I bet that the great majority of the 82 PAP MPs are richer than LTK.
What's the problem with LTK being rich or not. Did he say during GE that he had only $5 in his bank a/c.
-
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.
Chiam See Tong retiring n handing Potong Pasir to Desmond Lim
- Thread starter Avantas
- Start date
I bet that the great majority of the 82 PAP MPs are richer than LTK.
What's the problem with LTK being rich or not. Did he say during GE that he had only $5 in his bank a/c.
How abt those who support PAP to get LHL or old man to post their income tax return instead?
i m sure singaporeans in general r more curious how much PAP had earn out of singapore than just a mild little LTK.
You seem to support no paying of MPs. Bear in mind that what you're asking for does not happen in any country, democratic or not democratic.
PAP can try to deny MPs an allowance and see if the opposition ones or PAP ones will stay.
The ppl of Potong Pasir has suffer enough. PP should be absorbed in to Toa Payoh or Jalan Besar GRC so that the residents there can enjoy the fruits of upgrading that only can be provided by the PAP, certainly not a fly-by-night guy like Desmond Lim.
Where did you get this information.
cass888 said:
fanta said:
That's pretty close. This is Mr Low's official salary:
Member of Parliament: $13,710 a month or $225,000 per annum
Source: Public Service Division, Prime Minister's Office
http://app.psd.gov.sg/data/Press release - 13 Dec 07.pdf
http://www.psd.gov.sg/
Add in bonuses and the salary from Town Council, that would bring it close to the $300K mark. And upon reaching retirement age, Mr Low gets a fat pension too! :p
That 13k is allowance, not salary. It is to compensate their time/effort/expenses in parliamentary activities and constituency work, discourage corruption maybe, and the local party branch will normally take a cut of it to fund local branch activities, including PAP branches. Not everyone can tap anyhow into people's association you know.
Every MPs have that on top of their FT salaries. Why don't you do a comparision and see how the other 83 MPs are doing with 13k plus their income from full time job, advisors/directorships in companies, associations etc? HG is not the only town councils, there are also mayors etc. Can you calculate how much he earned per month (on 13th mth) on town council role? That would be a salary maybe.
LTK took the plunge into politics at a time where victory was not guaranteed and the payout for an MPs was lower, In the 80s. So why this forum is always focusing on him is puzzling to me. He is just one of 84 MPs and many of them are also drawing salaries in other capacities. I think we should stop splitting hairs on his payout since its almost a common denominator for all MPs anyway.
Every MPs have that on top of their FT salaries. Why don't you do a comparision and see how the other 83 MPs are doing with 13k plus their income from full time job, advisors/directorships in companies, associations etc? HG is not the only town councils, there are also mayors etc. Can you calculate how much he earned per month (on 13th mth) on town council role? That would be a salary maybe.
LTK took the plunge into politics at a time where victory was not guaranteed and the payout for an MPs was lower, In the 80s. So why this forum is always focusing on him is puzzling to me. He is just one of 84 MPs and many of them are also drawing salaries in other capacities. I think we should stop splitting hairs on his payout since its almost a common denominator for all MPs anyway.
Allowance and salary are apparently different in the spirit of things. Allowance like I mention is meant to be a compensation of expenses/time incurred in the course of duty. Also the local branch would normally take a cut, its not all going to him. Also I do not think MP is on pension scheme, you might have to verify that, nor can allowance be used to calculate in pension payout as salaries do. If you are referring to minister then I can inform you LTK is not a minister.
I am not a LTK supporter, I do not like the way he defend his organising secretary. But I do not think its useful to your cause to pick on an individual out of 84 others earning the same amount.
Incidentally, NCMP like Sylvia Lim should also have allowance on top of her full time salary as lecturer, just like any other MPs. I hope that put things into perspective.
For his town council role, you can refer to the annual report and compare with other town councils on the salaries and bonuses.
I am not a LTK supporter, I do not like the way he defend his organising secretary. But I do not think its useful to your cause to pick on an individual out of 84 others earning the same amount.
Incidentally, NCMP like Sylvia Lim should also have allowance on top of her full time salary as lecturer, just like any other MPs. I hope that put things into perspective.
For his town council role, you can refer to the annual report and compare with other town councils on the salaries and bonuses.
This report from the Public Service Division, Prime Minister's Office
http://app.psd.gov.sg/data/Press%20r...20Dec%2007.pdf
make it clear that all MPs are compensated $13,710 a month.
Why does some people keep denying Mr Low's bank account did not grow by $13,710 a month
http://app.psd.gov.sg/data/Press%20r...20Dec%2007.pdf
make it clear that all MPs are compensated $13,710 a month.
Why does some people keep denying Mr Low's bank account did not grow by $13,710 a month
(1) In April 2007, Mr Teo Chee Hian said that MPs received an allowance of $13,200 monthly + 13th month pay + Annual Variable Component + GDP Bonus + $1,300 for a legislative assistant + $500 for a secretarial assistant. (Ref: http://app.sprinter.gov.sg/data/pr/20070409992.htm )
(2) In 2008, the salaries of Ministers were raised by 82%. Whether this 82% applies to MPs, I do not know. I remembered reading that there is another subsequent increase to the 82% but I cannot find the reference. (Appreciate your correction if i am mistaken - we learn from each other)
(3) The PAP government has stated many reasons for such actions. However bearing in mind that the MPs are political offices and the composition of MPs, such allowances are mostly given to members of the ruling party. As the PAP ruling party has tolerated LTK and CST for 17 years, they also enjoy the fruits of such policies.
(4) Most people in the public believe that it was due to LTK and CST's political skills that helped them to retain their constituency. Rather LTK and CST serve and still serve a purpose: that of lowering Singapore's country risk rating as well as affirming that democracy exists in Singapore. Given that Singapore no longer rely on foreign investment as much as before, the PAP may or may not see value in keeping two seats versus keeping one. One seat is enough to prove the rule that democracy exists.
Now for the main points:
(5) The issue on LTK or CST allowances is this: Does their allowances render them ineffective in doing their jobs.
(6) To analyze this, you need to see their results. So, what are the achievements of LTK or CST?
(i) What have they actually shown for 17 years in Parliament?
(ii) What have they done for the opposition scene for these 17 years, bearing in mind they are the ones who managed to get in.
(iii) Have they shared their experience with the others?
(iv) Worked together with the others to develop an excellent strategy for elections?
(7) Most important of all, have they become so comfortable with their existence and income that they had forgotten the basic tenets - to be a responsible opposition?
Note: It makes no sense to argue about whether it is allowance or salary. Unless you are the IRAS. The point here is that LTK and CST received $xxx per annum in total, because some voters choose them. What had they done to justify this choice?
(2) In 2008, the salaries of Ministers were raised by 82%. Whether this 82% applies to MPs, I do not know. I remembered reading that there is another subsequent increase to the 82% but I cannot find the reference. (Appreciate your correction if i am mistaken - we learn from each other)
(3) The PAP government has stated many reasons for such actions. However bearing in mind that the MPs are political offices and the composition of MPs, such allowances are mostly given to members of the ruling party. As the PAP ruling party has tolerated LTK and CST for 17 years, they also enjoy the fruits of such policies.
(4) Most people in the public believe that it was due to LTK and CST's political skills that helped them to retain their constituency. Rather LTK and CST serve and still serve a purpose: that of lowering Singapore's country risk rating as well as affirming that democracy exists in Singapore. Given that Singapore no longer rely on foreign investment as much as before, the PAP may or may not see value in keeping two seats versus keeping one. One seat is enough to prove the rule that democracy exists.
Now for the main points:
(5) The issue on LTK or CST allowances is this: Does their allowances render them ineffective in doing their jobs.
(6) To analyze this, you need to see their results. So, what are the achievements of LTK or CST?
(i) What have they actually shown for 17 years in Parliament?
(ii) What have they done for the opposition scene for these 17 years, bearing in mind they are the ones who managed to get in.
(iii) Have they shared their experience with the others?
(iv) Worked together with the others to develop an excellent strategy for elections?
LTK's WP compete in Aljunid for the previous election. The Serangoon Gardens case show a great deal of dissatisfaction from the residents. Yet not a whimper from WP. But they hold the expectation that dissatisfaction votes will come their way next election.
LTK and CST are very quiet regarding the minibonds saga. LTK recently opened his mouth. TKL, a mere blogger and not yet a politician, demonstrates more concern for those affected than all the PAP, WP, SPP put together (whom the voters places into Parliament). TKL also demonstrates more effectiveness in getting the authorities to act.
(8) It is far better for LTK, CST, ST to work together than for them to continually live a lone ranger type of existence and wait for votes to fall on their laps. Since LTK's and CST's supporters are against the SDP's supporters, they should now fill the vacuum and show the voters what a responsible opposition really is, their distinct value to the voters compared to the SDP.LTK and CST are very quiet regarding the minibonds saga. LTK recently opened his mouth. TKL, a mere blogger and not yet a politician, demonstrates more concern for those affected than all the PAP, WP, SPP put together (whom the voters places into Parliament). TKL also demonstrates more effectiveness in getting the authorities to act.
Note: It makes no sense to argue about whether it is allowance or salary. Unless you are the IRAS. The point here is that LTK and CST received $xxx per annum in total, because some voters choose them. What had they done to justify this choice?
Last edited:
Well, I think there is an unreal sense of expectation that our society has on what the 2 opposition MPs can or ought to be accountable for, or more to the point, what the rest of the country thought they were owed by them.
There is also an unhealthy reliance on what they were (or were not doing) based on whats gathered from public media. LTK always has a habit of doing things away from the radar of the public media. It is natural that you see nothing. The more I tried to reason, the more I ended up sounding like a WP supporter.
Sure, like you, I wished things could be better in how other people managed their jobs, but ultimately they were only voted in their own constituencies in their capacities as local MPs. I do not live there, I did not vote for them, as such I reframe from focusing on the 2 individuals and I do not feel they owed me anything.
There is also an unhealthy reliance on what they were (or were not doing) based on whats gathered from public media. LTK always has a habit of doing things away from the radar of the public media. It is natural that you see nothing. The more I tried to reason, the more I ended up sounding like a WP supporter.
Sure, like you, I wished things could be better in how other people managed their jobs, but ultimately they were only voted in their own constituencies in their capacities as local MPs. I do not live there, I did not vote for them, as such I reframe from focusing on the 2 individuals and I do not feel they owed me anything.
(1) What do opposition politicians owe the people of Singapore?
You need to ask first, "what is the purpose of an opposition party?"
I believed that these are the purposes of an opposition party:
(a) to form at least 1/3 of the votes in Parliament
(b) to create the seedlings of an alternative government
And that you, the opposition politicians, owe it to the voters to show your value so that they will vote you in to achieve these purposes.(b) to create the seedlings of an alternative government
(2) What do LTK and CST owe the people of Singapore?
Not LTK or CST per se. Rather LTK as head of WP, and CST as head of SPP, owe it to the people of Singapore to show that they are viable alternatives to the PAP.
(3) LTK has a habit of keeping quiet.
That may well be his strategy. If so, continue.
All we are looking at is the results of his strategy.
What are the results that has been achieved by this strategy in 17 years?
1/3 voices in Parliament - No.
Seedlings of an alternative government - No.
Keep his seat - Yes.
(4) Only the peoples of Hougang and Potong Pasir can comment on what it is like to be under LTK and CST.
(i) Such a position confuses a manager role with that of a politician role.
(ii) Also it does not consider the situation when LTK's WP or CST's SPP come knocking on the door of your estate.
That is what they owe - to show, by extension and examples, that their parties WP and SPP are viable alternatives to the PAP for Singaporeans.
(ii) Also it does not consider the situation when LTK's WP or CST's SPP come knocking on the door of your estate.
Then it comes back to the question: "what is your value".
If all I want is a constituency manager, then i prefer my PAP MPs - not because they are good, but because they are the ruling party.
Therefore beyond local politics, Hougang and PP provide LTK and CST a platform in Parliament to show off their skills as viable opposition politicians. If all I want is a constituency manager, then i prefer my PAP MPs - not because they are good, but because they are the ruling party.
That is what they owe - to show, by extension and examples, that their parties WP and SPP are viable alternatives to the PAP for Singaporeans.
Each of the political party exist as a separate entity with their own agenda and vision, the word 'opposition' is simply a convenient label we used to differentiate those parties who do not form part of the government. There is nothing stopping WP and PAP to come together to form a joint coalition to achieve a majority in parliament if they have to some day.
There is no requirement that WP nor any other party have to always oppose PAP, they are free to elect their own party leaders and pursue their strategies, its their internal directions and we have no rights to make demand of them to be the 'bad guy'. If you notice, apart from PAP, no other party has ever singularly contest in over half the seats in the election, I can only interpret that it was never their intention to form a government, and tackling local constituency issues remain their priorities. So be it. We are not entitled to have an 'opposition'.
It is expected that a one-seat party cannot possibly carry the demand of an 'opposition party' the way we understand it to function in other countries. Can you name any opposition party in any country carrying on a meaningful role with only one seat? Its just too harsh to make any demand. I appreciate though your active participation, we just have different opinions.
There is no requirement that WP nor any other party have to always oppose PAP, they are free to elect their own party leaders and pursue their strategies, its their internal directions and we have no rights to make demand of them to be the 'bad guy'. If you notice, apart from PAP, no other party has ever singularly contest in over half the seats in the election, I can only interpret that it was never their intention to form a government, and tackling local constituency issues remain their priorities. So be it. We are not entitled to have an 'opposition'.
It is expected that a one-seat party cannot possibly carry the demand of an 'opposition party' the way we understand it to function in other countries. Can you name any opposition party in any country carrying on a meaningful role with only one seat? Its just too harsh to make any demand. I appreciate though your active participation, we just have different opinions.
Even if the WP and PAP joined hands to form a 100% ruling party, there is still a need for a 1/3 opposition platform in Parliament. Otherwise how can the coalition of WP and PAP be faced with a check-and-balance? This implies that there must be an effective opposition that commands the respect of the voters.
Every party needs to start somewhere. One seat is good enough. But to have only one seat after close to two decades becomes a solid testimony of either the quality of your strategy or the effectiveness of the ruling party or both.
I do not think I am making WP (or SPP) out as a bad guy. Rather I am asking, "what is your value to me as a voter?" If WP and SPP says that is all we are good for, then that is useful information to all voters in deciding as inputs to how they should cast their votes. If they can convince the majority of the voters of their value, they win. If not, they lose. It all boils down to that simple, but not easily achieve, condition.
Every party needs to start somewhere. One seat is good enough. But to have only one seat after close to two decades becomes a solid testimony of either the quality of your strategy or the effectiveness of the ruling party or both.
I do not think I am making WP (or SPP) out as a bad guy. Rather I am asking, "what is your value to me as a voter?" If WP and SPP says that is all we are good for, then that is useful information to all voters in deciding as inputs to how they should cast their votes. If they can convince the majority of the voters of their value, they win. If not, they lose. It all boils down to that simple, but not easily achieve, condition.
i think ramseth is not criticising. he is just offering his viewpoint. Again, with due respect to Desmond, i think he can pass off at his PP grassroots level, without much doubt perhaps. However, he may still lack certain calibre to be representing the people at the state level as a parliamentarian (i believe ramseth like me must have passed off such a viewpoint based on our interactions with the identified persons). But then many PAP MPs are also of similar league if not, of even lesser calibre.
If we want MPs who are only good at municipal matters and not with state administration, then we should elect town council managers. Many PAP MPs are just town council managers. How many speeches or questions have they posted in a year of parliament?
For Steve Chia, Chia Ti Lik, Goh Meng Seng, they have at least exhibit clear and concise train of thoughts in national and policy issues. They may not have exhibited any flair (as compared to Desmond) in terms of grassroots relation so far, but to me and many others i think, one's ability to state adminstrate supercedes one's abilities to handle day to day municpal matters.
However, I hope the best for Desmond that he will be able to scale higher heights and garner more support and respect as he takes over (if true).
If we want MPs who are only good at municipal matters and not with state administration, then we should elect town council managers. Many PAP MPs are just town council managers. How many speeches or questions have they posted in a year of parliament?
For Steve Chia, Chia Ti Lik, Goh Meng Seng, they have at least exhibit clear and concise train of thoughts in national and policy issues. They may not have exhibited any flair (as compared to Desmond) in terms of grassroots relation so far, but to me and many others i think, one's ability to state adminstrate supercedes one's abilities to handle day to day municpal matters.
However, I hope the best for Desmond that he will be able to scale higher heights and garner more support and respect as he takes over (if true).
I find it rather odd that we have people demanding that LTK put up his income for public view and insist he do even more than he could when PAP mps and ministers were paid millions and their actions and income were unmolested.
Similar threads
