Skip to main content

Pay Cuts: The Beginning Of The Decline Of The PAP


Money is always the secret of success for the PAP. Now, they have partly given away this secret weapon, where else, can they find another replacement?  For too long, the willingness to serve in politics is linked to money so that the PAP can attract calibre people to join the government.

This in fact is the story of the PAP. We should not look at this old normal. The other side of the picture is the new normal that we will see more and more committed and calibre opposition candidates willing to step forward for the country, for Singaporeans.

With a minus for the PAP and a plus for the oppositions, this is the meaning of the decline of the PAP. With this decline, we will see the decline of the PAP associated political organisations and activities, like the NTUC (members voting against the PAP), PA (for example the replacement of George Yeo) and the main stream media (losing their influence to social media).

In addition, the PAP is also losing its influence to the youth and young voters.  

What concerns most Singaporeans are their
HDB flats. The ministerial salary even after the “huge’ cut with the million dollars salary, this big sum of money can still buy them at least 2 or 3 or even more HDB flats within a year.

With the humble income, the average Singaporeans will take 10, 20, and even 30 years to own a HDB flat. And majority of Singaporeans are HDB residents. Hence, is the “Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries” doing the right thing and using the right benchmark?  Indirectly, the Committee is part of the machinery to help the decline of the PAP.   

Shall we say a word of thank to the Committee?

MP as career option

If my recall is correct (correct me if I am wrong), Dr. Toh Chin Chye had once encouraged the young to contest in the general election as even the MP allowance is attractive enough. Yes, if you imagine the starting pay of a fresh graduate.  How can a fresh graduate get nearly $20,000 monthly salary in today’s Singapore? (of course, you have to factor in the donation to party and community expenses).

Young people in Singapore should consider this career option as according to the report on “Salaries for A Capable and Committed Government”, by serving only 1 term, this young elected MP will be able to own a HDB flat.  If he or she serves another term, he may be able to upgrade to a condo.

Not to mention, if you are PAP MPs, there are directorship waiting for you to make extra money.

PM Lee has just mentioned about ‘give and take’. Now, the government has accepted the proposal of benchmarking top 1000 Singapore earners. And in return, the people should take it – anther top to bottom approach.

Paper Talent Is Not Talent: More Troubles Ahead For PAP.

The Committee has considered the issue of attracting talents for the PAP government. They believe the new and proposed structure is competitive. 

But, the big question is the definition of talent? For this, the Committee is still in the old normal: people score good academic results, from top junior colleges, scholars, and top civil servants.

Just like the above mentioned case of HDB, the Committee is only looking at the talent pool of the top and fails to consider the majority – people from neighbour schools, ITE and even polytechnics.

They have failed to realise that talents can also come from ordinary people. A hero emerges and changes the situation. 《英雄造时势》 In ancient Chinese history, people who overthrow an old dynasty are usually from the grassroots and have less education. Definitely, they are not talents in the eyes of the old rulers.

What the Committee is doing is building an environment so that they can help to find a hero 《时势造英雄》.  They may be right because with a peaceful and planned environment, heroes do appear.

Which way it will go, the Singapore voters have the final say.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...