen that there are precedences. The fact is he is doing so after the precedences creates suspect that he was merely trying to attract attention and has lack of acumen. In fact, I initially thought that he would never u-turn because of the precedences and that he was very confident that he will not end up swallowing his words and actions like the earlier ones.

Personally, I have no issue with any PAP MP firing opposition MPs as long as you have your facts right.

 

[Bigfuck]

The current group of PAP and IB cannot make arguments. Making arguments and arguing aka quarreling/nit-picking are totally different. Forummers here come up with arguments and figures calculated, you get clown IBs that ask you "if you are jealous", "show me the facts", "you still have no answered my question (Who the fuck are you, no dick IB?)". Do not be for a moment fooled, LKY and Vickram talk like their IB fuckers. See cannot win an argument, talk about sue, especially mother fucker Vickram. Whose money are using? Taxpayers' money. Who do you work for? Taxpayers. U are going to sue taxpayers while being paid by taxpayers and tell jokes in Parliament when you are supposed to be helping formulate policies to assist taxpayers to taxpayer satisfaction and bemoan taxpayers are against you? We are not interested in your debating skills as they are non-existent. You are paid to do work so do it, either at grassroots level or talk with your policy staff and understand the concept well if you are totally bad with numbers. Vickram, you are a Uni grad from some famous university right? I assume you do have ability to understand and are not like some scholars from developing countries who enter top class famous US and EU universities due to government handshake and not because of having real world class level intellectual merit right?

 

[Khun Ying Pojaman]

Vikram admits to "taking a dig at" fellow MP Chen Show Mao in Parliament. He wasn't showing proper decorum for an occasion as solemn as Parliament. He ought to have been censured by Speaker of Parliament.

He did compare CSM's proposal of "helping the poor" to "Nigerian scam". And now in his own words, he was "taking a dig at" CSM. It's a confirmation that he was just being mischievous in Parliament when a subject as important as helping the poor was being discussed.

So why did he even threaten to sue TOC for something that arose from his personal mischief ? If Vikram is man enough, he should accept TOC's invitation to reply to TOC. If he felt he was wrong to have compared CSM's proposal with "Nigerian scam" (or worse than a Nigerian scam), then he should perhaps apologize to Parliament as well as CSM.

 

[Perspective]

Agree. The TOC threat has yet to be answered. A more serious u-turn because you are talking about a bunch of citizens, then finally keep quiet.

 

[Kinana]

Viking never distort opposition MP position at. He simply highlight their weakness

 

[Perspective]

Not in some cases. The "plucking" of MX9 is correctly fired, but that is by Yaacob not him.

Vikram and Tan Chuan Jin were the two who said that PAP and WP salary proposals were "the same" because the amounts were the same. Honestly, this is a dishonest statement. It's like saying because every woman has a vagina they are all your mothers. As you are a newbie, you probably didn't catch what I said. To compare, you need to compare PAP's old salary formulas to WP's new salary formulas - the latter which is obviously lower. By moving PAP's new formula that lowers its salary to the same level as WP, it is PAP copying WP, not the other way around. Vikram participated in such a distortion.

Note that this is against Vikram not PAP.

 

[Bigfuck]

So why did he even threaten to sue TOC for something that arose from his personal mischief ? If Vikram is man enough, he should accept TOC's invitation to reply to TOC. If he felt he was wrong to have compared CSM's proposal with "Nigerian scam" (or worse than a Nigerian scam), then he should perhaps apologize to Parliament as well as CSM.
=> By taking a dig in Parliament, he is making a mockery of the Parliamentary procedures and needs to be censured. By refusing to apologize to Parliament and CSM, it reflects his character as a Public servant.
Can you trust a person who threatens to sue and then say he is taking a dig at another politic figure seriously? Here, integrity is in greater question, and highlights the weaknesses of the PAP politicians.
If he jokes on national security issue, people point it out and he threatens to sue, what kind of monster did Singaporeans put in Parliament? We have a serious issue on our hand here, ladies and gentlemen

 

[Kinana]

Not in some cases. The "plucking" of MX9 is correctly fired, but that is by Yaacob not him.

Vikram and Tan Chuan Jin were the two who said that PAP and WP salary proposals were "the same" because the amounts were the same. Honestly, this is a dishonest statement. It's like saying because every woman has a vagina they are all your mothers. As you are a newbie, you probably didn't catch what I said. To compare, you need to compare PAP's old salary formulas to WP's new salary formulas - the latter which is obviously lower. By moving PAP's new formula that lowers its salary to the same level as WP, it is PAP copying WP, not the other way around. Vikram participated in such a distortion.

Note that this is against Vikram not PAP.

Vikram did not say that You distorted his words

 

[Perspective]

I don't need to be precise but you get the gist here:

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20120118-322576.html

 

[Perspective]

For those who still do not get the gist.

1. PAP has always paid itself sky high salaries for decades and years
2. PAP starts announcing a pay review after GE2011
3. WP also does a review and formula
4. When both packages are open, surprise surprise - so fearing for 2016, PAP cuts its own salaries to an unprecedented level, so unprecedented that the amounts went down to the level of what opposition parties have been advocating all along
5. PAP then claims the opposition has agreed with it all along - which is the distortion part

 

[Kinana]

I watched the debate many times. You are distort ing

 

[Perspective]

Please address.

 

[zhihau]

What I am unimpressed with is now his u-turn on his approach.

bro,
should invite Vikram here to defend himself, is he here yet?

 

[zhihau]

something with my connection, always double post.

 

[Khun Ying Pojaman]

Please address.

You line of arguments suggests that when Parliament was having a debate the last time when GG was dumbstruck by the MX9 formula, it was a debate between PAP's old formula and WP's new formula. But my understanding is when PAP claimed that WP's formula wasn't too far off from PAP's formula, the latter was referring to its "new" formula.

I thought during the MX9 fiasco, it was all about debating the new formula proposed by Gerard Ee?

 

[Perspective]

You line of arguments suggests that when Parliament was having a debate the last time when GG was dumbstruck by the MX9 formula, it was a debate between PAP's old formula and WP's new formula. But my understanding is when PAP claimed that WP's formula wasn't too far off from PAP's formula, the latter was referring to its "new" formula.

I thought during the MX9 fiasco, it was all about debating the new formula proposed by Gerard Ee?

Yes, I did mentioned back then that WP would not have an upper hand in this debate because unlike the past debates where PAP justified its high salaries while WP/opposition opposed, this was an occasion both sides agree to a cut - and the debate was about how to cut and how much to cut.

What is noteworthy is that proclaimed soon-to-be-former-WP-supporters fell for it on the basis that WP copied PAP and forgot that PAP cut only because of the poor GE2011 results and it was actually PAP copying WP. In fact, I sense PAP's fear for 2016 was so big that in some categories, PAP's formula even outdid SDP's formula. Go check SDP's formula. I think if WP's supporters could switch to the PAP with a drop of a feather, it's better that Singaporeans are better off without an opposition and let PAP continue screwing them.

On another topic. To be frank, I do not know where MX9 came from. Why not MX8, MX7 etc. Why 9 and I think WP had failed to explain this. It would be a typical question analysis Alex Au would ask.

 

[bullfrog]

It actually turned out to be a fluke that the two figures came to be very close. The important difference seems to have been lost on Singapore, due to the way the PAP has twisted the WP's arguments.

The Review C'ttee came to the figure by a top down approach that was derived from the PAP's. The WP came to the fig from a bottoms up or people up approach. From a moral perspective, WP had the moral high ground, arguing from the basis that all Ministers start from being MPs first.

With the WP's approach, there is a consistent link to the lower income section of the pop and Ministers shld get paid higher only when they can pull up the lower income levels. This will make the govt ministers work harder for the people.

The PAP's approach allows them to 'cheat' by pushing up the top echelons which is not that difficult to do. Import more billionaires, more Wall St type CEOs and businesses and voila! you have it, the top median will go up and so will the pay of Ministers. It is a perverse approach.

The PAP can and will see the Ministerial salaries move up faster and widen the income gaps. The WP's approach will anchor their pays to the ground. This time around, the diff betw the 2 figs may not be much; but mark my words, compare again at the next salary review using both approaches. I bet you that the RC's approach a.k.a PAP's approach will see the income gap moving farther apart faster.

You line of arguments suggests that when Parliament was having a debate the last time when GG was dumbstruck by the MX9 formula, it was a debate between PAP's old formula and WP's new formula. But my understanding is when PAP claimed that WP's formula wasn't too far off from PAP's formula, the latter was referring to its "new" formula.

I thought during the MX9 fiasco, it was all about debating the new formula proposed by Gerard Ee?

 

[Perspective]

It actually turned out to be a fluke that the two figures came to be very close. The important difference seems to have been lost on Singapore, due to the way the PAP has twisted the WP's arguments.

Absolutely agree.

 

[Kinana]

Please address.

Vikram did not say both Review comittee and WP proposals were the same, he said the basic in both were close, but the bonus was different.
You see, you distorted Vikram's words and tried to present him as a distorted.
Come on bro, you think you are smart and Singaporeans are so stupid to believ your distortion of facts?

 

[Perspective]

Vikram did not say both Review comittee and WP proposals were the same, he said the basic in both were close, but the bonus was different.
You see, you distorted Vikram's words and tried to present him as a distorted.
Come on bro, you think you are smart and Singaporeans are so stupid to believ your distortion of facts?

Like I said, I don't have to be precise. It was close, similar, same whatever - the key issue was that he was trying to paint the impression that the WP agreed with PAP not the other way round. You watched the debate and saw that VN stood up after GG had presented the paper and said "Isn't that close/similar" - what picture was that painting.