Screw personalities. Test of any politician is whether he can deliver the goods. If the opposition doesn't want Kenneth, I feel the PAP should recruit him.
-
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.
RP - the party to watch for GE 2010
- Thread starter aurvandil
- Start date
Screw personalities. Test of any politician is whether he can deliver the goods. If the opposition doesn't want Kenneth, I feel the PAP should recruit him.
Without openly declaring a Minister specific strategy, KJ has started to launch a series of systematic attacks on Minister Gan. Overtime, we can expect this to expand encompass the whole of the FT policy. Going by TR's previous articles, this will get widespread support by TR. The demographics of the hotspots (Hong Kah/CCK) also mean that the message will be heard by a much wider audience as compared to other GRCs.
Minimum Wage
http://votingrp.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/minimum-wage/
Posted on September 28, 2010 by votingrp
Since I became leader of the Reform Party in April 2009 I have made the introduction of a minimum wage in Singapore one of our main policy pledges (see the link below for RP’s 19 main policy pledges): http://votingrp.wordpress.com/about/
Why?
Since 1998 the average incomes of the poorest 20% of households have fallen by around 20% after inflation. However this is undoubtedly a substantial underestimate of how far real incomes have fallen for poorer households.
The government measures inflation by the change in the consumer price index (CPI). This measures the change in the prices of a basket of goods consumed by the average household. This basket represents the items that the average family buys in the course of a week. However the basket of goods consumed by the poorest 20% is very different from that consumed by the average household. Food, transport, housing and other basic necessities represent a much bigger percentage of household income for poorer households. These items have risen in price much more than the average over the last ten years.
Also the CPI fails to capture the rise in housing costs because in Singapore our statistics department uses a notional equivalent rent for owner-occupied housing. The UK and other countries have moved away from this to a method measuring the change in the costs of an average mortgage and also incorporating a measure of depreciation costs. Since all HDB flats are on 99 year leaseholds and the life of an HDB block may be no more than forty years this needs to be reflected in the CPI. If we take an average HDB property then it loses one year of the remaining lease with each year that passes or 1/x where x is the number of years remaining on the lease. As the prices of HDB flats rise and the average lease gets shorter depreciation costs rise as well.
Taking these factors into account, average incomes of the poorest 20% of households may have fallen by up to 30% since 1998.
Why has this been so? Here the blame must be laid on the PAP’s open-door policy towards the employment of foreign labour. What should have been a way of attracting workers with special skills that Singaporeans lacked instead turned into a means of preventing wages from rising as rapid economic growth used up the pool of available workers. As a deliberate result of PAP policy, Singapore’s potential labour supply increased from our population to include most of Asia’s unemployed and underemployed masses. Far from rising, real wages of the lowest 20% were significantly depressed. Price signals were prevented from working as they should have in a market economy and there was no incentive for employers to invest in raising the productivity of the workforce. As a result our productivity performance over this period was one of the worst in the developed world. Real GDP per hour worked grew by only 1.1% p.a. over the period 2000-2008 while US GDP per hour worked grew by 2% and South Korea grew by 4.2% over the same period.
By adopting a minimum wage the Reform Party is ensuring that there is a floor below which real wages cannot fall and that employers focus on boosting productivity rather than relying on ever cheaper labour. Asia has a huge pool of underemployed and unemployed workers and without this protection real wages of unskilled labour in Singapore could continue to fall for years, if not decades. As leader of the Reform Party, I also want to couple a minimum wage with caps on the number of foreign workers, who compete directly with Singaporeans for jobs. Exceptions will be made for those with special skills that Singapore lacks. My own philosophy is pro-market and pro-business, as is the Reform Party, and we are certainly not opposed to economic growth. The Reform Party just wants to ensure that we are focused on the right measures, e.g. growth in real median incomes or in output per hour worked, rather than just on a crude GDP measure which has no relationship to the welfare of ordinary Singaporeans.
What sections of the population would it cover?
The Reform Party intends that the minimum wage should cover everyone, with the exception of foreign domestic workers. We may have a lower minimum for students and young workers and for those over the age of 55. The incomes of the latter can then be topped up through our proposed Guaranteed Minimum Income, just as they are now by Workfare.
What level would it be set at?
The Reform Party would want to conduct further research and consultation before it set the level. A possible initial level is around $5-$6 per hour though this could be raised over time in line with the CPI and the growth in average wage rates and taking account of broader measures of unemployment among the resident labour force.
Arguments against the Minimum Wage
Recently there has been a lot of discussion in the Main Stream Media of the arguments for and against a minimum wage. Again this follows a pattern that has been established since the PAP government’s Productivity Budget of 2010. Since 2009 as leader of the Reform Party I had been pointing out the productivity problem and stating that it was to a large extent due to the PAP’s cheap foreign labour policy. When the Budget came out it ignored what we had been saying and presented it as the government being aware of the problem all along and now moving swiftly to correct it. As usual there was no credit given to the Reform Party or acknowledgement that without political competition or an Opposition mistakes by the government would never get corrected.
Thus it is no surprise to see discussion of the merits of a minimum wage in the MSM given that I have made it one of the Reform Party’s main pledges since last year. It is also not surprising to see Minister of State Lee in his blog on the Ministry of Manpower website rejecting a minimum wage on the grounds that it may hamper the employment of low-skilled workers. However I find his arguments misleading given the fact that the labour market in Singapore is not restricted to Singaporeans but in fact encompasses much of low-wage Asia. On our house to house visits we meet many older workers who are unable to find jobs anymore because of competition from younger cheaper foreign workers and reduced to driving taxis. These people may not be directly helped by our minimum wage proposal though they would be by our proposed curbs on foreign workers where their skill set is already readily available in Singapore. Many Singaporeans who have been discouraged from looking for work may come back into the labour force once wages stop being artificially depressed by the foreign labour influx. And employers will have a greater incentive to use labour-saving machinery and automation, thus raising productivity.
The Minister says that low-skilled workers are better helped through Workfare. However the Workfare scheme is not only costly for the taxpayer. It is not related to need as it increases directly with earnings from employment in an effort to preserve the incentive to work. Most of it goes into CPF so it does nothing to help lower-income workers immediately who may be struggling to get by. The Reform Party prefers a minimum wage which preserves the incentive to work and puts a floor under wage costs for employers rather than perversely providing an incentive for employers to cut wages further. The Minister also mentions the Workfare Training Scheme. The Reform Party has put increasing spending on education and training at the forefront of its policies and we would continue to expand schemes for the retraining of low-skilled workers provided they could be shown to be of real benefit.
Conclusion
Without a minimum wage the real incomes of the bottom 20% of households could continue to decline. In addition the effects of the PAP’s liberal foreign labour policy are being felt only by this group but by all those below the top 20-40% of households.
The Reform Party is committed to the introduction of a minimum wage. We also want restrictions on the entry of foreign labour where Singaporeans already have the necessary skills.
The coming election will probably be a watershed. Which vision of Singapore do you prefer?
• The PAP vision which increasingly seems to be of Singapore as a low-cost low-wage economy run as a company where the population of foreign workers outnumbers substantially the Singaporean element. Though the government talks about a limit on total population size of 6.5 million, it is clear that the dynamic of the PAP model requires that our population continue to expand indefinitely; or
• The Reform Party vision which is of a high-wage high productivity economy where less emphasis is put on GDP growth and more on increasing GDP per hour worked. A country not a company where the welfare of Singaporeans comes first. It‘s up to you to decide. Vote wisely.
Minimum Wage
http://votingrp.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/minimum-wage/
Posted on September 28, 2010 by votingrp
Since I became leader of the Reform Party in April 2009 I have made the introduction of a minimum wage in Singapore one of our main policy pledges (see the link below for RP’s 19 main policy pledges): http://votingrp.wordpress.com/about/
Why?
Since 1998 the average incomes of the poorest 20% of households have fallen by around 20% after inflation. However this is undoubtedly a substantial underestimate of how far real incomes have fallen for poorer households.
The government measures inflation by the change in the consumer price index (CPI). This measures the change in the prices of a basket of goods consumed by the average household. This basket represents the items that the average family buys in the course of a week. However the basket of goods consumed by the poorest 20% is very different from that consumed by the average household. Food, transport, housing and other basic necessities represent a much bigger percentage of household income for poorer households. These items have risen in price much more than the average over the last ten years.
Also the CPI fails to capture the rise in housing costs because in Singapore our statistics department uses a notional equivalent rent for owner-occupied housing. The UK and other countries have moved away from this to a method measuring the change in the costs of an average mortgage and also incorporating a measure of depreciation costs. Since all HDB flats are on 99 year leaseholds and the life of an HDB block may be no more than forty years this needs to be reflected in the CPI. If we take an average HDB property then it loses one year of the remaining lease with each year that passes or 1/x where x is the number of years remaining on the lease. As the prices of HDB flats rise and the average lease gets shorter depreciation costs rise as well.
Taking these factors into account, average incomes of the poorest 20% of households may have fallen by up to 30% since 1998.
Why has this been so? Here the blame must be laid on the PAP’s open-door policy towards the employment of foreign labour. What should have been a way of attracting workers with special skills that Singaporeans lacked instead turned into a means of preventing wages from rising as rapid economic growth used up the pool of available workers. As a deliberate result of PAP policy, Singapore’s potential labour supply increased from our population to include most of Asia’s unemployed and underemployed masses. Far from rising, real wages of the lowest 20% were significantly depressed. Price signals were prevented from working as they should have in a market economy and there was no incentive for employers to invest in raising the productivity of the workforce. As a result our productivity performance over this period was one of the worst in the developed world. Real GDP per hour worked grew by only 1.1% p.a. over the period 2000-2008 while US GDP per hour worked grew by 2% and South Korea grew by 4.2% over the same period.
By adopting a minimum wage the Reform Party is ensuring that there is a floor below which real wages cannot fall and that employers focus on boosting productivity rather than relying on ever cheaper labour. Asia has a huge pool of underemployed and unemployed workers and without this protection real wages of unskilled labour in Singapore could continue to fall for years, if not decades. As leader of the Reform Party, I also want to couple a minimum wage with caps on the number of foreign workers, who compete directly with Singaporeans for jobs. Exceptions will be made for those with special skills that Singapore lacks. My own philosophy is pro-market and pro-business, as is the Reform Party, and we are certainly not opposed to economic growth. The Reform Party just wants to ensure that we are focused on the right measures, e.g. growth in real median incomes or in output per hour worked, rather than just on a crude GDP measure which has no relationship to the welfare of ordinary Singaporeans.
What sections of the population would it cover?
The Reform Party intends that the minimum wage should cover everyone, with the exception of foreign domestic workers. We may have a lower minimum for students and young workers and for those over the age of 55. The incomes of the latter can then be topped up through our proposed Guaranteed Minimum Income, just as they are now by Workfare.
What level would it be set at?
The Reform Party would want to conduct further research and consultation before it set the level. A possible initial level is around $5-$6 per hour though this could be raised over time in line with the CPI and the growth in average wage rates and taking account of broader measures of unemployment among the resident labour force.
Arguments against the Minimum Wage
Recently there has been a lot of discussion in the Main Stream Media of the arguments for and against a minimum wage. Again this follows a pattern that has been established since the PAP government’s Productivity Budget of 2010. Since 2009 as leader of the Reform Party I had been pointing out the productivity problem and stating that it was to a large extent due to the PAP’s cheap foreign labour policy. When the Budget came out it ignored what we had been saying and presented it as the government being aware of the problem all along and now moving swiftly to correct it. As usual there was no credit given to the Reform Party or acknowledgement that without political competition or an Opposition mistakes by the government would never get corrected.
Thus it is no surprise to see discussion of the merits of a minimum wage in the MSM given that I have made it one of the Reform Party’s main pledges since last year. It is also not surprising to see Minister of State Lee in his blog on the Ministry of Manpower website rejecting a minimum wage on the grounds that it may hamper the employment of low-skilled workers. However I find his arguments misleading given the fact that the labour market in Singapore is not restricted to Singaporeans but in fact encompasses much of low-wage Asia. On our house to house visits we meet many older workers who are unable to find jobs anymore because of competition from younger cheaper foreign workers and reduced to driving taxis. These people may not be directly helped by our minimum wage proposal though they would be by our proposed curbs on foreign workers where their skill set is already readily available in Singapore. Many Singaporeans who have been discouraged from looking for work may come back into the labour force once wages stop being artificially depressed by the foreign labour influx. And employers will have a greater incentive to use labour-saving machinery and automation, thus raising productivity.
The Minister says that low-skilled workers are better helped through Workfare. However the Workfare scheme is not only costly for the taxpayer. It is not related to need as it increases directly with earnings from employment in an effort to preserve the incentive to work. Most of it goes into CPF so it does nothing to help lower-income workers immediately who may be struggling to get by. The Reform Party prefers a minimum wage which preserves the incentive to work and puts a floor under wage costs for employers rather than perversely providing an incentive for employers to cut wages further. The Minister also mentions the Workfare Training Scheme. The Reform Party has put increasing spending on education and training at the forefront of its policies and we would continue to expand schemes for the retraining of low-skilled workers provided they could be shown to be of real benefit.
Conclusion
Without a minimum wage the real incomes of the bottom 20% of households could continue to decline. In addition the effects of the PAP’s liberal foreign labour policy are being felt only by this group but by all those below the top 20-40% of households.
The Reform Party is committed to the introduction of a minimum wage. We also want restrictions on the entry of foreign labour where Singaporeans already have the necessary skills.
The coming election will probably be a watershed. Which vision of Singapore do you prefer?
• The PAP vision which increasingly seems to be of Singapore as a low-cost low-wage economy run as a company where the population of foreign workers outnumbers substantially the Singaporean element. Though the government talks about a limit on total population size of 6.5 million, it is clear that the dynamic of the PAP model requires that our population continue to expand indefinitely; or
• The Reform Party vision which is of a high-wage high productivity economy where less emphasis is put on GDP growth and more on increasing GDP per hour worked. A country not a company where the welfare of Singaporeans comes first. It‘s up to you to decide. Vote wisely.
I find the term "alternative party" very silly too.
It was hatched by Alex Au, who is a leader in the "alternative lifestyle". When I got to know about this, I was amused. We have been using a gay term all along to describe our opposition parties.
Our oppo parties are here to contest and oppose everything that has gone wrong with the PAP. Lets not use sissy names on them that seek to tone down, dilute and moderate their message.
We don't just need an alternative to PAP. We need opposition to the malaise and sin that is happening.
Good point.
Good points.
Yes, I remember those times when WP was whacked silly left right centre for being arrogant online.
But as I recall also, much of the mudslinging was done by anonymous nicks, which later was revealed to be connected to "Shadow". So to be really fair to WP, I won't pin all the blame on them.
Reading RP facebook, I personally thought that they were extremely active online, offline, in the walkabouts, everywhere.
And always there are hundreds of people voting them the best party in the polls.
I guess they have a very aggressive "marketing strategy" -- note the inverted commas.
But as I recall also, much of the mudslinging was done by anonymous nicks, which later was revealed to be connected to "Shadow". So to be really fair to WP, I won't pin all the blame on them.
Reading RP facebook, I personally thought that they were extremely active online, offline, in the walkabouts, everywhere.
And always there are hundreds of people voting them the best party in the polls.
I guess they have a very aggressive "marketing strategy" -- note the inverted commas.
You are absoultely no fun at all.
In the past, the PAP was quite good at self renewal. Non-performing PAP Ministers and MPs were quickly and decisively replaced with young fresh faces. Those who were asked to step aside, lost power and prestige and faded to become shadows of what they once were.
These days however, we have a large number of proven failures clinging to power and refusing to step down. The fact that they are able to do so underlies the personal polical power they have gained. The refusal of MM to step down and retire makes a mockery of why younger "old" Ministers/MPs should step aside.
Without a renewal program, the PAP will eventually become like Malaysia's MCA/MIC. We will have a large number of "losers" in key positions who long overstay their effectivness and competency.
As a key Opposition leader, you should be doing everything you can to facillitate this future for the PAP. This includes tweaking NCMP system so that PAP Minsiters/MPs who lose elections can have a back door to stay on the national stage. These will become a millstone around the neck of the PAP and effectively prevent the rise of fresh talent to invigorate the PAP.
When KJ took over RP, he did what he did before, commenting on economic issue and all his comments were centred on it.
When NSP launched its Minister Specific tactic, it was immediately received by the public that old man had to step and made one of his threats about price of HDB flats collapsing. KJ as one could see began to follow and he obviously not going to endorse NSP's idea but he is clearly the same thing. Unfortunately as he had not defined it, it would have a similar effect.
One important consideration that RP is not taking into account is to avoid creating a perception of non-unifying or disruptive within the opposition fold. His comments over the SDA incident does not reflect well on him. Chee suffered from the same issue. It caused the SDP votes. I am sure it will cost the RP as well.
Once GE is over, I can reasonably state that some of its members will leave.
When NSP launched its Minister Specific tactic, it was immediately received by the public that old man had to step and made one of his threats about price of HDB flats collapsing. KJ as one could see began to follow and he obviously not going to endorse NSP's idea but he is clearly the same thing. Unfortunately as he had not defined it, it would have a similar effect.
One important consideration that RP is not taking into account is to avoid creating a perception of non-unifying or disruptive within the opposition fold. His comments over the SDA incident does not reflect well on him. Chee suffered from the same issue. It caused the SDP votes. I am sure it will cost the RP as well.
Once GE is over, I can reasonably state that some of its members will leave.
That will be true if RP fails to make any breakthroughs. If however they manage to win a GRC/SMC, then it will be a different story.
Bro, your operating rule is that anyone who disagrees with you has to be a follower of the PAP or behaves like the PAP.
It does not make sense does it. All the hard work in typing out your replies, arguing well on many instances, putting together cogent view on a number of occasions will fall flat if you keep up with this mantra.
Most of us hear are not for the PAP. You do realise that, do you.
It does not make sense does it. All the hard work in typing out your replies, arguing well on many instances, putting together cogent view on a number of occasions will fall flat if you keep up with this mantra.
Most of us hear are not for the PAP. You do realise that, do you.
To be opposition, you have to have seats in Parliament. In fact, in Canada, you must have a certain number of seats in Parliament to be recognised as an opposition party
I have to say their Facebook alerts to keep people of their every detailed ongoing - minus KJ's nonsensical fight-pickings - is impressive. However, it's partly helped by the fad / hype culture that comes with any new party or having a new prominent person on board.
To your last point, I have realized that a number here are for themselves. They would rather put themselves up on a podium even for a minute rather than put up what is required to do battle with the enemy.
My believe is that we may not see eye to eye but at lest we can walk hand in hand.
To your first point, it is a matter of POV. I have a view of us, being small organisms, fighting against a much larger body. If we do not work together we will not be able to win the battle. What you see me is only what you see. There are of course many occasions where I have left things as they are and not gotten involved. So, I do know my boundaries but only as I see them.
There seems to be a few here who do not know when to do battle, when to shut the FCUK up, when to swallow their pride. It is a case of me me me. My view my view my view. You see a paradox?
Have I said anything for my own good if it was not first said for the good of those that we say we are here for? We have a battle at hand and yet some do not know who the enemy is or what they are made out of and yet they have so much so say when they know so little about the APs.
BTW, if I recall correctly, it was I who first brought up the notion to use the term AP as it was a way to fight against the mainstream media's negative stance towards anything related to the Opposition Parties. The people have been imbued with these negatives for a long time. OP has had bad brainwaves connections.
I felt that a fresh start in the minds of the people would be good for the cause.
You should change your nick to Anti-RP or Pro-PAP. You have earned the title. You should be entitled to keep it! :oIo:
Of course. Any party that wins more seats will stem the tide. The question is whether the SDP 1992 episode will repeat given that there are already things going around.
Note that the other parties can survive defeats. NSP is made up of a handful of battle scarred veterans. SDP appears and appeals fresh to the young and trendy and certainly know the meaning of packaging. WP which had lost the biggest bunch, I don't know how but it managed to find a new big bunch of conservatives whose outlook is closer to its present leaders and form, perhaps due to mainstream brand name. RP will have it tough (and so will SDA when it loses Chiam).
Some people seem to have the funny view that Sammyboy is a nationwide newspaper. I might be unkind to KJ and RP but I express it here and do not ask people to spread the word. What I ask to spread the word is to vote any opposition including KJ. KJ will sink on his own with the attention his Facebook squabbles catches, which I believe Hawkeye sounded like he had a taste.
You know very little about politics, economics and what makes the PAP tick. What you say means very little because it is so out of whack with reality, facts, and all available evidence.
The PAP was good at self-renewal in the past because the top brass had every incentive to do so.
Once that incentives goes out of the window, so does the self-renewal. How can the PAP continue to have self-renewal when the Old Guard (MM, SM) refuse to budge?
The PAP is not obliged to help the opposition.
Then again, neither is the opposition obliged to help the PAP. I don't see why the opposition should do the PAP any favours by siding with them on the NCMP issue.
The NCMP issue must be attacked on the basis that it is a distraction and a poor substitute for a proper system of checks and balances.
But I appreciate your tongue in cheek humour, nonetheless :-)
Once that incentives goes out of the window, so does the self-renewal. How can the PAP continue to have self-renewal when the Old Guard (MM, SM) refuse to budge?
The PAP is not obliged to help the opposition.
Then again, neither is the opposition obliged to help the PAP. I don't see why the opposition should do the PAP any favours by siding with them on the NCMP issue.
The NCMP issue must be attacked on the basis that it is a distraction and a poor substitute for a proper system of checks and balances.
But I appreciate your tongue in cheek humour, nonetheless :-)
I think for all the comments on how horrible KJ is, criticism on his facebook comments, seriously this will not sway much of the voters over to PAP side.
What he is doing now is doing all the right things which is being hardworking in his walkabout, house visits, mingle with the residents, let people know about RP and who he is, and show to people how sincere he is to want to help them be the other voice in parliament (i refrain from using alternative voice :p)
There are many people who don't surf the internet for political news. They see a sincere politician trying to tell them his ideals, who knows they get familiar with him and might even toss him a vote when the time comes.
Anyone who is hardworking enough, even if they don't get the results now, they will get the due recognition and will help in paving their way.
What he is doing now is doing all the right things which is being hardworking in his walkabout, house visits, mingle with the residents, let people know about RP and who he is, and show to people how sincere he is to want to help them be the other voice in parliament (i refrain from using alternative voice :p)
There are many people who don't surf the internet for political news. They see a sincere politician trying to tell them his ideals, who knows they get familiar with him and might even toss him a vote when the time comes.
Anyone who is hardworking enough, even if they don't get the results now, they will get the due recognition and will help in paving their way.
Similar threads
