GMS Selling Home To Contest Election 吴明盛破釜沉舟背水一战

[Queen Seok Duk]

Compared to many others who sold their souls to the devil to contest in Election, GMS selling his precious HDB pigeonhole is nothing.

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

Regardless of source of funds for deposits and expenses, if what you say is true, then all candidates are making a "decent bet." They're all opportunists and we shouldn't vote for any of them. Spoil all votes?

There is a reason why politicians are ranked below car salesman and lawyers.

Barely 5 months after being "elected" as an NCMP and within his first few speeches, Steve Chia was already looking out for himself and arguing in Parliament for his NCMP allowance to be raised by more than 600% from what he was getting as an NCMP.

People tend to forget that politics can be an extremely lucrative career and gamble even for politicians who call themselves "opposition". Ask LTK and CST if you don't believe me.



http://www.parliament.gov.sg/reports/private/hansard/title/20020515/20020515_S0002_T0006.htm

2002 Budget Debate: Parliament -- NCMP honorarium
Wed, May 15, 2002

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Thank you, Sir. Thank you, Mr Chiam, for speaking up for me

Sir, the Senior Minister had once said, "If you pay peanuts, you will get monkeys." I agree with the Senior Minister on this matter.

Last month, the House had a passionate debate on NMPs and voted strongly to have them in this House. It had been said that NMPs were very good and had contributed a lot of good debate to this House. I was not here then, but I do not deny that they contributed a lot. I think NMPs had helped to liven up debates in the past, but I went to argue that there was no need for them in this session of this House, because the PAP Government was freeing up its MPs for more debates and disagreements, and this would help solve the cynicism and scepticism in youths. It was not listened to and I was out-voted.

Now that we are going to get NMPs in this House, I would want to speak up for them too. I think we should give them their due recognition. The honorarium of an NMP is at 15% of an elected MP's allowance. This is too little. Like all MPs, they have the duty to speak up and engage in good debates. We should therefore recognise their contribution and pay them an NMP allowance equivalent to 40% or more of the elected MP's allowance, instead of a small honorarium of just 15%.

As for the NCMP's honorarium, Sir, I would like to declare my personal direct interest in this matter. An NCMP is not quite, but is close to a political appointment. We know that when the PAP Government wins all the seats, there will be at least three such NCMP appointments.

Our role, as NCMPs, is as heavy as an elected MP. We are not only expected to be robust and vigorous in speaking up in Parliament and contributing to good debates. We are also contributing to nation building by giving the perspective of the non-PAP voters which number about 10-30%, depending on which election. This is important for the Government that takes pride in caring for all its people. On top of speaking in Parliament, the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament has to cover as many electoral constituencies as possible and get the feeling and understanding of the citizens, especially of those who are not supportive of Government policies. We have to understand their grievances and raise them in Parliament. Like all the elected MPs, constituency work is to build rapport and support with the electorate for the next election. This is the same duty as any of the elected MPs. Therefore, I hope the Prime Minister will agree with my above reasoning and look into reinstating the NCMP allowance to be on par with all the elected MPs, as it was first crafted.

My next cut is on legislative and secretarial assistance for NMP and NCMP. Sir, I would like to state my direct interest in this matter again. Like all MPs, NMPs and NCMPs are invited into Parliament to represent a different viewpoint from the PAP Government. They are expected to speak up with sound advice, research and argument, to raise issues and discuss policies and contribute to parliamentary debate. Therefore, will the Prime Minister also agree with me that it is necessary for NMPs and NCMPs to be given legislative and secretarial allowance to employ help? Does the House not want to hear more contributions and more in-depth debates from these NMPs and NCMPs?

Steve Chia

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Chau

As a businessman myself I would say you are again dealing in half truths and half stories.

1. Firstly it is expensive to run an election in a GRC regardless of whether you are PAP or Opposition not forgetting that the PAP starts of from recruiting the wealthier strata to begin with GMS needs the money because there are a lot of up front payments. I E Banners, I E Pamphlets IE Mail Drops IE Stage, mike feeding supporters IE Election deposit whereby the money is taken away from you. One might be able to recoup some of it selling party paraphanelia but a LOT of these expenses are UP FRONT, i.e invested up front in hope of a return later. From my knowledge of the maths involved any sane businessman would invest in a proper business and politics is not about earning money but wasting it.

2. Secondly there is the costs of lowering the expenses of first time candidates so that out of pocket expenses are not over 15 or 20k but under 10, multiply that by a five man GRC and the issues multiply.

3. GMS has stated his aim to fund the party NOT just his own GRC so multiply that by whatever candidates he can find and it becomes greater than six figures


4. There is a party tax on your MPs allowance, plus weekly and monthly out of pockets expenses after all that's left its much easier to make a six figure salary elsewhere and still have one's privacy.




Locke

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

Hence while the NSP is poor, it has a higher moral ground since none of them were ever elected.

This is not how Singaporeans see things. They want "successful" people to be their representatives in Parliament.

"Success" is defined as people with a minimum of a degree. PhDs and MBAs are better.

"Success" is defined as people who have done well in their careers or businesses.

In away, it is a reasonable expectation. If you can't even succeed in your studies, career of business or have to sell your flat in order to spend $20-$30K on an election, it doesn't speak very much of your drive, talent or abilities.

It may sound elitist but that is the minimum that Singaporeans expect from those who contest elections.

If being "poor" is a valued trait, Tan Lead Shake (and his slippers) would have been swept into Parliament instead of losing his election deposit in 2001.

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

Dear Chau As a businessman myself I would say you are again dealing in half truths and half stories.

I have provided you with hard facts and figures which can be easily verified using a mouse, keyboard and google.

Why don't you come up with hard figures instead of relying on the usual and trite "half-truths" and "half-stories" line? Tell me exactly which are the "half truths and half stories".

1. Firstly it is expensive to run an election in a GRC regardless of whether you are PAP or Opposition....

"Expensive" is a relative term. Tell me what is this "expensive" figure.

One might be able to recoup some of it selling party paraphanelia but a LOT of these expenses are UP FRONT,....

Same points as I made about election deposits. Deposits are upfront but the chances of recouping them and minimising your loss is very high. In other words and unless your name is Tan Lead Shake, a good bet that you won't lose or that your loss will be minimal.

4. There is a party tax on your MPs allowance, plus weekly and monthly out of pockets expenses after all that's left its much easier to make a six figure salary elsewhere and still have one's privacy.

Real figures please. What you see as a tax can be seen as an investment. I know the PAP has a "party tax" of $6,000 (1991 figures).

 

[Perspective]

I deliberately did not take into account his status as a businessman as it will make things worse.

If GMS can afford to pay upfront cash, he would have, as matter of common sense, contribute voluntary to his CPF from which he would then use to pay off his mortgage. This is since he stands to enjoy tax reliefs on his voluntary CPF contributions.

Be that as it may, the point is that while running for an election (or losing one) does cost money, it is not in the hundreds of thousands of dollar range suggested by GMS' announcement that he will sell his flat.

The figures I quoted for the PAP's biggest spender, Seet Ai Mei's $23, 913 expenditure refers.

Are you the financial adviser of GMS? Thought you wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole. Why would you decide for him that he should be putting his money in CPF? In any case, not everyone goes for that option - the incentive is negligible and reduces your own liquidity.

Did he also say that the hundreds of thousands of dollars come from the sales of his home alone?

 

[Perspective]

This is not how Singaporeans see things.

This is not about how Singaporeans see things. They can decide for themselves and if they want a PAP dominance, they will (hopefully) reap the benefits and (hopefully) not pay a big price that will cost their descendants.

This is about you and your lousy arguments.

 

[Perspective]

People tend to forget that politics can be an extremely lucrative career and gamble even for politicians who call themselves "opposition". Ask LTK and CST if you don't believe me.

I think the best people to ask are the PAP ministers. When it comes to lucrative, they know it so well, I'm surprised they haven't drowned in notes yet.

 

[cleareyes]

"Success" is defined as people with a minimum of a degree. PhDs and MBAs are better.

"Success" is defined as people who have done well in their careers or businesses.

Seems to me as PAP's definition of "success".

If that is the case, how come Singapore had so many failed policy if the country is handled by "successful" people?

 

[RonRon]

吴明盛 is doing all the right things, MBT is doing all the wrong things! Vote for 吴明盛

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Chau

1991 figures wow thats an apt comparison, n as the old saying goes xiang diang nen ...etc etc ohh for the good old days when a kopi o was just fifty cents a HDB flat was well etc etc I am sure you get the drift.

An oppo website quoted a figure of about 15% of an MP's allowances back to the MP I have heard the PAP's is at abt 20% so it would be in that range. Advantage PAP, PA is funded by the government etc etc. Opposition party MP's activities in the community are not

$3 per voter allowed to be spend under the LAW, 100,000 plus voters easily a max of 300,000 to 350,000 sing. Even assuming you run on a dollar per voter that is easily abt 100,000 to 120,000 not including election expenses for well your stage flowers, printing, mailing, how about printing costs even at 30 cents a piece the numbers add up very quickly. One five man GRC deposit abt 65,000 money that is taken away from you which cannot be used during the GE. All other costs upfront. Revenue comes from sale of paraphenalia etc and all in all most candidates will LOSE five to 10k

All in all why it is unprofitable to stand for GE even if you become an MP



Locke

 

[blueblobster]

That is because you missed out the latest economist report... that prices are already overvalued by some 20%(?) as compared to rent. In the event of selling and renting, no doubt rent goes up but price will also come down. And as foreigners are being checked, there will also be a drop in demands lowering rent.

And what is your justification for your statement? Any intelligent opinion to back up your view that rent goes up but price comes down when it does NOT make sense from a demand and supply POV? Why can't rent go up 20% to fill the gap instead? On what basis do you come to your conclusion?

Also you are grasping at straws when you start bring foreigners and whoever/ whatever supports your view into the equation.

people talk about money, needs, price elasticity...
you start talking about kam cheng, wants??

A rising tide lifts all boats and the reverse is also true... no doubt people who love RI must pay a price in the Bishan resale market... but on the whole as demands in overall resale market got shifted out, Bishan prices will also drop.. most incomer earners will know what a bargain they get from 6 digits savings, the same reason why gms tries for tampines...

Using terms like "price elasticity" and belittling me with words like "kam cheng" will not make you any smarter. I AM talking economics to you.

From my entire post, you took 2 sentences and ignored the rest just so you can keep using your "6 digit savings" assumption to justify your position.

Anyway, to help you along and remove kam cheng from the equation (since you seem to have missed the point entirely), replace "Bishan" with "Singapore" and my argument still stands.

Cheers.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Chau

1991 figures wow thats an apt comparison, n as the old saying goes xiang diang nen ...etc etc ohh for the good old days when a kopi o was just fifty cents a HDB flat was well etc etc I am sure you get the drift.

An oppo website quoted a figure of about 15% of an MP's allowances back to the MP I have heard the PAP's is at abt 20% so it would be in that range. Another PAP advantage, PA is funded by the government etc etc. Opposition party MP's activities in the community are not. More out of pocket expenses

$3 per voter allowed to be spend under the LAW, 100,000 plus voters easily a max of 300,000 to 350,000 sing spending per GRC . Even assuming you run on a dollar per voter that is easily abt 100,000 to 120,000 not including election deposits . Costings for well your stage ,flowers, mikes printing, mailing, heck about printing costs even at 30 cents a piece the numbers add up very quickly and then distribution costs ?. One five man GRC deposit is abt 65,000 cash that is taken away from you which cannot be used during the GE even though it is refundable. All costs upfront. Revenue comes from sale of paraphenalia etc and all in all most candidates will LOSE five to 10k and please remember the opposition draws from inherently less well off and less as you put it successful people

All in all why it is unprofitable to stand for GE even if you become an MP and why IT is expensive to provide PAP competition





Locke

 

[Zombie]

From my entire post, you took 2 sentences and ignored the rest just so you can keep using your "6 digit savings" assumption to justify your position.

that is because you like to make long post full of repetitive shit... get it :oIo:

if you cannot understand basic economic, better go watch spongebob... i don't wish to waste time repeating somethings which I have already answered in previous posts...

bye

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

Are you the financial adviser of GMS? Thought you wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole. Why would you decide for him that he should be putting his money in CPF?

You should be happy that I am assuming that GMS is honest in his tax returns, has some grey matter between his ears and has, as a matter of simple common sense, chosen this option.

In any case, not everyone goes for that option - the incentive is negligible and reduces your own liquidity.?

How can it reduce your liquidity when instead of using the same money to pay cash upfront, you are instead contributing that money to CPF from which you use to pay off your mortgage??? Plus don't forget the tax reliefs you are eligible for if you do that.

Did he also say that the hundreds of thousands of dollars come from the sales of his home alone?

That is precisely the problem. While he did not say, he has been more than happy with the impression it has given to the gullible who are going ga-ga over his announcement through a third party that he is risking that few hundred thousand dollars (based on value of flat) for country and citizens when clearly, that is not the case.

I mean if he had come up and say, I am going to spend and may lose $30,000 of my personal savings in this coming election, would anyone have gone ga-ga? It doesn't quite have the same impact as "I am selling my flat" or create the same publicity, does it?

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

This is not about how Singaporeans see things. They can decide for themselves and if they want a PAP dominance, they will (hopefully) reap the benefits and (hopefully) not pay a big price that will cost their descendants.

This is about you and your lousy arguments.

You can call it "lousy argument". however, the fact remains that even those who call themselves "opposition" are constantly looking for "better" candidates and pat themselves on the back when they find one.

What do you think they are referring to when they say "better"? Poorer? With not even a dollar in personal savings? Or who can't even succeed in their studies, careers or businesses?

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

Dear Chau

1991 figures wow thats an apt comparison, n as the old saying goes xiang diang nen ...etc etc ohh for the good old days when a kopi o was just fifty cents a HDB flat was well etc etc I am sure you get the drift.

I deliberately showed that those are 1991 figures since none were publicly and readily available for other years for comparison. That is also why I am using $30,000 maximum loss based on current year even though Seet Ai Mei, highest spender, spent $23,913 but still lost. It is to provide for increased cost. If you take that $30,000 max figure I cited, it is almost 15 times what SDP's Cheo Chai Chen, lowest spender spent ($2,188) but won.

$3 per voter allowed to be spend under the LAW, 100,000 plus voters easily a max of 300,000 to 350,000 sing.

Irrelevant. The limit can be $100 per voter. That does not mean that limit will be breached. In fact, as far as I know, none of the candidates who stood for elections has ever breached or even reached limits set for each election.

Even assuming you run on a dollar per voter that is easily abt 100,000 to 120,000 not including election expenses for well your stage flowers, printing, mailing, how about printing costs even at 30 cents a piece the numbers add up very quickly. One five man GRC deposit abt 65,000 money that is taken away from you which cannot be used during the GE. All other costs upfront. Revenue comes from sale of paraphenalia etc and all in all most candidates will LOSE five to 10k .

I have highlighted the most important part of what you say. That is the reason why I say the term "expensive" you used is a relative term. I was "generous" in my assumption of a final maximum potential loss of $30,000. Now you say it is just a $5,000-$10,000 loss. That is pittance.

If you see a $5-10K loss as a huge fucking financial loss and not pittance, I can't say anything. As I said, the term "expensive" is subjective.

 

[longbow]

If looked upon from investment point of view, potential earnings for an opposition MP can be significant. Current MP pay is $17K per month or $200K a year. There is also potential for speaking fees as opposition MP in many of the NGOs. Perhaps this is how Chee has been feeding his family and why Gomez has set up his own political think tank.

So lets say an opposition MP that is eloquent (given that achatty opposition mp commands a premium) and willing to go for talks, symposiums, op eds etc etc - that can easily garner another $50K to $100K a year in fees. Bear in mind that PAP MP can probably rake in additional director's fees (easily $10K to $20K per company per year)

SO we are talking about $250K to $300K a year for opposition MP. Believe that an MP's term is 4 to 5 years so we are talking about over $1M. If initial investment is $150K and potential return is $1M that is pretty good.

Chance are that if you do not make yourself too much of a pest (no attacking family but HDB, FT issues are ok), current political structure would prefer you to remain as opposition since it is becoming embarrassing when PM is asked by foreign press about lack of opposition. I suspect that that there is potential to remain as MP for a long time.

However, big question is how much GMS is making at the moment. How much will he stand to lose if he quits his current job and become a full time politician.

I am sure GMS is looking to serve from altruistic POV but things on the finance side can be pretty rewarding. I broached subject since that is what posters are talking about

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Chau

I gave you the max spend per GRC allowed and what the opposition currently spends with of course the PAP being able to spend a lot more. That $10,000 loss per candidate was already assuming some party subsidies for direct election expenses and some ability to generate sales from party paraphenelia and that is best case. GMS intends to help subsidize not just his GRC but the party.

You have also forgotten the need for upfront payment for many items and the fact that for many opposition candidates 10,000 or say worst case 20,000 might be a lot of money especially the younger ones who have just started a family. Of course 20,000 might not be anything for the Elite Strata the PAP recruits from but it is generally a lot for many



Locke

 

[cheekenpie]

There is a reason why politicians are ranked below car salesman and lawyers.

Barely 5 months after being "elected" as an NCMP and within his first few speeches, Steve Chia was already looking out for himself and arguing in Parliament for his NCMP allowance to be raised by more than 600% from what he was getting as an NCMP.

People tend to forget that politics can be an extremely lucrative career and gamble even for politicians who call themselves "opposition". Ask LTK and CST if you don't believe me.



http://www.parliament.gov.sg/reports/private/hansard/title/20020515/20020515_S0002_T0006.htm

2002 Budget Debate: Parliament -- NCMP honorarium
Wed, May 15, 2002

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Thank you, Sir. Thank you, Mr Chiam, for speaking up for me

Sir, the Senior Minister had once said, "If you pay peanuts, you will get monkeys." I agree with the Senior Minister on this matter.

Last month, the House had a passionate debate on NMPs and voted strongly to have them in this House. It had been said that NMPs were very good and had contributed a lot of good debate to this House. I was not here then, but I do not deny that they contributed a lot. I think NMPs had helped to liven up debates in the past, but I went to argue that there was no need for them in this session of this House, because the PAP Government was freeing up its MPs for more debates and disagreements, and this would help solve the cynicism and scepticism in youths. It was not listened to and I was out-voted.

Now that we are going to get NMPs in this House, I would want to speak up for them too. I think we should give them their due recognition. The honorarium of an NMP is at 15% of an elected MP's allowance. This is too little. Like all MPs, they have the duty to speak up and engage in good debates. We should therefore recognise their contribution and pay them an NMP allowance equivalent to 40% or more of the elected MP's allowance, instead of a small honorarium of just 15%.

As for the NCMP's honorarium, Sir, I would like to declare my personal direct interest in this matter. An NCMP is not quite, but is close to a political appointment. We know that when the PAP Government wins all the seats, there will be at least three such NCMP appointments.

Our role, as NCMPs, is as heavy as an elected MP. We are not only expected to be robust and vigorous in speaking up in Parliament and contributing to good debates. We are also contributing to nation building by giving the perspective of the non-PAP voters which number about 10-30%, depending on which election. This is important for the Government that takes pride in caring for all its people. On top of speaking in Parliament, the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament has to cover as many electoral constituencies as possible and get the feeling and understanding of the citizens, especially of those who are not supportive of Government policies. We have to understand their grievances and raise them in Parliament. Like all the elected MPs, constituency work is to build rapport and support with the electorate for the next election. This is the same duty as any of the elected MPs. Therefore, I hope the Prime Minister will agree with my above reasoning and look into reinstating the NCMP allowance to be on par with all the elected MPs, as it was first crafted.

My next cut is on legislative and secretarial assistance for NMP and NCMP. Sir, I would like to state my direct interest in this matter again. Like all MPs, NMPs and NCMPs are invited into Parliament to represent a different viewpoint from the PAP Government. They are expected to speak up with sound advice, research and argument, to raise issues and discuss policies and contribute to parliamentary debate. Therefore, will the Prime Minister also agree with me that it is necessary for NMPs and NCMPs to be given legislative and secretarial allowance to employ help? Does the House not want to hear more contributions and more in-depth debates from these NMPs and NCMPs?

Steve Chia

Steve Chia is back right?