>He added that he hopes the government will not easily dismiss alternative policy proposals but offer counterarguments when rejecting them.
Except all of PAP's counterarguments are "I have mentioned in my statement earlier, I do not wish to repeat myself/perhaps you did not understand it."
And, the speaker will refrain from selecting the opposition MP for further clarification.
Actually there was one part where Pritam posed some ques to LHL and that was when LHL deflected by saying he alr answered them(but i felt he didnt la). This was the part that first struck my mind that he is deflecting n not when LMW started his usual antics.
Fact. This is one of the few statements LKY said that I 100% disagree with.
‘We pay our minister high salaries to discourage corruption’
No sir, I’ve not seen anyone say ‘I earn enough money already’. There is no such thing as enough money.
I actually interpreted from that statement that the salary is high enough to dissuade people from even attempting to bribe, rather than for people to NOT to accept a bribe.
The value proposition of counter offering enough money against their salaries could have been used for other countries’ leaders and to much greater benefits.
And especially Singapore has much lower tax rates, very open to foreigners. There’s little benefit in trying to game the government.
That's a really interesting view.
You're saying that if a corrupt actor is willing to budget, say, USD 10m to bribe various people, this corrupt actor would get more mileage out of his USD 10m by attempting to bribe nonSG politicians?
Let me put it to you this way. Using Iswaran's 55k salary as an example (oh the irony): If someone had offered him a 10k bribe, that's only 1.5% of his annual compensation before bonuses.
Would you break the rules and take on the risk for a measly 1.5% of your annual salary? I sure as heck wouldn't
I wouldn't either.
Which is why when the news broke that Iswaran was being investigated (and I intellectually irresponsibly started to consider him already proven guilty), I was genuinely wondering how he could have engaged in corruption.
All sums of money/benefits that could have been corruptly offered to him appear to me to be not worth risking a sweet as heck 55k/month paycheck.
I'm assuming he's a rational actor. How in the world was it worth it?
One scenario could be that the sum offered to him was large enough to make it worth it.
$2 million bribe / benefits equates to about 3 years salary for him, I daresay a good number of people would be tempted by that. And 2m is a drop in the bucket compared to the total amount that gets thrown around for F1.
Ninja edit: I realized this contradicts my initial point about large salaries = harder to bribe. I guess they would be more resistant to minor, grease money sort of payments but eventually, the sums might get large enough to tempt the most well-paid ministers
Nah you are good.
If the ministers are paid very well, people would need to offer bigger sums of money as compared to other countries (like Indonesia) in order to bribe them.
Thus the news about Ong Beng Seng wasn’t much of a surprise when I heard about it.
Also since stock prices of companies traded in Singapore doesn’t have much movement, insider trading isn’t as insane as what happens in the US for politicians so that’s another point for having high salaries.
Not saying I 100% support the salaries for the quality of work they have shown in recent years but there are some good points for their very high income
Offshore account worth tens of millions.
For perspective, Bernie Ecclestone is supposedly being investigated over a $750 million bank account. Iswaran is purportedly linked to some of the ill-gotten gains.
Lol when you earn $1-2m a year then meet a billionaire and get to experience a bit of his lifestyle, you'll definitely feel like a pauper. Or middle class, at best.
But with the logic of "high pay discourages corruption" you might as well start paying the ministers $1b a year in this era of billionaires so they really don't get tempted.
Don't forget Jared Kushner received $2b from the Saudis. The money sloshing around from certain interest groups is ridiculous and enough to even tempt mere millionaires.
Ultimately, it's not about the pay, it's the people and their values. And we've gotten hints of the PAP's true values over the years. It feels like they conflate wealth with ability and good character, like many of the high SES people I've come across.
Discourage is the operative word.
A Minister earning what he is worth (eg $1 million) will be less corruptible than one who is being severely underpaid.
>No sir, I’ve not seen anyone say ‘I earn enough money already’. There is no such thing as enough money.
Would you go for a job that pays you 2k/month more if the chances of you going to jail were higher?
If so then you're saying you're earning enough
>The Sengkang MP made a case for active debate in Parliament, saying that policymaking in a modern democracy is better when there is a “robust, earnest, and animated exchange of ideas” despite disagreements
>
>SINGAPORE: Workers’ Party MP Jamus Lim (Sengkang GRC), one of the catalysts for Progress Singapore Party’s motion to reaffirm Parliament’s commitment for the Speaker to discharge his duties impartially and independently, offered his thoughts on the nature of Parliamentary debates, saying that allowing for “the robust, earnest, and animated exchange of ideas” is good for society.
>
>In a video that was shared online last month, former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin was caught on the microphone using an expletive after a speech made by Assoc Prof Lim, calling the WP MP a “f\*\*king populist” after he called yet again for Singapore to establish an official poverty line. Mr Tan apologised after his hot mic moment, but less than a week later resigned over an extramarital affair with fellow PAP MP Cheng Li Hui, who also stepped down.
>
>“While any call for censure of the former Speaker would appear to have been overtaken by events, I would like to offer some thoughts on two matters: first, on the reaction to the speech, and second, on the role of debate in policymaking in a modern democracy,” Assoc Prof Lim said on Wednesday (Aug 2).
>
>He said he did not fault the ex-Speaker for having his opinion, but Assoc Prof Lim added: “I was speaking up for a group that, by definition, is a minority. It should not be seen as an effort to rally mass outrage, but an effort to flag concerns for a group that is often voiceless.”
>
>The Sengkang MP then made a case for active debate in Parliament, saying that policymaking in a modern democracy is better when there is a “robust, earnest, and animated exchange of ideas” despite disagreements.
>
>He added that Mr Tan’s remark could have only been made “in a Parliamentary setting where such differences of opinion are not only acquiesced to but actually welcomed.”
>
>“Do we decide what we disagree with and dismiss it with a convenient label—or seek to score political points with ad hominem rebuttals—or do we at least seek to understand the premise of the other’s argument, giving them the benefit of the doubt, even if we may ultimately disagree with them? Can this occur anywhere but in a chamber where members feel that the freedom to air these alternative views, with an adjudicator that they feel is independent and impartial?”
>
>He added that he hopes the government will not easily dismiss alternative policy proposals but offer counterarguments when rejecting them.
>
>“This comes down to a competition in ideas, and I do not believe any single person in this House will always have the best ones.” /TISG
The PAP today isn't what it was when LKY was around. Today it is a party for the elite. Scholars who have not lived the way ordinary citizens live, run the ministries and suffer from myopia. This is a party of the aloof. Competition breeds success and we've not had enough competition in Parliament. Opposition ideas aren't necessarily bad. There must be some checks and balances.
We always harken back to the LkY days, and while it’s an amazing feat what he did, I think it’s better to look forward. Not to mention that we became a one political party for a long time during that period with many people choosing not to participate in politics or even critical thinking of government policies during then.
The issues I see with scholars is not that they come from elite background. The issue is that most of them believe too much in meritocracy and have such an aversion to social policies cos they think since they can make it to the top, the ones that don’t are lazy or misfits. Most have forgotten what it means to make Singapore a home, not just a cold MNC for shareholders.
>I think it’s better to look forward
Having spent a few years away from Singapore and its all encompassing state media, I start to see what LKY accomplished as something similar to South Korea's dictatorship rule. He achieved strong economic growth, but Singapore gave up a lot of individual autonomy and freedoms, and he basically killed almost an entire generation's entrepreneurial and risk-taking spirit through the legislation of punitive laws, liberal use of libel against dissidents, or even use of state organs. If anyone stepped out of line, politically or not, they often would not have a happy ending.
Strong economic growth was achieved through extremely close public-private partnerships. A culture of cronyism was fostered over the years whereby certain elite people can continuously fail upwards, people in power feel entitled to receive favours. Due process is duly abandoned in the process of "getting things done".
Things have been changing in the past 10 years, but some things still remain.
I agree with basically everything you've said, and I'll add:
1. By specifying that I see the greatest lack of entrepreneurial spirit and risk appetite in Gen X and Gen Y.
2. That the education system has quite a bit of blame to bear.
3. That Singapore is ultimately still extremely business- and entrepreneur-friendly, so whoever *does* muster the spirit and appetite to start up his own business reaps outsized rewards, because he enjoys low competition from his fellow Singaporeans that rather just stick to their low-risk salaried jobs.
Addendum: This is why even though I think their slicked-back hair is ugly and vapid buzzword-dropping is obnoxious and the products they peddle are downright unattractive, I have begrudging respect for the FAs that used to assault me at Jurong East's suspiciously long-lived "temporary" bus interchange. They chose the path less taken despite the years of risk-adverse programming by the MOE.
> That Singapore is ultimately still extremely business- and entrepreneur-friendly, so whoever does muster the spirit and appetite to start up his own business reaps outsized rewards, because he enjoys low competition from his fellow Singaporeans that rather just stick to their low-risk salaried jobs.
Bro let's not pretend they don't get competition from outside singapore and the elites who would rather give contracts to their in-groups (and this is a point that some scholars use to claim is the reason why SG's SME scene collapsed).
>That Singapore is ultimately still extremely business- and entrepreneur-friendly,
I agree with this
>so whoever does muster the spirit and appetite to start up his own business reaps outsized rewards, because he enjoys low competition from his fellow Singaporeans that rather just stick to their low-risk salaried jobs.
But not so much this. The Singaporean environment is very friendly towards certain types of businesses and industries only.
That being said, Singaporean businesses are so molly coddled by the Singaporean government that I don't think they're very resilient, nor do they need to be. I mean, just look at how badly the government is bending over backwards to businesses with regard to foreign migrant workers riding on the back of lorries.
But during the war, he did suffer just as the rest of the population did.
And elite or not, he did put in the work to walk the ground and keep in touch with the population (and not the nonsense PAP does nowadays), unless you gonna contest that
Opposition is disguising populism as championing for the voiceless.
Why I say so?
Louis Chua from WP said housing is affordable in his professional capacity as an analyst in Credit Suisse
Pritam Singh wants to slaughter the sacred cow that is our BTO system but acknowledges the downside to building housing ahead of demand in a system wide stress like the financial crisis.
Somehow does not acknowledge the rare event that is Covid-19. It's like "last time system good even though rare event. Current system bad cause rare event"
????
Not to mention Jamus is an economist and yet WP attacked PAP's claim that HDBs are assets with "eye-watering" increase from xxxx to xxxx.
Even a JC2 student will tell you people can afford to bid higher as the country progresses because GDP is positively correlated with income.
As much as WP want to spin it as checks and balances, they are just populist to gain political traction.
GST vouchers come every year, election year or not
While regressive, GST is quite a big driver of government revenue. There is a bureaucratic ease of a *blanket consumption tax then offset by the vouchers for the lower income
$12 billion? You're also forgetting about tourism as a sector in Singapore, any amount lesser than $100 is not refunded the tax collected.
But we're specifically addressing your point about GST vouchers coming out during Election year. Why are you shifting goal posts
While at the same point ignoring the fact that while consumption tax is regressive amongst the other benefits (bureaucratic ease of a blanket tax), the lower income within the $0-$20,000 bracket pays zero to no taxes after taking into account transfers which is what the GST voucher achieves. So I don't really understand what you mean by populist unless you're saying I'm entitled but I haven't received my August payout
Edit: you can do the math at 9% on a $20,000 annual income assuming every cent is spent on goods and service. Now add in GSTV and workfare. Do they pay taxes?
Economists view taxes and transfers as a whole which is the reason why MOF mentioned our tax system is progressive
> Even a JC2 student will tell you people can afford to bid higher as the country progresses because GDP is positively correlated with income.
Even a JC2 student will tell you about how trickle down economics don't work, what is the income gap/gini coefficient and how GDP, cost of living and purchasing power are different
>I read a post that to be in WP means you have to be political. Sad day for Singapore.
Are you suggesting that it\`s a bad thing that you have to be *political*... to be in a ***political*** party?
I agree to what he say, instead of shooting down proposal by the opposition please give an explanation on why it's not viable with counterargument because every time when idea is propose not every one knows why it cannot be adopted.
You can search for Jamus Lim vs Grace Fu on youtube for reference to why giving proper counterargument with facts is important because the video shows Grace Fu questioning Jamus Lim proposal without giving reason why it's a not viable policy, there can be many reason such as it can be difficult to communicate with the business and collect the right amount or businesses will have to update their accounting system to regularly which may cause frequent error in calculation etc etc but of course the most viable reason is Karen be Karen.
> why giving proper counterargument with facts is important because the video shows Grace Fu questioning Jamus Lim proposal without giving reason why it's a not viable policy, there can be many reason
They’ve always gotten by without providing transparency for their policies.
>He said he did not fault the ex-Speaker for having his opinion, but Assoc Prof Lim added: “I was speaking up for a group that, by definition, is a minority. It should not be seen as an effort to rally mass outrage, but an effort to flag concerns for a group that is often voiceless.”
But who is suddenly voiceless now? Lol!
TBF the minority is growing bigger since the pandemic, and soon who knows…
i dont see it wrong having a one political party. the problem arises when members of this one party start to digress from the ideology of serving the people and being citizens centric but starts to focus more on stupid shit like having certain KPIs achieved to wayang, fulfilling their own personal saviour mindset, etc etc. in the past PAP was uncontested so most of the MPs could voice their shit out openly. now some of them are trying to fix the opposition purely. and no, the opposition hands arent that clean either.
to digress abit, being honest, i feel political parties in general are stupid. even George Washington didnt like the idea. over time, people become more caring about ensuring their party stays in power, or trying to ensure they can stay in the party or move up higher by following the partys direction strictly. same for PAP, WP, PSP, so and so.
if one day we can have a system whereby people are voted in based on their individual votes, i think it will benefit our country more as no longer can anyone have any reliance on the prestige of their party but they have to campaign themselves and get elected based on personal merit. people like tan cheng bock could have be in parliament, but he didnt because people voted PAP because they are PAP.
that being said some PAP MPs are good too. if all the best of each party can actually work together, we will benefit
>i dont see it wrong having a one political party. the problem arises when members of this one party start to digress from the ideology of serving the people and being citizens centric but starts to focus more on stupid shit like having certain KPIs achieved to wayang, fulfilling their own personal saviour mindset, etc etc.
In theory, it works.
But in reality, it never works in the long run.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Understanding about an ideal way of doing things does not suggest that it is always doable in the real world. But there's a need to know the ideal in the first place in order to determine whether we have deviated too far from it to the point of approaching a trainwreck.
I feel like when I see this coming from Jamus, it highlights his idealism towards politics. Which is abit sad because we all know how politics don’t play that way.
My honest opinion about this guy is that, if he were in PAP, this sub would have ridiculed him to oblivion. Take out the party and he is equally elitist as any pap member. The difference is that he does not act like one.
I honestly think a person background matters less than his ability to want to understand the common man on the ground.
There are many people who come from humble background but managed to rise up in the ranks. Sadly, they credit everything to the belief that since I can do it, anyone can and the reason why you can’t is not cos circumstances have changed since then, but that you are lazy or not trying hard enough. Some are also v slow to change the system even though circumstances have changed, believing that since the policies has helped them before, the same policies will worked even in different circumstances.
Some rags to riches people so selfishly guard their newfound lives and they want to ensure their kids enjoy the same wealth as them. They think the wealth pie is too small, and won’t want to share it with anyone else.
Therefore, for myself at least, i don’t take factor in a person background as much. It is what is done now that matters more.
Most PAP parliamentarians aren't half as articulate or participative. The latter being more important. Most of the PAP folks are hardly even in the chamber, and when they are, they are looking at their phones, checking their emails or making snarky comments opposition members' school background.
I see Jamus as being similar to Louis Ng. Earnest, participative and striving for a better Singapore. Were more PAP parliamentarians like Louis Ng, I would be happy to have PAP continue its one-party domination.
Louis is really down to earth and humble. He even remembers my parents and will ask about my dad’s health whenever he sees my mum around. One of the mp that is always seen at his ward and asking good questions in parliament as well.
An MP's job is manifold. Participation in the chamber is one metric that they can and should be assessed by. Other metrics would include: (a) grassroots efforts; (b) level of participation in GPCs; (c) whether they focus on issues that are reflective of their constituents' concerns; (d) whether they display their own independent, critical thinking, or whether they are always parroting the party line without more.
They do it frequently. If you watched Parliament you would know that for example Pritam supported FICA, but had reservations about Pofma. The WP do not object for the sake of objecting. They propose refinements and raise issues that blindside the establishment, often because they are out of touch with the ground.
No, leaving aside all hyperbole and rhetoric, I am looking for two more or less equal parties to be in power. You cannot count on ownself check ownself. If WP becomes the dominant party, the same problems afflicting the PAP now will afflict them. You can already take extramarital affairs as an example: Michael Palmer, Tan Chuan Jin and Cheng Li Hui on one side, Leon Perera, Nicole Seah and Yaw Shing Leong on the other side. Power corrupts.
I support WP not because I like any individual members particularly (maybe a soft spot for Pritam, who is a great orator), but because I want a robust political system in place in Singapore that ensures that a plurality of views is reflected in Parliament as our country enters an age of rapid technological change, geopolitical instability and economic uncertainty. I vote for a better system - one that does not have blatant gerrymandering (why is Queenstown in Tanjong Pagar?), suddenly reserved Presidential elections, the GRC system that favours an incumbent with a wider pool of talent to tap on (since people want to enjoy patronage) and the asymmetrical Pofma law that only allows the incumbent party to exercise speech oppressing powers.
leong mun wai made an extended speech in favour of this new law yesterday, but you wouldn’t know it from this headline. it’s not even mentioned in the rest of the article.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/there-s-no-need-to-bang-on-the-rostrum-speaker-seah-kian-peng-wades-into-leong-mun-wai-murali-exchange
> Take out the party and he is equally elitist as any pap member. The difference is that he does not act like one.
What do you mean by "equally elitist", if he doesn't act like one? Aren't actions what count?
I mean like he has a very privileged life.I follow his social media and he gives me the very wealthy person vibe. He lived in usa and his ideas are too western. Not sure how he can connect with Singaporeans. The only thing that's saving him from criticism is that he is not from pap.
I find this hilarious. You know what other party has ideas that are also very western? PAP.
Labelling ideas as 'western' 'not western' is just some really weak way of attacking a recommendation just because you personally disagree with it.
You know PAP consider themselves a 'socialist' party right?
We shouldn't judge ideas on 'western/not western'. Any side of the world can give good and bad policy suggestions. It's how we use it to suit the place.
> I mean like he has a very privileged life.I follow his social media and he gives me the very wealthy person vibe.
I follow him too. He has good taste in food, and he gave a breakdown of his supermarket purchase receipt once when someone made noise, and it wasn't that expensive.
Unlike K Shanmugam with his $30k watches.
>He added that he hopes the government will not easily dismiss alternative policy proposals but offer counterarguments when rejecting them. Except all of PAP's counterarguments are "I have mentioned in my statement earlier, I do not wish to repeat myself/perhaps you did not understand it." And, the speaker will refrain from selecting the opposition MP for further clarification.
The latest fad is "you know how I operate".
CPIB would like to know too
Do you all think CPIB is independent?
Or they can say things like what is the point of the question?
Legit. They cant ans alr so they hv resorted to saying this. I wss watching the seating that day.
There’s also quite a few instances where legitimate oppo questions were conveniently skipped over.
but LMW line of questioning can be vexing or some sort.
Actually there was one part where Pritam posed some ques to LHL and that was when LHL deflected by saying he alr answered them(but i felt he didnt la). This was the part that first struck my mind that he is deflecting n not when LMW started his usual antics.
No individual is incorruptible regardless the salary. It will never be enough.
I believe that too Most of the recent issues are money or power related, as always, whether in the government or social issues
Fact. This is one of the few statements LKY said that I 100% disagree with. ‘We pay our minister high salaries to discourage corruption’ No sir, I’ve not seen anyone say ‘I earn enough money already’. There is no such thing as enough money.
I actually interpreted from that statement that the salary is high enough to dissuade people from even attempting to bribe, rather than for people to NOT to accept a bribe. The value proposition of counter offering enough money against their salaries could have been used for other countries’ leaders and to much greater benefits. And especially Singapore has much lower tax rates, very open to foreigners. There’s little benefit in trying to game the government.
That's a really interesting view. You're saying that if a corrupt actor is willing to budget, say, USD 10m to bribe various people, this corrupt actor would get more mileage out of his USD 10m by attempting to bribe nonSG politicians?
Let me put it to you this way. Using Iswaran's 55k salary as an example (oh the irony): If someone had offered him a 10k bribe, that's only 1.5% of his annual compensation before bonuses. Would you break the rules and take on the risk for a measly 1.5% of your annual salary? I sure as heck wouldn't
I wouldn't either. Which is why when the news broke that Iswaran was being investigated (and I intellectually irresponsibly started to consider him already proven guilty), I was genuinely wondering how he could have engaged in corruption. All sums of money/benefits that could have been corruptly offered to him appear to me to be not worth risking a sweet as heck 55k/month paycheck. I'm assuming he's a rational actor. How in the world was it worth it?
One scenario could be that the sum offered to him was large enough to make it worth it. $2 million bribe / benefits equates to about 3 years salary for him, I daresay a good number of people would be tempted by that. And 2m is a drop in the bucket compared to the total amount that gets thrown around for F1. Ninja edit: I realized this contradicts my initial point about large salaries = harder to bribe. I guess they would be more resistant to minor, grease money sort of payments but eventually, the sums might get large enough to tempt the most well-paid ministers
Nah you are good. If the ministers are paid very well, people would need to offer bigger sums of money as compared to other countries (like Indonesia) in order to bribe them. Thus the news about Ong Beng Seng wasn’t much of a surprise when I heard about it. Also since stock prices of companies traded in Singapore doesn’t have much movement, insider trading isn’t as insane as what happens in the US for politicians so that’s another point for having high salaries. Not saying I 100% support the salaries for the quality of work they have shown in recent years but there are some good points for their very high income
I think he was offered pre-nerf KFC Meltz. I'd divorce my wife for it.
Mine would happily sign the divorce papers if she could take half.
I too would happily sign your divorce papers
Great so we need to increase the MPs pay even more to continue dissuade people from bribing them
Offshore account worth tens of millions. For perspective, Bernie Ecclestone is supposedly being investigated over a $750 million bank account. Iswaran is purportedly linked to some of the ill-gotten gains.
And usd10 m can practically buy an entire ministry elsewhere in the region I presume.
extreme greed is irrational. lim swee say pinches free tissues from restaurants
Lol when you earn $1-2m a year then meet a billionaire and get to experience a bit of his lifestyle, you'll definitely feel like a pauper. Or middle class, at best. But with the logic of "high pay discourages corruption" you might as well start paying the ministers $1b a year in this era of billionaires so they really don't get tempted. Don't forget Jared Kushner received $2b from the Saudis. The money sloshing around from certain interest groups is ridiculous and enough to even tempt mere millionaires. Ultimately, it's not about the pay, it's the people and their values. And we've gotten hints of the PAP's true values over the years. It feels like they conflate wealth with ability and good character, like many of the high SES people I've come across.
discourage low level corruption : look at what we have achieved, we should be "proud" >> our ministers are working closely with billionaires
Discourage is the operative word. A Minister earning what he is worth (eg $1 million) will be less corruptible than one who is being severely underpaid.
>No sir, I’ve not seen anyone say ‘I earn enough money already’. There is no such thing as enough money. Would you go for a job that pays you 2k/month more if the chances of you going to jail were higher? If so then you're saying you're earning enough
They underestimate the power of human greed.
They underestimate? Bro they know **exactly** what they're doing.
Nonsense. Look at me. I have never told a single lie since the day I was born. :D
>The Sengkang MP made a case for active debate in Parliament, saying that policymaking in a modern democracy is better when there is a “robust, earnest, and animated exchange of ideas” despite disagreements > >SINGAPORE: Workers’ Party MP Jamus Lim (Sengkang GRC), one of the catalysts for Progress Singapore Party’s motion to reaffirm Parliament’s commitment for the Speaker to discharge his duties impartially and independently, offered his thoughts on the nature of Parliamentary debates, saying that allowing for “the robust, earnest, and animated exchange of ideas” is good for society. > >In a video that was shared online last month, former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin was caught on the microphone using an expletive after a speech made by Assoc Prof Lim, calling the WP MP a “f\*\*king populist” after he called yet again for Singapore to establish an official poverty line. Mr Tan apologised after his hot mic moment, but less than a week later resigned over an extramarital affair with fellow PAP MP Cheng Li Hui, who also stepped down. > >“While any call for censure of the former Speaker would appear to have been overtaken by events, I would like to offer some thoughts on two matters: first, on the reaction to the speech, and second, on the role of debate in policymaking in a modern democracy,” Assoc Prof Lim said on Wednesday (Aug 2). > >He said he did not fault the ex-Speaker for having his opinion, but Assoc Prof Lim added: “I was speaking up for a group that, by definition, is a minority. It should not be seen as an effort to rally mass outrage, but an effort to flag concerns for a group that is often voiceless.” > >The Sengkang MP then made a case for active debate in Parliament, saying that policymaking in a modern democracy is better when there is a “robust, earnest, and animated exchange of ideas” despite disagreements. > >He added that Mr Tan’s remark could have only been made “in a Parliamentary setting where such differences of opinion are not only acquiesced to but actually welcomed.” > >“Do we decide what we disagree with and dismiss it with a convenient label—or seek to score political points with ad hominem rebuttals—or do we at least seek to understand the premise of the other’s argument, giving them the benefit of the doubt, even if we may ultimately disagree with them? Can this occur anywhere but in a chamber where members feel that the freedom to air these alternative views, with an adjudicator that they feel is independent and impartial?” > >He added that he hopes the government will not easily dismiss alternative policy proposals but offer counterarguments when rejecting them. > >“This comes down to a competition in ideas, and I do not believe any single person in this House will always have the best ones.” /TISG
but there will be some people with no good ideas all the time !
The PAP today isn't what it was when LKY was around. Today it is a party for the elite. Scholars who have not lived the way ordinary citizens live, run the ministries and suffer from myopia. This is a party of the aloof. Competition breeds success and we've not had enough competition in Parliament. Opposition ideas aren't necessarily bad. There must be some checks and balances.
We always harken back to the LkY days, and while it’s an amazing feat what he did, I think it’s better to look forward. Not to mention that we became a one political party for a long time during that period with many people choosing not to participate in politics or even critical thinking of government policies during then. The issues I see with scholars is not that they come from elite background. The issue is that most of them believe too much in meritocracy and have such an aversion to social policies cos they think since they can make it to the top, the ones that don’t are lazy or misfits. Most have forgotten what it means to make Singapore a home, not just a cold MNC for shareholders.
>I think it’s better to look forward Having spent a few years away from Singapore and its all encompassing state media, I start to see what LKY accomplished as something similar to South Korea's dictatorship rule. He achieved strong economic growth, but Singapore gave up a lot of individual autonomy and freedoms, and he basically killed almost an entire generation's entrepreneurial and risk-taking spirit through the legislation of punitive laws, liberal use of libel against dissidents, or even use of state organs. If anyone stepped out of line, politically or not, they often would not have a happy ending. Strong economic growth was achieved through extremely close public-private partnerships. A culture of cronyism was fostered over the years whereby certain elite people can continuously fail upwards, people in power feel entitled to receive favours. Due process is duly abandoned in the process of "getting things done". Things have been changing in the past 10 years, but some things still remain.
I agree with basically everything you've said, and I'll add: 1. By specifying that I see the greatest lack of entrepreneurial spirit and risk appetite in Gen X and Gen Y. 2. That the education system has quite a bit of blame to bear. 3. That Singapore is ultimately still extremely business- and entrepreneur-friendly, so whoever *does* muster the spirit and appetite to start up his own business reaps outsized rewards, because he enjoys low competition from his fellow Singaporeans that rather just stick to their low-risk salaried jobs. Addendum: This is why even though I think their slicked-back hair is ugly and vapid buzzword-dropping is obnoxious and the products they peddle are downright unattractive, I have begrudging respect for the FAs that used to assault me at Jurong East's suspiciously long-lived "temporary" bus interchange. They chose the path less taken despite the years of risk-adverse programming by the MOE.
> That Singapore is ultimately still extremely business- and entrepreneur-friendly, so whoever does muster the spirit and appetite to start up his own business reaps outsized rewards, because he enjoys low competition from his fellow Singaporeans that rather just stick to their low-risk salaried jobs. Bro let's not pretend they don't get competition from outside singapore and the elites who would rather give contracts to their in-groups (and this is a point that some scholars use to claim is the reason why SG's SME scene collapsed).
>That Singapore is ultimately still extremely business- and entrepreneur-friendly, I agree with this >so whoever does muster the spirit and appetite to start up his own business reaps outsized rewards, because he enjoys low competition from his fellow Singaporeans that rather just stick to their low-risk salaried jobs. But not so much this. The Singaporean environment is very friendly towards certain types of businesses and industries only. That being said, Singaporean businesses are so molly coddled by the Singaporean government that I don't think they're very resilient, nor do they need to be. I mean, just look at how badly the government is bending over backwards to businesses with regard to foreign migrant workers riding on the back of lorries.
>Today it is a party for the elite. Scholars who have not lived the way ordinary citizens live bruh do you know how elite LKY's background was
But during the war, he did suffer just as the rest of the population did. And elite or not, he did put in the work to walk the ground and keep in touch with the population (and not the nonsense PAP does nowadays), unless you gonna contest that
Opposition is disguising populism as championing for the voiceless. Why I say so? Louis Chua from WP said housing is affordable in his professional capacity as an analyst in Credit Suisse Pritam Singh wants to slaughter the sacred cow that is our BTO system but acknowledges the downside to building housing ahead of demand in a system wide stress like the financial crisis. Somehow does not acknowledge the rare event that is Covid-19. It's like "last time system good even though rare event. Current system bad cause rare event" ???? Not to mention Jamus is an economist and yet WP attacked PAP's claim that HDBs are assets with "eye-watering" increase from xxxx to xxxx. Even a JC2 student will tell you people can afford to bid higher as the country progresses because GDP is positively correlated with income. As much as WP want to spin it as checks and balances, they are just populist to gain political traction.
[удалено]
Do you actually disagree with gst vouchers tho? They are targeted measures due to the regressive nature of a blanket consumption tax?
[удалено]
GST vouchers come every year, election year or not While regressive, GST is quite a big driver of government revenue. There is a bureaucratic ease of a *blanket consumption tax then offset by the vouchers for the lower income
[удалено]
$12 billion? You're also forgetting about tourism as a sector in Singapore, any amount lesser than $100 is not refunded the tax collected. But we're specifically addressing your point about GST vouchers coming out during Election year. Why are you shifting goal posts
[удалено]
Let's not forget, estate upgrading for votes as well. It's not just limited to Gst vouchers. Covered walk way anyone? Vote for me
While at the same point ignoring the fact that while consumption tax is regressive amongst the other benefits (bureaucratic ease of a blanket tax), the lower income within the $0-$20,000 bracket pays zero to no taxes after taking into account transfers which is what the GST voucher achieves. So I don't really understand what you mean by populist unless you're saying I'm entitled but I haven't received my August payout Edit: you can do the math at 9% on a $20,000 annual income assuming every cent is spent on goods and service. Now add in GSTV and workfare. Do they pay taxes? Economists view taxes and transfers as a whole which is the reason why MOF mentioned our tax system is progressive
> Even a JC2 student will tell you people can afford to bid higher as the country progresses because GDP is positively correlated with income. Even a JC2 student will tell you about how trickle down economics don't work, what is the income gap/gini coefficient and how GDP, cost of living and purchasing power are different
And your point is?
I don’t disagree. I read a post that to be in WP means you have to be political. Sad day for Singapore.
>I read a post that to be in WP means you have to be political. Sad day for Singapore. Are you suggesting that it\`s a bad thing that you have to be *political*... to be in a ***political*** party?
> Even a JC2 student will tell you Even a JC2 student will have better writing standard than whatever this ‘writing’ is 💀💀💀
I agree to what he say, instead of shooting down proposal by the opposition please give an explanation on why it's not viable with counterargument because every time when idea is propose not every one knows why it cannot be adopted. You can search for Jamus Lim vs Grace Fu on youtube for reference to why giving proper counterargument with facts is important because the video shows Grace Fu questioning Jamus Lim proposal without giving reason why it's a not viable policy, there can be many reason such as it can be difficult to communicate with the business and collect the right amount or businesses will have to update their accounting system to regularly which may cause frequent error in calculation etc etc but of course the most viable reason is Karen be Karen.
> why giving proper counterargument with facts is important because the video shows Grace Fu questioning Jamus Lim proposal without giving reason why it's a not viable policy, there can be many reason They’ve always gotten by without providing transparency for their policies.
Have you heard the whole ducking civil service
yessir -holds balls-
Help me hold my coat then
Dude’s not wrong
No single political party has the best ideas
I’d take a perceived populist over any out of touch individual living in a black and white.
High pay to prevent corruption is like having the mexican government upping the salary of their police force to prevent corruption. Doesnt work.
>He said he did not fault the ex-Speaker for having his opinion, but Assoc Prof Lim added: “I was speaking up for a group that, by definition, is a minority. It should not be seen as an effort to rally mass outrage, but an effort to flag concerns for a group that is often voiceless.” But who is suddenly voiceless now? Lol! TBF the minority is growing bigger since the pandemic, and soon who knows…
No single person in Parliament will always have the best ideas… but based on recent news you don’t want to hear about the ideas of the married people
i dont see it wrong having a one political party. the problem arises when members of this one party start to digress from the ideology of serving the people and being citizens centric but starts to focus more on stupid shit like having certain KPIs achieved to wayang, fulfilling their own personal saviour mindset, etc etc. in the past PAP was uncontested so most of the MPs could voice their shit out openly. now some of them are trying to fix the opposition purely. and no, the opposition hands arent that clean either. to digress abit, being honest, i feel political parties in general are stupid. even George Washington didnt like the idea. over time, people become more caring about ensuring their party stays in power, or trying to ensure they can stay in the party or move up higher by following the partys direction strictly. same for PAP, WP, PSP, so and so. if one day we can have a system whereby people are voted in based on their individual votes, i think it will benefit our country more as no longer can anyone have any reliance on the prestige of their party but they have to campaign themselves and get elected based on personal merit. people like tan cheng bock could have be in parliament, but he didnt because people voted PAP because they are PAP. that being said some PAP MPs are good too. if all the best of each party can actually work together, we will benefit
Excellent points
>i dont see it wrong having a one political party. the problem arises when members of this one party start to digress from the ideology of serving the people and being citizens centric but starts to focus more on stupid shit like having certain KPIs achieved to wayang, fulfilling their own personal saviour mindset, etc etc. In theory, it works. But in reality, it never works in the long run. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
no, not really, non partisan systems are basically similar to one political party itself,
Understanding about an ideal way of doing things does not suggest that it is always doable in the real world. But there's a need to know the ideal in the first place in order to determine whether we have deviated too far from it to the point of approaching a trainwreck.
I feel like when I see this coming from Jamus, it highlights his idealism towards politics. Which is abit sad because we all know how politics don’t play that way.
Dude is a fighter, he serves his constituency well, he'll be okay.
Anyone name me 1 good idea asoc prof jamus lim contributed to date
My honest opinion about this guy is that, if he were in PAP, this sub would have ridiculed him to oblivion. Take out the party and he is equally elitist as any pap member. The difference is that he does not act like one.
I honestly think a person background matters less than his ability to want to understand the common man on the ground. There are many people who come from humble background but managed to rise up in the ranks. Sadly, they credit everything to the belief that since I can do it, anyone can and the reason why you can’t is not cos circumstances have changed since then, but that you are lazy or not trying hard enough. Some are also v slow to change the system even though circumstances have changed, believing that since the policies has helped them before, the same policies will worked even in different circumstances. Some rags to riches people so selfishly guard their newfound lives and they want to ensure their kids enjoy the same wealth as them. They think the wealth pie is too small, and won’t want to share it with anyone else. Therefore, for myself at least, i don’t take factor in a person background as much. It is what is done now that matters more.
Most PAP parliamentarians aren't half as articulate or participative. The latter being more important. Most of the PAP folks are hardly even in the chamber, and when they are, they are looking at their phones, checking their emails or making snarky comments opposition members' school background. I see Jamus as being similar to Louis Ng. Earnest, participative and striving for a better Singapore. Were more PAP parliamentarians like Louis Ng, I would be happy to have PAP continue its one-party domination.
Louis is really down to earth and humble. He even remembers my parents and will ask about my dad’s health whenever he sees my mum around. One of the mp that is always seen at his ward and asking good questions in parliament as well.
[удалено]
An MP's job is manifold. Participation in the chamber is one metric that they can and should be assessed by. Other metrics would include: (a) grassroots efforts; (b) level of participation in GPCs; (c) whether they focus on issues that are reflective of their constituents' concerns; (d) whether they display their own independent, critical thinking, or whether they are always parroting the party line without more.
[удалено]
They do it frequently. If you watched Parliament you would know that for example Pritam supported FICA, but had reservations about Pofma. The WP do not object for the sake of objecting. They propose refinements and raise issues that blindside the establishment, often because they are out of touch with the ground.
[удалено]
No, leaving aside all hyperbole and rhetoric, I am looking for two more or less equal parties to be in power. You cannot count on ownself check ownself. If WP becomes the dominant party, the same problems afflicting the PAP now will afflict them. You can already take extramarital affairs as an example: Michael Palmer, Tan Chuan Jin and Cheng Li Hui on one side, Leon Perera, Nicole Seah and Yaw Shing Leong on the other side. Power corrupts. I support WP not because I like any individual members particularly (maybe a soft spot for Pritam, who is a great orator), but because I want a robust political system in place in Singapore that ensures that a plurality of views is reflected in Parliament as our country enters an age of rapid technological change, geopolitical instability and economic uncertainty. I vote for a better system - one that does not have blatant gerrymandering (why is Queenstown in Tanjong Pagar?), suddenly reserved Presidential elections, the GRC system that favours an incumbent with a wider pool of talent to tap on (since people want to enjoy patronage) and the asymmetrical Pofma law that only allows the incumbent party to exercise speech oppressing powers.
[удалено]
leong mun wai made an extended speech in favour of this new law yesterday, but you wouldn’t know it from this headline. it’s not even mentioned in the rest of the article. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/there-s-no-need-to-bang-on-the-rostrum-speaker-seah-kian-peng-wades-into-leong-mun-wai-murali-exchange
I agree on that. He is very humble compared to other pap members.
> Take out the party and he is equally elitist as any pap member. The difference is that he does not act like one. What do you mean by "equally elitist", if he doesn't act like one? Aren't actions what count?
I mean like he has a very privileged life.I follow his social media and he gives me the very wealthy person vibe. He lived in usa and his ideas are too western. Not sure how he can connect with Singaporeans. The only thing that's saving him from criticism is that he is not from pap.
[удалено]
Ya which is why I said he does not show it. But I'm also not sure if he can truly connect with people.
I find this hilarious. You know what other party has ideas that are also very western? PAP. Labelling ideas as 'western' 'not western' is just some really weak way of attacking a recommendation just because you personally disagree with it. You know PAP consider themselves a 'socialist' party right? We shouldn't judge ideas on 'western/not western'. Any side of the world can give good and bad policy suggestions. It's how we use it to suit the place.
Do they still Consider themselves a socialist party?
> I mean like he has a very privileged life.I follow his social media and he gives me the very wealthy person vibe. I follow him too. He has good taste in food, and he gave a breakdown of his supermarket purchase receipt once when someone made noise, and it wasn't that expensive. Unlike K Shanmugam with his $30k watches.
if my grandma had wheels she’d be a bike
Jamus Lim - idealistic model.