Punggol East By-Election coming ? MP steps down
-
Just relax:
Isn't $15,000 , $20,000 or $25,000 for being a super grassroot leader seems low compared to what ministers (seemingly spending less time directly MTP) draw?
Not so sure, look at Chen Show Mao and Sylvia Lim, they are both talented and full time MPs.rains:
What? You're expecting them to draw one salary for being an MP? How unthinkable! Preposterous! No top talent would want to join politics for sure!
If their salary is $15,000 and S&C can be used to cover operating expenses of full-time MP, then why not? If need be increase salary for full time MP to $20,000 which would be a very very comfortable salary for a talented person who wants to serve the people.
-
sinoboy:
Isn't $15,000 , $20,000 or $25,000 for being a super grassroot leader seems low compared to what ministers (seemingly spending less time directly MTP) draw?
Not so sure, look at Chen Show Mao and Sylvia Lim, they are both talented and full time MPs.Just relax:
[quote=\"rains\"]
What? You're expecting them to draw one salary for being an MP? How unthinkable! Preposterous! No top talent would want to join politics for sure!
If their salary is $15,000 and S&C can be used to cover operating expenses of full-time MP, then why not? If need be increase salary for full time MP to $20,000 which would be a very very comfortable salary for a talented person who wants to serve the people.[/quote]A Minister calibre is at least equivalent to the CEO of a fortune 500 company so a salary of s$1 million per year (which frankly is very low) is barely enough. To be fair Ministers should at least get 2-3 million per year.
An MP is equivalent to the CEO of a SME and such CEOs usually earn between 200,000-500,000 per year.
You have to pay fair market value to get capable people who will serve, otherwise you will get mediocre people to step forward. To be a good MP you should at least have the ability of a SME CEO as such a CEO must manage people and lead a small company that will face greater difficulties in terms of financing, managing people, surviving against difficult odds etc. -
Just relax:
But fortunately 500 companies pay salary from their revenue ...
A Minister calibre is at least equivalent to the CEO of a fortune 500 company so a salary of s$1 million per year (which frankly is very low) is barely enough. To be fair Ministers should at least get 2-3 million per year.
An MP is equivalent to the CEO of a SME and such CEOs usually earn between 200,000-500,000 per year.
You have to pay fair market value to get capable people who will serve, otherwise you will get mediocre people to step forward. To be a good MP you should at least have the ability of a SME CEO as such a CEO must manage people and lead a small company that will face greater difficulties in terms of financing, managing people, surviving against difficult odds etc.
-
sinoboy:
Isn't $15,000 , $20,000 or $25,000 for being a super grassroot leader seems low compared to what ministers (seemingly spending less time directly MTP) draw?
Not so sure, look at Chen Show Mao and Sylvia Lim, they are both talented and full time MPs.Just relax:
[quote=\"rains\"]
What? You're expecting them to draw one salary for being an MP? How unthinkable! Preposterous! No top talent would want to join politics for sure!
If their salary is $15,000 and S&C can be used to cover operating expenses of full-time MP, then why not? If need be increase salary for full time MP to $20,000 which would be a very very comfortable salary for a talented person who wants to serve the people.[/quote]Quantifying a nation's leaders to how much times he or she spends with the people in MTP? :slapshead: other things no need to chor lar? Just MTP daily? Listen to the voters?
I got better suggestion--- employ the most capable and intelligent being and pay them half or 3/4 of the minister pay package and their job is to hold MTP session daily, just be a all-rounder problem-solver; straightforward, no need GE or BE lar. Save tax payers money. -
sinoboy:
SG gov too!
But fortunately 500 companies pay salary from their revenue ...Just relax:
A Minister calibre is at least equivalent to the CEO of a fortune 500 company so a salary of s$1 million per year (which frankly is very low) is barely enough. To be fair Ministers should at least get 2-3 million per year.
An MP is equivalent to the CEO of a SME and such CEOs usually earn between 200,000-500,000 per year.
You have to pay fair market value to get capable people who will serve, otherwise you will get mediocre people to step forward. To be a good MP you should at least have the ability of a SME CEO as such a CEO must manage people and lead a small company that will face greater difficulties in terms of financing, managing people, surviving against difficult odds etc. -
Singapore ruling party needs to reconnect: analysts
[quote]Singapore's ruling party needs to reconnect with voters or face more severe setbacks in national polls, analysts said Sunday after a massive swing to the opposition in a by-election dominated by debate over the rising cost of living and immigration.
It was the second by-election defeat in eight months for the People's Action Party (PAP), which has been in power for more than 50 years.
Saturday's vote for a vacant seat in the sleepy suburb of Punggol East became a lightning rod for a national debate over the cost of living, immigration and other issues raging in social media.
The opposition Workers' Party won 54.5 percent of the vote -- exactly the same share garnered by the PAP when it last took the seat in the May 2011 general elections.
\"The swing of votes has been massive,\" Reuben Wong, an assistant professor of political science at the National University of Singapore, told AFP.
Wong said defeated PAP candidate Koh Poh Koon, 40, a prominent surgeon who had never been in politics and was introduced by the party just weeks before the vote, was seen as an \"elitist\" figure.
By contrast, he said Workers' Party candidate Lee Li Lian, a 34-year-old corporate trainer running for a second time, was regarded as more representative of Singapore's \"heartlanders\" -- the majority who live in public housing.
\"The PAP is lacking grassroots candidates that are grounded in the communities,\" said Bridget Welsh, an associate professor at Singapore Management University.
\"The formula of 'best and brightest' is not working,\" the political scientist added, referring to the PAP's traditional approach of fielding academic achievers and successful professionals.
Candidates do not have to live in the districts where they are running for office.
\"The erosion of support in this contest is so significant that it cannot be dismissed as an anomaly. The PAP needs to reevaluate its engagement with the electorate and policies, and work to rebuild trust or it will face many more Punggols,\" Welsh said.
The setback came less than two years after the PAP, which has been in power for more than 50 years, suffered its worst general election showing in May 2011 when its share of votes fell to an all-time low of 60 percent.
The Workers' Party captured six seats, tripling the number of opposition MPs in the 87-member parliament -- a small presence by international standards but a major development in a city-state known in the past for rigid social controls.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said after Saturday's vote gave the Workers' Party a seventh seat that reforms would take time to produce results, vowing to present a \"report card for voters to judge in the next general elections\", which do not have to be called until 2016.
Since the 2011 vote, the government has promised to spend billions of dollars on public housing, mass transport and social programmes.
It has slowed the intake of foreign workers and immigrants, who have been accused of competing with citizens for jobs and public services and driving up prices of homes.
More than a third of Singapore's population of 5.3 million are foreigners.
Saturday's vote was called to fill a seat left vacant when then parliament speaker Michael Palmer stepped down and quit the PAP in December after he confessed to an extramarital affair.
But the scandal was relegated to the sidelines and the campaign's focus was largely on socio-economic issues in Singapore, which has become one of the costliest cities in Asia.
The Workers' Party had found itself in a similar situation last year when one of its MPs also quit over an extramarital affair.
But unlike the PAP, it retained the seat comfortably in a by-election in May, underscoring the growing appeal of an alternative political voice to Singaporeans.
The PAP first came to power in 1959 when colonial ruler Britain introduced self-rule in Singapore, which became a republic in 1965 after a brief union with Malaysia.[/quote] -
3Boys:
I can't speak for those who voted because of bread and butter issues, but I think that the vote swing did not just come from the people who want more financial help. Maybe I am wrong but I doubt people living in EC's need hand-outs. Sadly, I still don't think PAP knows where it has gone wrong.Mdm Koh:
I don't think anyone is twisting the government's arm asking for more hand-outs. I feel that the government has just taken a direction that many young people in Singapore don't agree with. For example, not doing more about our transport woes, turning away refugees who were on the verge of starving to death, threatening to sue people who speak up, etc. These are issues that young people care about. I don't think money was a huge factor in PE because most of the residents are comfortable financially. This is also clear because they rejected the PAP despite the attractive parenthood package.
Then can you, as a WP supporter, please speak up against some of the xenophobic, racist comments being made by some other forumers here. Show us that it's about the higher order issues, not the bread and butter.
Anyway, I don't always support the WP. Its performance in parliament can be improved.
-
Just relax:
But.. but.. did you factor in job stability into the picture?
A Minister calibre is at least equivalent to the CEO of a fortune 500 company so a salary of s$1 million per year (which frankly is very low) is barely enough. To be fair Ministers should at least get 2-3 million per year.
An MP is equivalent to the CEO of a SME and such CEOs usually earn between 200,000-500,000 per year.
You have to pay fair market value to get capable people who will serve, otherwise you will get mediocre people to step forward. To be a good MP you should at least have the ability of a SME CEO as such a CEO must manage people and lead a small company that will face greater difficulties in terms of financing, managing people, surviving against difficult odds etc. :evil:
In a fortune 500 company.. if the CEO screw up.. heads rolls.. As compared to overbudget 3times, no problem.. CBD flood, no issue.. terrorist escape? Let's move on.. and the list goes on.. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
ok.. maybe bad example..
I'm just joking.. -
Mdm Koh:
3Boys:
[quote=\"Mdm Koh\"]I don't think anyone is twisting the government's arm asking for more hand-outs. I feel that the government has just taken a direction that many young people in Singapore don't agree with. For example, not doing more about our transport woes, turning away refugees who were on the verge of starving to death, threatening to sue people who speak up, etc. These are issues that young people care about. I don't think money was a huge factor in PE because most of the residents are comfortable financially. This is also clear because they rejected the PAP despite the attractive parenthood package.
Then can you, as a WP supporter, please speak up against some of the xenophobic, racist comments being made by some other forumers here. Show us that it's about the higher order issues, not the bread and butter.Harlequin:
That's a fair argument, but it's not like they have never criticized their critics.[/quote]Mdm Koh, you put your reply into my \"dialogue box\"
I can't speak for those who voted because of bread and butter issues, but I think that the vote swing did not just come from the people who want more financial help. Maybe I am wrong but I doubt people living in EC's need hand-outs. Sadly, I still don't think PAP knows where it has gone wrong.Mdm Koh:
...............threatening to sue people who speak up, etc.
Anyway, I don't always support the WP. Its performance in parliament can be improved.
That depends on what's one's view about slandering; malign, calumniate and defamation; think the laws has a clear definition about what constitute a defamation. Music to some's ears may just be defaming and damning to others. Until one is in the center of such situation, one could never knew how much irresponsible words can victimize, and damage.
........... can edit please, so that others won't mistaken?
-
I think Prof Tan has the best answer to WP's win...
Prof Eugene Tan
\"WP knows what really works is (to plug away at) grassroots level. Turning in good report card for constituency work is more effective than giving fiery Parliament speeches, which not many people will pay attention to. It knows people don't have the bandwidth to process complicated policy arguments.\"
The very sad thing about MIWs is that even when they lose, to them it is no big deal, like this time round, they said it's just the \"BE effect\".
I personally think that they are too high up. Just look at the victory parade. WP used a lorry, the people can reach out to them, shake their hands. MIWs used a Hippo Tour bus, so high up there...how to touch base with those on the ground? :roll:
They will never be able understand what the average SGreans go thru.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better š
Register Login