The Straits Times ran a story on PAP MPs' rebuttals of Mr Chen Show Mao's speech on ministerial salaries. [note: the ST story is completely available for free, but it may not stay fully available for long]
Below is the text of what I wrote on Facebook about these PAP MPs' so-called rebuttals.
I am posting this instead of working because this article made me so fed-up. It is ok for politicians to engage in politicking, and it is entirely expected that PAP MPs would line up to try to rebut Mr Chen Show Mao (and probably told to do this, when they were scheduled to speak after him). But I cannot stand poorly-reasoned arguments, which are replete here.
1. "'The difference between the proposal accepted by the PAP Government and the WP's proposal is that the latter leaves out the principle of sacrifice (and the) discounts to reflect service to the people,' [Zaqy] said."
An odd conclusion, because the PAP-accepted proposal pays more (on an annual basis) to ministers than the WP proposal. How you get there (the formula) is important, but where you end up (the amount) is also important. If the WP proposal omits sacrifice, then how much more so the PAP-accepted proposal which pays even more?
2. ""It would be 'more transparent' to peg ministerial salaries to 'the competitive salaries that the calibre of people we are looking for in ministers earn, or have the potential to earn', said the Minister of State for Health [Amy Khor]."
Surely Dr Khor is not suggesting that the WP proposal is non-transparent. Whether or not you agree with it (I myself am not completely sold, because we would probably see the MX9 benchmark creep upwards), it is simple and transparent. The WP proposal was constructed using a bottoms-up approach, based on principled reasoning on how ministerial salaries should be determined. You may disagree with the approach, but calling it "less or non-transparent" is misconceived.
3. ""Such excitement 'was not because Mr Chen was considered to be a 'median-income' sort of guy, or somehow an emblem of the lowest income quintile of society', observed Mr [Alvin Yeo]. "Rather, with his 'sterling qualifications', Mr Chen 'was proof that opposition parties could also attract the sort of top talent, that one day perhaps may form the Government'."
Actually, the excitement was because Mr Chen gave up a big job and a big salary to join the Opposition (no parachute for him, no near-guarantee of a win) and then become a regular MP -- with nary a whine or moan about his pay-cut. Until the PAP understands that Singaporeans loved that because it exemplifies the spirit of public service (and the uncomplaining sacrifice that the PAP likes to talk about so much), they will NEVER get it.
4. "'Pay should not be the reason for entering politics, but neither should it be the reason for losing talent,' said Mr [Sam] Tan (Radin Mas) in Mandarin."
Actually, it should be, if the so-called talent in question is so overly-concerned about money, that a salary that can support a very comfortable lifestyle is not enough.
Showing posts with label Workers' Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Workers' Party. Show all posts
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
Monday, 22 August 2011
Leopards and spots
It is as if the PAP is determined to prove that leopards cannot change their spots. The People's Association can try its best to spin the truth, but the latest revelation from the Workers' Party completely destroys any plausible deniability that could possibly be left.
The Workers' Party's revelation has to be read to be believed, but in a nutshell, the HDB had the brazen nerve to lease some prime spots for grassroots events -- apparently previously by the PAP-controlled Aljunied Town Council -- to the People's Association. This was done quickly after the General Elections, on 27 May and 13 June, and apparently without any announcement or publication anywhere. On 15 August, the PA informed Sylvia Lim, Chairman of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, that "bookings by WP will not be allowed".
This is offensive on so many levels. The HDB needs to explain why it did what it did, and the timing for those actions. Why did it suddenly lease those areas to the PA, after the PAP lost Aljunied GRC, when those areas had previously been managed by the town council? Has it ever leased such areas to the PA in other constituencies ? What was the criteria for choosing those areas?
As for the PA, this drives the final nail through its pretense of being a true grassroots organisation -- as opposed to a state-funded para-political organisation used as a mobilisation vehicle by the ruling party. If it was truly non-political, it would not issue a blanket refusal to lease these areas to the Workers' Party.
Many will consider me naive, but I had hopes after the General Elections that the PAP would truly learn its lessons, and become a fair and just party truly focused on doing the right thing for all Singaporeans -- instead of working for the party's own narrow interests. I now see that that was too much to hope for.
Before May 7, I had privately predicted that GE2016 would be Singapore's equivalent of Malaysia's GE2008, when the opposition tsunami rocked the long-time ruling coalition. I did not see that happening this year. After May 7, I thought that the PAP still had a chance of avoiding an opposition tsunami in the next elections.
Well, let's just say that the PAP MPs and prospective candidates better have a Plan B in 2016, in case they lose. Many of them will likely need to use it.
The Workers' Party's revelation has to be read to be believed, but in a nutshell, the HDB had the brazen nerve to lease some prime spots for grassroots events -- apparently previously by the PAP-controlled Aljunied Town Council -- to the People's Association. This was done quickly after the General Elections, on 27 May and 13 June, and apparently without any announcement or publication anywhere. On 15 August, the PA informed Sylvia Lim, Chairman of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, that "bookings by WP will not be allowed".
This is offensive on so many levels. The HDB needs to explain why it did what it did, and the timing for those actions. Why did it suddenly lease those areas to the PA, after the PAP lost Aljunied GRC, when those areas had previously been managed by the town council? Has it ever leased such areas to the PA in other constituencies ? What was the criteria for choosing those areas?
As for the PA, this drives the final nail through its pretense of being a true grassroots organisation -- as opposed to a state-funded para-political organisation used as a mobilisation vehicle by the ruling party. If it was truly non-political, it would not issue a blanket refusal to lease these areas to the Workers' Party.
Many will consider me naive, but I had hopes after the General Elections that the PAP would truly learn its lessons, and become a fair and just party truly focused on doing the right thing for all Singaporeans -- instead of working for the party's own narrow interests. I now see that that was too much to hope for.
Before May 7, I had privately predicted that GE2016 would be Singapore's equivalent of Malaysia's GE2008, when the opposition tsunami rocked the long-time ruling coalition. I did not see that happening this year. After May 7, I thought that the PAP still had a chance of avoiding an opposition tsunami in the next elections.
Well, let's just say that the PAP MPs and prospective candidates better have a Plan B in 2016, in case they lose. Many of them will likely need to use it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)