• 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.

Change policies, not just ministers

metalslug

Alfrescian
Loyal
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
3,619
Points
0
http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/4836-change-policies-not-just-ministers

Change policies, not just ministers
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Singapore Democrats

singaporeministers.jpg


The question that Singaporeans must ask is not who is appointed to which ministry but rather what policies will emanate from these new ministers.

If there is a lesson in this elections for the PAP it is that the people are fed-up with its policies on the cost of living, foreign workers, housing, transportation, education, etc. Shifting portfolios among ministers without addressing these policies signals that the Government is interested only in cosmetic changes.


For example, if Mr Khaw Boon Wan who replaces Mr Mah Bow Tan continues with the Ministry of National Development's policy of not revealing the real costs of constructing HDB flats, Singaporeans will still be in the dark as to how much their flats really cost and how much profit the Government is making from HDB sales.

Without this transparency, we cannot make sound policies that guide the pricing of HDB flats. If this is the case, whether it is Minister Khaw or Minister Mah is of no benefit to Singaporeans.

We look forward to each minister coming out over the next days and weeks to clearly articulate the new policies and policy initiatives which we expect to be significantly different from their predecessors'. Otherwise, it is a clear message that it is politics-as-usual from this Government.

Also, it is noted that ministers who have performed poorly in the previous Government have been retained and given another ministry. For example, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan who managed the Youth Olympic Games badly and was heavily criticised for his insensitive remarks about the poor, is now given the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources.

And former Environment Minister Mr Yaacob Ibrahim who could not get a grip of the seriousness of the floods that caused so much damage to Singapore now assumes the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts without conclusively dealing with the flood problem.

How will the performance and effectiveness of the Government be raised with such lateral movement?

In addition, we still have Ministers who have been assigned to the Prime Minister's Office without a portfolio (Mr Lim Swee Say and Mr S Iswaran). Exactly what do these ministers do?

Another unexplained set of appointments are the second ministers. What exactly are their roles? How do they assist the ministers? How are their jobs different from the ministers of state?

PM Lee Hsien Loong must explain to the people why he has made these appointments and how these posts help in the more effective governing of Singapore.

Finally, if PM Lee is genuinely contrite and is determined to lead a government that listens to the people, then he will announce an across-the-board reduction in the Ministers' salaries. The astronomical wages that the Ministers draw, despite the poor performance of the last government, have caused much anger among Singaporeans.

The SDP has recommended that the PM's salary be reduced to $60,000 a month and the ministers' wages follow accordingly.
 
>>The SDP has recommended that the PM's salary be reduced to $60,000 a month and the ministers' wages follow accordingly. <<

$60,000 a month means Ass Loong can still buy 1 new car every month. CHAO CHEE BYE!
 
Thats $750K a year, excluding bonus, allowances, travel expenses, "pension", other directorships, family connections etc... Still too much in my opinion. $60,000 per annum is more like it.
 
Any accountant or bookkeeper here? How much could be saved if we peg their salaries to that of politicians rather than third world dictators? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I don't understand what qualifies a bankrupt to talk about national financial affairs and make recommendations thereof. I'd recommend that he gets his own house in order and get out of bankruptcy first. An offence may be committed here, a bankrupt using the title of a party secretary-general to make personal opinions for political purposes and sway public opinions about national finances. I'm not sure and hope that the Official Assignee would look into this.
 
Back
Top