Skip to main content

PAP Politicians aim to be Super-Rich? Huat Ah!



‘Super-Rich and Us’, a BBC documentary, may be a good refreshment to watch if you have time over the Chinese New Year holiday. If you have only 15 minutes, then you can go straight to the last 15 minutes of part 2 for a brief summary.
The 2-part documentary explains how British government, in order to boost economic growth, offers tax incentives to Super-Rich and promotes London as a financial centre. How rich becomes richer despite financial crisis. Even poor can still be a market for the Super-Rich as their debts increase.
Singapore in many ways is promoting and attracting Super-Rich. The following articles will provide you some background information:

Wealth Over the Edge: Singapore

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324662404578334330162556670

Singapore — home to the world's super-rich

https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/singapore-home-worlds-super-rich-162204066.html

Singapore: playground of the super-rich


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2BiuW93bos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xa8b9bm45M
A model of top 1%

The BBC documentary describes the model of attracting the Super-Rich as a top 1% model. The PAP government is doing the same thing here with one exception. They argue the Super-Rich and their investment will help to boost economic growth here. So, we must support them, providing them incentives, safety and security. By doing so, the PAP politicians also aim to be the Super-Rich.

This is the exception to the British model. The difference between a competitive and controlled election environment.  Without competition, the PAP politicians peg their salaries to the top earners - Super-Rich in the society. No other democratic elected governments in the world dare to match the salaries of their ministers and senior civil servants to the top earners and Super-Rich. Neither labor nor conservative government, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans, not to mention European countries, will dare to match their political salaries to the Super-Rich.     
Saving and investment
PAP politicians are able to accumulate savings over their fat salaries. If they are not political holders, they can hold directorship in the listed companies to get ‘extra income’ on top of their salary and MP allowance. They are able to accumulate their first million (第一桶金）saving faster and earlier than many other Singaporeans.  In fact, our ministers can easily get their ‘first gold’ within a year.  This is an important milestone for any person.  
Even Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou, with his modest income, still manages to save quite a lot. In Taiwan, all key political holders need to declare their annual income to the parliament.

The information shows that Ma’s personal account has increased by NT$2.2 million (US$70,186), in addition to NT$2 million placed into fixed deposit accounts, while first lady Chow Mei-ching’s (周美青) account increased by NT$1.19 million, with NT$200,000 placed into a fixed deposit account.#1
Ma’s saving is really a very small sum as compared to PAP ministers. However, he is still under fire and is attacked by the oppositions. Do you think Ma will dare to match his salary to the Super-Rich in Taiwan?  
Saving is an important asset. PAP government wants Singaporeans to save money too, through the CPF system. However, a ‘first gold’ saving of extra fund is different from CPF saving. Wealth managers, financial advisers and investment bankers who advise Super-Rich will approach ‘first gold’ winners for all kinds of investments, be in property, stocks, bonds or future as explained in the BBC documentary.  With a big saving, ‘first gold’ winners can make big investment and big return. This makes the rich-poor gap bigger and bigger. But the Western politicians dare not think of ‘first gold’ and Super-Rich.

Unsustainable situation for the PAP
PAP’s past advantage in awarding themselves ‘first gold’ has gone. No matter what explanation the PAP gives, voters will question their moral obligation to serve. The PAP is supporting an unsustainable model of top 1%. This model of rich-poor divide has posed a great challenge in democratic countries in the world.  Not to mention, the politicians dare to think of ‘first gold’ and become a Super-Rich.

Political parties in other countries have not made ‘first gold’ and Super-Rich their goal.  Unfortunately, the PAP thinks differently and wants to make ‘first gold’ as an incentive for their ministers and Super-Rich as their ultimate goal.

The PAP’s moral high ground is to create ‘first gold’ opportunities for their politicians. How can they win an election with a model of top 1%? How can they convince 99% voters who are not Super-Rich?       


#1
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2015/02/16/2003611694
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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 ...
277 comments
Read more

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...
51 comments
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more