Ha ha George has no answer to Chee's 3 simple questions

[moneyfacepap]

Dear Dr Chee

May I suggest you write to the PAP as what you propose seems rather formal.


I don't really want my FB activities to be so formal or serious. I am happy to engage as and when issues arise, but I do so as an individual without getting the PAP or MFA involved. Short responses, not long exchanges if possible. So far it has been fun for me and I hope to keep it that way. Hope you understand.

George



Dear George,

Thanks for your reply.

I have this impression that you are saying that you don't want to debate the issues without really saying so.

First, you say that you don't want your Facebook to be so formal or serious. And yet you use a picture of yourself in a business suit sitting in front of the Singapore flag with Hillary Clinton, obviously using your status as Foreign Minister.

Second, you say that you don't want to involve the PAP or MFA in the discussions. You are a minister and obviously a senior member of the PAP. How do you discuss political issues, as you are obviously doing with your FB visitors, without involving the PAP or the ministry you're in charge of?

Can an NSman say that he wants to discuss military matters on his FB (informally) but without involving the SAF? I hope you see the difficulty of your argument.

Be that as it may, I would be grateful if you could pass my message for a debate on to your secretary-general at your next CEC meeting. I'll write to Hsien Loong separately.

On this note, let's start a discussion. We can make it as informal as you want it to be but let's take it seriously. I can appreciate your sentiments about keeping your FB activity fun. But I think our fellow citizens would be aghast if we treated such weighty issues flippantly.

And if you insist, we can suspend the notion that you are a member of the PAP or cabinet.

I'd like to start with these three matters:

First, about your salary. Do you think you deserve the amount (it's nearly $3 million at last count, I believe) and are you comfortable with this knowing that the poorest of our poor whom you and your colleagues rule over are paid as little as $400 a month? Economically is this just? Morally is it sustainable?

Second, do you consider the Public Order Act that allows even a lone protester to be considered an illegal assembly constitutional? Also, organisations like the PAP Community Foundation and CASE are allowed to hold assemblies and processions while democracy activists are not. Is this fair? Constitutional?

Last but not least, is it right that the GIC and Temasek handle our national reserves but don't reveal the accounts and don't account for their transactions? What do you think about Ho Ching staying on as CEO after losses of $40 billion?

Happy National Day!

Soon Juan


Dear Dr Chee

I use a range of pictures for my FB accounts, some serious, some not so. Hillary was a celebrity in Phuket.

On salaries, the Public Orders Act and accounts of GIC and Temasek, there were extensive debates in Parliament which I don't think I can add much to, or subtract from. I believe the questions you ask were specifically replied to in Parliament.

On foreign visits, I often receive favourable comments about how Temasek is run. A number of countries actually hold Temasek up as a model to follow.

Happy National Day to you too!

George


Dear George,

I put a few issues to solicit your personal views because it was you who said that you didn't want to involve your party or your ministry in the discussions. But in your reply, you cite Parliamentary debates and say that the questions I asked were specifically replied to in Parliament.

Aren't these the views of your party that you didn't want to involve in the first place?

I ask again: What are your personal views about the amount that you are paid and do you feel you deserve it? What do you think about Singaporeans getting paid $400 a month? Do you think this is morally and economically defensible? Don't worry about the Parliamentary debates, I would like to hear what you as an individual think.

I also asked you about the Public Order Act and whether it is fair and constitutional for PAP supporters to hold processions and assemblies while supporters of the opposition are not. Again, I'm asking you for your thoughts and views, not those of your colleagues in Parliament.

Third, I asked you whether you thought that Ho Ching should stay on as CEO despite her losing $40 billion. You avoided my question by saying that other countries hold Temasek up as a model.

It's okay if you don't want to answer my questions. I would be grateful, however, if you would say it plainly rather that skirt the questions and give non-answers.

Soon Juan

http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/2648-is-george-yeo-avoiding-answering-questions

 

[makapaaa]

Wah lau weh! Familee Day Buffet was juz over and kenna stressed oready!
*Eunuch's CB shaking*​

 

[scroobal]

Really bizarre. He gets himself disqualified from running for parliament on silly issues and then he wants to use FB as a psuedo parliament.

 

[makapaaa]

<<May I suggest you write to the PAP as what you propose seems rather formal.
I don't really want my FB activities to be so formal or serious. I am happy to engage as and when issues arise, but I do so as an individual without getting the PAP or MFA involved.>>

The translation:
Geo Yeo:"Boh tua boh suay, remember your place in society before you engage in political debate" (ST, 20th February, 1994)
Geo Yeo:"If you are not of a certain intellectual class, don't even think of debating with me, you should stick to the Internet instead."​

<< Short responses, not long exchanges if possible. >>

The translation:
Geo Yeo:"I don't have a knuckle-duster or sharp hatchet in my bag. I dare not face you in the cul-de-sac."​

 

[moneyfacepap]

(Quote)

On foreign visits, I often receive favourable comments about how Temasek is run. A number of countries actually hold Temasek up as a model to follow.

Happy National Day to you too!

George




Foreigners know how Temasek is run and probably the strategies too.
So tranparency is only meant for foreigners and not for the contributing Singaporeans.

 

[annexa]

This time, I support Georgie boy. Chee is just asking the WRONG person and trying to make a mickey out of Heorgie boy.

 

[cleareyes]

Really bizarre. He gets himself disqualified from running for parliament on silly issues and then he wants to use FB as a psuedo parliament.

I find Chee's logic here very questionable.

This is facebook, not an open debate ground. Chee could not find ways to corner anyone and now try to use facebook to corner GY, its like trying to find trouble for GY and yet do so grudgingly. He does not understand that facing GY into a corner wont make GY look bad, instead make Chee and SDOP look petty and incapable fo open debate.

In a democractic society, accountablity is one thing, but the righ to/ not to respond falls within one's rights as well.

SDP's intention to force the issue is creating disruption in their consatnt talk on democracy.How could SDP claim to champion anything when they contridict their actions?

 

[po2wq]

georgie porgie, puddin' n pie ...
teased ze gals n made dem cry ...
wen ze boys came out 2 play ...
georgie porgie ran away ...

 

[Ah Guan]

Georgie Yeo received many pokes from Dr Chee

 

[annexa]

Georgie Yeo received many pokes from Dr Chee

From behind? hehehehehehehe

ARREST CHEE FOR SODOMY!

 

[MarrickG]

Dr Chee start his 'Tao Hong' again?

Forcing others to give an answer would only make him look bad and petty.

He should put more effort in trying to win a seat in Parliament in order to get a say in things and not waste time here. Even if he managed to kick up a huge ruckus on the Internet for this, there is no mileage to be gained.

Instead of complaining that SDP is unable to win because of the constant change in election regulation. He should start pondering why other opposition parties can win except those under him.

 

[2lanu]

PAP white scum claim of having fun in FB and non political is highly subjected to debate. The 144th media has been doing broadcasting this act and I bet that in future white scum will proclaim they are using FB to "engage" with the people... Who know..when election comes..

 

[ThePlen]

PAP white scum claim of having fun in FB and non political is highly subjected to debate. The 144th media has been doing broadcasting this act and I bet that in future white scum will proclaim they are using FB to "engage" with the people... Who know..when election comes..

obama did it too. sinkies are copycats

 

[moneyfacepap]

Monday, 10 August 2009
Singapore Democrats

Dear Dr Chee

I am a little puzzled over this exercise. I fully associate myself with the responses given by ministers in Parliament on salaries and the Public Order Act. I hope you were not thinking that I would privately to you say otherwise.


About the Singaporeans who don't earn enough, there are many programmes to help them. As an MP, I address their needs directly. In additional to government assistance, we raise additional funds from private sources and I must say that Singaporeans are generous. If you know of hardship cases in my constituency, please do let me know.

As for Temasek, it has done well against the market which was fully explained in Parliament complete with stats. Ho Ching wanted to step down but unfortunately the succession did not work out. So I suppose Temasek will have to go head hunting again.

George

Dear George,

No, I do not expect you to hold views that are different from that of the PAP. This was why I was surprised that you did not want to involve the PAP in the discussions. Like it or not, because you are a PAP Minister, what you say necessarily involves the party and your ministry.

On to the issues: Why can't Singaporeans who work 44 hours a week be paid a decent wage, one that is enough for them to survive without depending on programmes and handouts? Why can't they be paid their worth so that they can be financially independent? Handouts demean workers and enslave them to the dispenser.

There are many Singaporeans currently taking on full-time jobs who are paid so poorly that they cannot pay their bills, send their children to school, or live decent lives. At the same time, you and your fellow ministers pay yourselves million-dollar salaries.

From your reply, you obviously feel that your salary and the salaries of our working poor are economically and morally justified. I would like to ask you the reasons behind your justification. Should we not at least introduce Minimum Wage in Singapore?

On my second question, Parliament did not deal with the issue of CASE being allowed to hold a procession while my friends and I were arrested while doing the same for our Tak Boleh Tahan event. I asked you whether this discrimination is allowed under our Constitution. I would be grateful for your response, please.

Third, I raised the issue of the GIC and Temasek not being transparent and accountable even though they handle public monies. I note that you didn't respond to this point. Again, would be grateful for your thoughts on this.

The transition failure between Ho Ching and Chip Goodyear exemplifies what I mean about the non-transparency issue. Other than a brief and general statement from Temasek, little else is known about why Chip did not continue as CEO. Can the Government be more forthcoming with information on this?

The reason I posted this message to your inbox is because I did not want to detract from the ongoing discussion over the Burmese issue. But I have just requested to be your Facebook friend. Please note that our discussion is still a matter of public interest and I will continue to post it on the SDP's website.

Soon Juan

To read previous discussion, click here.



Share this article:

I would like to highlight an aspect of the minimum wage discussion that I believe is quite unique to Singapore.

Opponents of a minimum wage policy - and they are usually those in a position to either institute such a policy (ie. government) or implement them (ie. employers) - frequently point to increased operational costs of business as a justification for their objections.

There is, arguably, merit to such an argument, but only if you accept it at face value.

In Singapore a peculiar situation appears to have been allowed to develop, and it also appears (to me) to have the PAP government's backing via its much touted tripartite, one arm of which is employers.

Allow me to backtrack before I arrive at my point.

About one or two years ago, I came across an article someone posted in a forum on income distribution within corporations/organizations in the OECD countries, and accordingly:

1. CEOs of US companies made either a) 20 times the median income level within the corporation/organization; or, b) 20 times the lowest income earner/s in the same corporation/organization - I forget which.

And this, in the country that some think of as the temple of capitalism (and its excesses).

But this was the part that shocked me:

2. The findings for Singapore stood out over all the other countries. I cannot remember the figure but it was something outrageous like 50 times. Should this come as a surprise in a country where the George Yeos earn $3 000 000, while others are breaking their backs for $400? It also mimics feudal class structures, incidentally. But a coincidence? I suspect otherwise.

I believe that attributing this phenomenon solely to employer greed doesn't quite fully explain it. Why for instance is this phenomenon reflected in the civil service? Or nationally?

Why have incomes in the top ranks of the private sector become the benchmark for ministerial salaries?

I now come to an aspect of the psychology of money, for want of a better descriptor.

1. The more money one has compared to others, the more powerful one feels over those same others. (Why do Singapore workplaces function exactly like the larger Singapore polity?)

2. The wider the income and financial disparity, the larger the gulf in felt power, and the wider the power imbalance.

Assuming this obscene income differential between ordinary workers and their bosses in Singapore is true - it was a study done, anyway - then the increased-operational-costs counterargument by opponents of minimum wage actually wrongly assigns blame to workers for any increased costs due to increased income; employer income would appear to be a disproportionately large component of the cost of doing business.

An equitable income (re)distribution policy is crying out for the taking.

The increased costs counterargument is at best suspect.


Robox - Unemployment Insurance Tue, 11 Aug 2009 9:03 am

There are now so many issues that the SDP has been championing that are being increasingly discussed, even by the PAP government. Typically, no credit is being given to the party that has been championing these issues.

This is my attempt to help correct this growing situation by re-associating the SDP with another issue that it has been championing and that is seeing increased attention: unemployment insurance or UI.

Specifically, this post is my reaction to the following quote by Dr Chee in his latest post to George Facebook.

Re: "Why can't Singaporeans who work 44 hours a week be paid a decent wage, one that is enough for them to survive without depending on programmes and handouts? Why can't they be paid their worth so that they can be financially independent? Handouts demean workers and enslave them to the dispenser."

True. Handouts do demean and enslave, and go a long way to reinforcing the feudal economic relations between the king and his subjects. How else are we to feel beholdened to His Royal Highness who deigns to throw us His Crumbs every once in a while?

But entitlements don't demean. And neither do they enslave.

Unemployment insurance, if instituted, is an entitlement because a program like UI is typically paid for by workers themselves. (Think: CPF.) In the event that a person is unemployed, s/he would be collecting on his or her premiums, and enslavement to the dispenser does not even factor into play.

A while back, this blog featured several articles on how the economy is skewed unhealthily towards an export-led one. The same export-led sector typically gets hard hit during economic downturns which are epitomized by job losses.

1. The PAP government's economic planners - whom I liken to having gamblers' mentalities - have always known that the export-led sector is disproportionately large in Singapore. (I'm leaving out considerations over whether this is being done out of necessity because it is not incumbent on anyone not involved in the said planning to know this.)

2. Experience with previous recessions have shown that when a recession hits Singapore due to downturns in our export markets, the workers in the export industries are the first to be hit with job losses which then spreads to other sectors.

3. Many people who have lost their jobs have little or nothing to fall back on financially.

4. With previous experience behind them, couldn't they have foreseen the repeat of the same scenario?

5. If they did, and with previous experience behind them, why haven't they instituted unemployment insurance?

6. Is Singapore not in any financial shape to be able to institute unemployment insurance?

This is not the welfarism that the PAP government has turned into a dirty word.

This is social security.

This is the social contract that we need to re-commit to as Singaporeans to ensure that our fellow citizens can continue to look after themselves during economic and financial hardship.

If jobs cannot be guaranteed because of the capitalist aspects of the labour market, then we need to try and guarantee at least a temporary, non-job income to those affected by job loss.

 

[fengshuisifu]

Give Georgy Boy a break..Facebook is a special privilge, in which he has the courtesy to reply. Chee should not take for granted, though I am a neutral political supporter.

 

[moneyfacepap]

Half time break

Chee 3 - George 0

 

[fengshuisifu]

Globally people are spending many hours including working hours to access the FACEBook, whether u like it or not..Abuse or taking advantage to your own use, is up to u...

 

[scroobal]

Agree with you.

Chee is truly an enigma. His command of the language is solid and only Francis Seow can match him. Even JBJ is not as strong. The parliament would have been an excellent forum. I would have liked to see the PAP finding a way out from his pointed questions.

He should have been patient and determined as Chiam in getting into office. Time would have erased the memories of conservative moralistic right, allowed young voters to get in and then get him into office. He however chose to be suicidal in his approach. The Indonesia "where is the money" fiasco was an unexpected gain for the PAP. Even today, the zealots thought that the money was given to the Indonesians.

Now this.

The other thing that I cannot understand is the appearence of clueless and headless chickens as defacto face and voice of SDP. First we had Uncle Yap and now we have Lamei. Both obviously sincere, dead keen, gutsy but truly unsophisticated and definitely out of depth with the art of politics or the nature of public discourse. Notice the smarter party members and supporters stay by the side.

I wonder if its mischief or exploiting the naive and the slow.

I find Chee's logic here very questionable.

This is facebook, not an open debate ground. Chee could not find ways to corner anyone and now try to use facebook to corner GY, its like trying to find trouble for GY and yet do so grudgingly. He does not understand that facing GY into a corner wont make GY look bad, instead make Chee and SDOP look petty and incapable fo open debate.

In a democractic society, accountablity is one thing, but the righ to/ not to respond falls within one's rights as well.

SDP's intention to force the issue is creating disruption in their consatnt talk on democracy.How could SDP claim to champion anything when they contridict their actions?

 

[moneyfacepap]

Globally people are acceptable.

PAP scum sucking millions from the people should be well prepared since entering the polictical arena!

 

[scroobal]

Obama, GY and other politicians use it to keep their fan base and potential supporters in the loop who go away thinking they are are being engaged.

Nobody with half a brain will engage in a serious debate using FB as a forum. You ski on snow and not on the road.

Its shows desperation.

obama did it too. sinkies are copycats