Old Guy on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 4:59 pm 

Same faces from the same show
doing the same thing
and playing the same roles
and getting more than the same pay..

anon on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 5:45 pm 

elites appointing elites… what’s new?

ric on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 8:18 pm 

Tharman Shanmugaratnam, the minister with fraud record. Nice…

XiSd Tay on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 8:33 pm 

Multiple appointment, Millisters = $2 million, add this, add that, everyone yearly at least $5 million.

POWER A!!!!!!!!!!!

Jane Goo on Thu, 22nd Oct 2009 12:16 am 

ric,
Does that minister have a fraud record? What’s that about?
Kind of curious (sorry, not too updated with current affairs).

Secret Political Blog on Thu, 22nd Oct 2009 12:33 am 

I would prefer an independent central bank. But it looks like that’s never going to happen.

young01 on Thu, 22nd Oct 2009 2:24 am 

@ Secret Political Blog

I totally agree with you there. But then again, looking at the history of the separation of central bank, it’s more likely there will be an independent judiciary then an independent central bank. There have not been many countries that have independent central banks but not an independent judiciary. It’s not that they’re related, but the idea is that the willingness of the ruling party to divest its control over the organs of state is key. And so, judging from the likelihood (or lack thereof) of an independent judiciary in Singapore, is it at all probable that the MAS will be able to attain independence, especially when it’s directly under the control of the Prime Minister’s Office? And yes, it’s not under MOF, in case some people were wondering.

One Man Army One Man Country on Thu, 22nd Oct 2009 9:14 am 

Singaporeans should know fully well by now that in Singapore everything is centralised. Under one man.

XiSd Tay on Thu, 22nd Oct 2009 10:00 am 

If Cris Low kenna sold left right up and down for simple credit offence just because of a beauty pagent, then this CONVICTED Millisters under the OSA can still be appointed to a position that handles CASH?

Wow, the advantage of being related and protected by the famiLEE.

don on Thu, 22nd Oct 2009 10:36 am 

Oh come of it Wayang Party. Tharman not convicted of knowingly releasing OSA information. It was something to do with negligence in relation to the document containing the flash estimate.

ExPoLiCe on Thu, 22nd Oct 2009 11:14 am 

Ris Low drawn the flake because she is going to represent
Tharman’s case was in 1992. Furthermore, it is not that he had leaked out state secret. That info is going to be published anyway but due mainly to his negligence or ignorance, sent it to people before the official announcement.

Apparently, ISD looked into the case. You should be more informed than most of us since you were in there during that time.

don on Thu, 22nd Oct 2009 11:50 am 

I see you changed the posting significantly but you still got it wrong. Tharman was not convicted of what the Prosecution originally charged him with. His charge was amended by the court to a less serious one than what he was originally charged with.

XiSd Tay on Thu, 22nd Oct 2009 3:56 pm 

@don: Tharman was charged and convicted, what charges and offences is irrelevant. Issue is HE IS CONVICTED.

That in layman’s term is STILL A CONVICTION, gravity of the offence is not an issue.

And to have a CONVICTED person acting as one of the HIGHEST RANKING & PAID leaders in Sinkapore is ……err…..you tell me.

@ExPoLiCe: The conviction is TRUE and on record. Need I say more or you would like to rease CRO’s record and dispute the FACTS?

Are you suggesting (as an ex police in the force) that a person’s past crimminal conviction is IRRELEVANT when considering his appointment as a Millister?

Jane Goo on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 12:52 am 

I have read previously in the papers that PAP is strict with their selection of MPs and Ministers. Apparently all kinds of tests, interviews and checks. Pretty scary.

I suppose there are more details to the case, as suggested by Don and Ex-Police. Are there previous newspapers reports on this that can be referred to?

Anyway, my friends (myself included) think that this Tharman has done a fairly good job on the economy in this downturn. At least the current u/e rate is not as high as in the US.

ExPoLiCe on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 9:53 am 

@XiSd Tay, I am not disputing the fact that Tharman was previous fined for an offence committed. However, we should look at this from a wider perspective. If he was charged and convicted for offences like cheating, criminal breach of trust or other offences that might suggest that his integrity is in doubt, then I would say that he is not fit even to be a MP, not to say a Minister. His convicted charge, from what I read, is not even OSA, but just pertaining to some negligence act. You can read it on Wiki if you are interested.

Tharman might have done something wrong back then but as far as I am concern, he had been duly punished and should be given the chance to move on.

As mentioned by Jane, I agree as well that Tharman has done a fairly good job thus far, which then further justify his appointment.

ExPoLiCe on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 9:54 am 

@XiSd Tay, I am not disputing the fact that Tharman was previous fined for an offence committed. However, we should look at this from a wider perspective. If he was charged and convicted for offences like cheating, criminal breach of trust or other offences that might suggest that his integrity is in doubt, then I would say that he is not fit even to be a MP, not to say a Minister. His convicted charge, from what I read, is not even OSA, but just some negligence on his part. You can read it on Wiki if you are interested.

Tharman might have done something wrong back then but as far as I am concern, he had been duly punished and should be given the chance to move on.

As mentioned by Jane, I agree as well that Tharman has done a fairly good job thus far, which then further justify his appointment.

don on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 10:05 am 

Dear XisdTay, you were the one who compared Ris Low with Tharman now you say gravity of the offence is not an issue. I think you don’t really know what Tharman was convicted of right? At least Wayang Party had the decency to amend their original post heading.

fair and square on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 10:51 am 

I must concur that our own LOCAL TALENT-which perhaps we should
acronym as LT as against the much-hyped FT-should be given a’SECOND CHANCE”!!!See,if not we weren’t have Mr Tharman in the HSL cabinet.I have every faith that Mr Tharman,having tasted
“upsets” and gotten himself back nicely on his feet,understands better the plight of the locals-who are also honestly trying their very best for nation-building-and he(Mr Tharman),would do his very best in the interest of his fellow countrymen(AND WOMEN).
So,YES!let’s salute him and give him support and sincere encouragement.
On the other hand,how about considering to reflect if we,as a NATION of GRACIOUSNESS and true “KAMPONG SPIRIT”,could reinstate our lesser “tharmans” who have lost their livelihood,the LT and OTHERS,to a status befitting our “S C”-sinagpore citizen-with which we so faithfully and proudly endorse
on our passports and visas each time we come in and out of our
famed CHANGI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT!
Like you,OUR DEAR LEADERS,we are farily educated and broad-minded enogh to accept “FT THAT CONTRIBUTE TO SINGAPORE” but
“WE(the locals) ARE SINGAPORE!”,aren’t we?

XiSd Tay on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 10:59 am 

@Don, you are missing the point here. I said if Low’s offences (whatever the gravity is) already warrant netizens to cry foul, then one should not expect any lesser integrity from a person holding such a high position in Sinkapore (much much higher than a beauty queen, right?).

Again, fact is, he is CONVICTED or are you disputign that he NEVER was?

Apparently, Sinkaporeans like YOU feels that is is allright for a CONVICTED person to be an appointed MP, Minister and head a branch handling MONEY.

Its precisely mentality like YOURS thats causing Sinkapore to sink so fast.

@ExPoLiCe, glad you admitted that he was INDEED CONVICTED & FINED. While I do agree that one convicted, has paid his debt to society should be allowed to improve and move on, but we are talking about the Civil Servants here, not just any organisation.

For a person holding such a HIGH POSITION, his integrity should be impeccable and in this case, it was an offence under the Official Secrets Act, not just a Traffic Summons which qualify for minor offences.

I DO NOT condemn Tharman for what he has done nor do I have anything against him, Its the suitability of the appointment of a convicted person that I am talking about.

Since you are from the Force, you should know that even if you have a Drunk Driving CRO record, joining the Police Force as a Junior Officer will be almost impossible, agree?

fair and square on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 11:51 am 

Jesus Christ,widely accepted to be a GREAT TEACHER-even acknowledged and deeply aprreciated by MAHATMA GANDHI;himself, an universally accepted thinker-once remarked: “Let the one who has not sinned throw the first stone…”You see,Jesus was trying to pacify some among the crowds who wanted to stone to death a prostitute,and of course,that poor lady was spared and she herself became a biblical figure,a good example of repentance on the one who sinned and the ones who forgave!
What i am sincerely driving at is that GREAT MEN like Gandhi and Jesus and Buddha and their likes,had taught us COMPASSION
as no one is perfect.
So,let’s not condemn someone just because he errs;unless of course he deliberatley continues to do so and cause harm to others.Let folks make amends instead by contributing to others for they may be the other “THARMANs”.

Jane Goo on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 12:21 pm 

Thanks, ExPolice. I saw more info on wiki

“While serving as economics director in Monetary Authority of Singapore in 1993, Tharman was charged under the Official Secrets Act in a case involving the release of Singapore’s 1992 second-quarter flash projections[3] to a research director Mr Raymond Foo, and economist Manu Bhaskaran, of Crosby Securities and journalists, Kenneth James and Patrick Daniel from the Business Times Business Times.

The OSA case, which stretched over more than a year, was reported extensively in the Singapore press. Tharman contested and was eventually acquitted of the charge of communicating the GDP growth flash projections. Senior District Judge Richard Magnus then introduced a lesser charge of negligence, because the prosecution’s case was that the figures were seen on a document that he had with him at a meeting with the private economists which he had attended with one of his colleagues. Tharman contested this lesser charge too, and took to the witness stand for a few days.

The court nevertheless convicted him together with all the others in the case, including the editor of Business Times which eventually published the figures. Tharman was fined S$1,500, and the others $2000. As there was no finding that he knowingly communicated any classified information, the case did not pose any hurdle to his subsequent appointment as the Managing Director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore.”

Well, I am a supporter of yellow ribbons campaign.

XSid Tay, too bad you are no longer a Singaporean. Otherwise, you can also do your part for the yellow ribbons here.

fair and square on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 12:43 pm 

@jane goo
Good to note that you are ardent supporter of YELLOW RIBBON.
But to be fair,how about the other “tharmans”?!

ric on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 1:02 pm 

IMHO, Singapore is a country where yellow ribbons campaign is only a showbiz. You go look for a job, if u were convicted before, 99% you will lose the job to a less qualified person. Yellow ribbon project are only tools for labour exploitation. Unless you are convicted rich, you will be condemned one way or another. The system of this society simply do not work the same way we believe in. Discrimination in all aspect is the fundamental fabric of our society.

Anonymous on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 1:08 pm 

Yellow ribbons only works if ONLY those who preached practices what they preach.

Do anyone think Francis Seow is extremely impressed???

Go figure.

ExPoLiCe on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 1:42 pm 

@XiSd Tay, as what you have correctly pointed out, anyone who wish to join the police must not have criminal record. It is not that SPF is not forgiving but rather, how are you going to enforce the law when you yourself had broken one before? You just do not have the morale ground to do what you need to do. Even serving officer who got arrested for drink driving will be sacked for the same reason.

However, we cannot draw parallel to Tharman’s case. I do not see how that negligence act of his years ago made him unfit to be a Minister and be appointed onboard of MAS. We should not judge Tharman based on that mistake he made years ago. If he is now making amends by being a good Minister, wouldn’t it be enough to atone for that little mistake?

XiSd Tay on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 6:53 pm 

ExPoLiCe, again I stress that the keyword is APPOINTMENT and not whether Tharman has improved or not.

Its a BEFORE and AFTER things here. NOBODY can safely GUARANTEE and say that Tharman will not be “negligent” again, am I right?

Based on your logic, why should the SPF even bother to sack an Officer even if convicted on a charge of drunk driving? The same arguement goes that he may be drunk today but tomorrow he might be sober, realised his mistakes and make amends by being a much better officer than he was?

On the same note, a person convicted of culpable homicide can also qualify for an appointment to the board of MAS because the offence he committed is not of a dishonest nature, thus it is fine for him to hadle FINANCIAL ISSUES as long as MAS doesn’t sell knieves, would you agree?

While Thman has certainly changed for the better, thats beside the point. The point is APPOINTMENT, which begs the question of the CRITERIA and REQUIREMENTS for such.

randomnessinmind on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 7:40 pm 

Ok…look here, I don’t give a god damn about Tharman. He tries his best to make sense, and with people pulling his strings I don’t suppose he’ll be a hero and break his own rice bowl probably due to the education he gotten.

What I’m more concerned with, is the fact what he says (Tharman), is the exact opposite of what that Crap filled brain of Lim Swee Say says. They want to put Tharman on top of MAS, go ahead, he has the experience. It’s debatable on whether he’s fit for the job, but we can’t do a god damn thing right now untill he screws up or something.

Meanwhile, I would be a happier man if LSS becomes Cheaper, Better, Faster, and Tharman will do something since he was telling us we’ll get paid more if we become better and faster.

The PAP thoughts are already clashing with each other…For the People? I’ll bet you a dollar it’s more For Their People. The Party Associated Practitioners has done well.

rc on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 10:42 pm 

@xiSd Tay:

the question of whether an offence necessarily invalidates you for a particular position depends on what that offence is and what job it is. if the offence categorically, beyond a shadow of doubt, reflects a certain lack of character/ability that is crucial for that job, then the person who committed the offence should not be allowed to be in that job.

therefore, if Tharman was convicted of fraud as what ric wrongly thought he was, that would be a very fatal flaw that would indeed invalidate him from holding ANY sort of position which requires him to be trusted. if, on the other hand, he was convicted of littering or speeding, would we still be having this discussion about whether his offence makes him an unsuitable person to be appointed to the board of MAS? most probably not. so the issue of scale and nature of the offence does matter. and that would also have to be measured against his ability vis a vis the particular job that he is going for. in this instance, if Tharman an exceptional economist then it might be easier to forgive that offence than if he as less able as an economist.

a good example perhaps is to look at Edward Kennedy. he killed someone in an accident and fled the scene of the crime. and yet he remained as a senator. of course, the incident killed his presidential hopes. nevertheless, the people of Massachusetts would not have had anyone else be their senator, because of Ed Kennedy’s ability as a senator. this goes to show that the scale of the offence/crime measured against the person’s ability which again should be seen in the context of the job. looking at it in any other ways would, perhaps be a bit too simplistic.

rc on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 10:49 pm 

@randomnessinmind:

i don’t think that LSS and Tharman are contradicting each other. LSS is saying that we should have a CBT workforce. but a cheaper workforce doesn’t necessarily mean that each individual need to be paid less. this is why. let say the workforce now produces a certain amount of economic value, say $5x and for that, it is being paid $x. if we can make the workforce now produce $50x, we can still afford to pay the workforce $9x and still be able to say that we have made our workforce cheaper and yet have paid the individual worker more.

if i understand LSS correctly, the CBT idea cannot be deconstructed such that the individual components stand alone. it’s a whole package. and if taken together, with increase in productivity, it is indeed possible to make our workforce cheaper (relative to the amount of value it produces) and yet pay it more. all at the same time of attracting more investors to Singapore and generating more wealth for the people as a whole (so that there can be greater tax revenue to fund all the various social support schemes such as ComCare, WIS, etc etc).

XiSd Tay on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 11:04 pm 

@ExPoLiCe, I cannot say I don’t agree with your reasonning, per se.

Minor offences aside, my arguement is that Tharman was convicted of an offence of negligence under the Official Secrets Act, NOT some traffic offences and it won’t be a push too far if I say that he is NOT suitable for the job due to his capacity being on MAS with accesses to vital confidential data.

One can also argue that if he was negligent once, there is no guarantee that he won’t do it again, ya? WHAT IF he was appointed to be the Chief of Staff at Ministry of Defence, both of which is vital to the very existance of Sinkapore. For a person thats convicted under OSA, negligent or otherwise, its still a risk to appoint him, would you agree?

Anyway, there’s no point in judging anybody, no one changes who they really are.

Jane Goo on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 11:24 pm 

It is obvious that the civil service did not see the case as a hurdle to his earlier appt as MD MAS (he was still a civil servant then) and for PAP, his appt as MP & Minister.

We should not be stricter and less forgiving than the strict civil service (like what Xisd said about SPF) and the purist PAP.

One more Tharman saved is one more good deed done.

for singapore on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 11:57 pm 

@Jane Goo
BUT OTHER “THARMANS” MUST SINCERELY INCLUDE THOSE OF OTHER FOLD
LESS WE WASTE OUR ALREADY SCARCE TALENT AND LOOK FOR FT WHO MAY SIMPLY WALK AWAY IF THERE ARE GREENER PASTURES.

rc on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 12:50 am 

@xiSD Tay:

i would like to reiterate the case of Edward Kennedy, who despite having killed someone in an accident and fleeing from the scene, making him a less than perfect person, nonetheless is a very successful, effective Senator who greatly improved the lives of the people in Massachusetts. and i would think that killing someone in an accident and then fleeing the scene is a FAR more serious offence than negligence (Tharman’s offence was that he did not keep the sensitive data out of sight when the reporters went to interview him… and not that he deliberately gave the information to the reporters)

so, the real question should whether Tharman has the ability to be appointed to the MAS Board of Directors. it is disappointing therefore that there is no discussion about Tharman’s ideas on monetary and fiscal policies, his grasp of the macroeconomic environment of Singapore and the region, how well he is able to read the movements of the markets in the region and the world.

XiSd Tay on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 1:08 am 

rc, what he did NOW is irrelevant to the discussion.

What I have been trying to put across pertain to what he did THEN which could have or should have cast doubt on the suitability of his appointment to a High Position.

He could have made BILLIONS for Sinkapore and it is still irrelevant. He can be a post doctorate and a financial wizard it doesn’t matter.

My point is that if he wasn’t ‘connected’ then and just an ordinary citizen, he wouldn’t have been appointed at all.

rc on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 1:41 am 

XiSd Tay:

what? his ability vis a vis being in the board of directors for MAS doesn’t matter? why not?

why would you not want a financial wizard running your central bank? if he was indeed a financial wizard, i wouldn’t care whether he’s connected or not! or if he indeed was negligent (over a relatively small matter) in the past. between him and a some mediocre person who has had not convictions of any sorts, i think most rational people would choose the financial wizard.

just like how Massachusetts continued to want Ted Kennedy to be their senator despite his many character flaws because he was a very good senator. and i can tell you for a fact that Ted Kennedy remained as a senator not because he’s a Kennedy, but really because of his ability. most, if not all, people from Massachusetts would agree.

ric on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 4:10 am 

@rc on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 10:42 pm

“if Tharman was convicted of fraud as what ric wrongly thought he was”

I did not thought wrongly about it. IMO, at his position given his position and his job responsibility at 1993, a negligent in his duty is worst than a police officer been convicted to drunk driving.

I do not deny that he is one of the very few ministers that has brains, but re-appointing him as director of MAS is totally unnecessary. Will your company employ you back if you were sack before because of negligent? He is good, but is he good enough to bring benefit to the citizen? Or is he just doing his job just like working in a financial company? A good financial expert does not mean will make a good government.

Wei Wei on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 7:58 am 

XiSd Tay on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 1:08 am

“My point is that if he wasn’t ‘connected’ then and just an ordinary citizen, he wouldn’t have been appointed at all.”

I believe so too.

Just as so many ministers are from the same OCS batch as the prime minister.

Jane Goo on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 11:56 am 

RIC,

It appears that you may have got it wrong. (”Will your company employ you back if you were sack before because of negligent?”)

MAS did not consider this case to be any hurdle to his subsequent appointment as MD. This means his ability far surpass any demerit from the minor honest mistake.

I have friends staying in Jurong who has shared with me that Tharman appears to be doing a good job as a MP, well-liked and supported by the residents there.

I think we should all move on.

Jane Goo on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 12:03 pm 

For Singapore,

Fully agree with you. We must allow people who just happened to make minor mistakes to recover and continue to contribute as Singaporeans. Who in this world does not make minor mistakes? Otherwise, we are going to lose our precious local talents.

Btw, as Minister, I suppose Tharman will have many staff who will help him carry documents in a way that others cannot peep.

ric on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 12:22 pm 

Jane, I never got anything wrong. I also know that he is one of the best people in the monachy and I also never doubt his capability.

How do you determine minor mistake? If a negligent from a defense system engineer accidentally launch a defense missile into the air but that missile just passes through the atmosphere and did not cause any disaster, do you consider that a minor mistake? Will you remove him from the position but later put him right back to that sit if he later proof that he is a darn good engineer with solid knowledge and great charismatic? By placing him right back just because you can, won’t you be neglecting the feeling of the neighbouring countries?

I totally believe he is a very competent minister and if given a choice i would definitely prefer him to be the MP of my constituency. But by placing him bad to that position is unnecessary and totally not diplomatic.

fair and square on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 12:57 pm 

@Jane Goo@ALL

This simple word FAIR is indeed a word that has long been taken
as it has been spelt in mere four ALPHABETS,ie,very “LIGHTLY”!
For too long,since i was a kid and up to my retrenchment and hunting furoiously for re-employment and now decidedly “cornered” cos of FT policy and age consideration,FAIR as this simple word was supposed to mean
is now not the case…
you see ,isit fair that locals who CAN’T simply survive on a sgd 1000 vs PRC workers are CHOOSY?
is it fair that older(not old)workers are sidestepped by bosses
who want to cut cost after these older workers have literally
sold their souls to the company store?!
is it fair that our “smarter”fellow countrymen,cos of GOVERNMENT FT policicy,choose FT over someitmes smarter LT?
iS it fair to “stream” young minds at tender age and relegate
not a few potential “geniuses” to morph into “louse”?
Is is fair for greedy bosses who in the name of cost-cutting for the survival of the company awards himself with humongous pay and bonuses that actually go against the cost -cutting measures?AND COST CUTTNG =WORKERS (AND OLDER WORKERS?).
iS it fair that some of our classmates who studied harder and got themselves scholarships,then hired by the CIVIL SERVICE,without real “market” experience ,craft HIGH-SOUNDING
POILICIES that they impress their MINISTERS so as to justify
their high salaries at the ordinary citizens’ expense?
The list goes on and on.
But the greatest betrayal is for some of our own(flesh and blood)-fellow sinagporeans-to sell us out vai the cliched hype
of FOREIGN TALENT when some of the folks from the FT clan i happened to worked with are in fact “NT”-no talent.
So,let’s keep the meaning of the simple FAIR as fair,shall we?

fair and square on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 1:58 pm 

TO sum up,is it fair for Mr Tharman to be given a second chance to prove himself a worthy son of singapore?
My answer is defintely!
Is it fair that we should relook at the FT POLICY OR THE GST,
and to allow other ‘tharmans’ a second chance?
My answer is yes,how about you?

Anonymous on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 2:24 pm 

rc on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 10:49 pm

I agree more with randommindeness. The reason is perhaps NOT equally apparent to all and deceived by political rhetorics of GDP growth and jobs created.

THERE ARE A LOT OF LIMITS TO GROWTH WITH OR WITHOUT FOREIGN INFLUX.

AND THAT PROHIBITING LIMIT OR CONSTRAINTS OF LAND AND PHYSICAL SPACE. As LHL finally admitted recently ( after denying publicly that space constraint is not an issue in MSM publishing), we cannot reclaim land up to the physical land mass of Johore nor the Rio islands of Indonesia – NOT that this is wise, affordable and physically capable of completion of available earth material.

Beyond a certain point – COSTS BECOME PROHIBITIVE. To see the trees from the forest, look no more than housing. Malaysian and Indonesia will NOT sell us construction sand. We source that from Cambodia and Vietnam – that I understand from internet read is also gone. So do we buy construction land from China and Australia? When costs goes up, we can’t tear down existing housing or tear up existing MRT, expressways and rebuild the lot to accomodate population housing and mobility needs to keep this economy functioning.

Costs will go up and the additional demand have forced up housing prices. WE ARE NOW SEEING THAT IN HDB AND PRIVATE SECTOR HOUSING. If the costs of housing accomodation CONSTRUCTION goes up – the costs of contruction for commercial office, industrial facilities, hospitals and even MRT and expressway ALSO ALL GOES UP, WHAT HAPPEN TO THE COSTS OF PRODUCTION IN SINGAPORE??

ALL GOES UP BECAUSE OF FOREIGN INFLUX OF POPULATION EXPLOSION, you will get an economy that maybe faster and better BUT WILL NOT BE CHEAPER because cheaper wage is offset by MUCH HIGHER NON-LABOUR COSTS.

If anything, with non-labour costs higher, LABOUR COSTS MUST BE FORCED DOWN EVEN LOWER STILL THAN NOW REGARDLESS IT IS BETTER AND FASTER.

So the CHEAPER, BETTER AND FASTER TALK IS VERY CLEVER SCHOLASTIC TALK BUT IN SUBSTANCE FALLACIOUS I SUSPECT. And very dangerous too because once loaded up with over-population in this country, WE CANNOT EXPORT unwanted population.

LSS have NOT told us that NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD TAKES IN ECONOMIC ( not political) REFUGEES. The immigration strategies adopted worldwide is simple – IF YOU ARE POOR AND DESPERATE, STAY WHERE YOU ARE!!!!

Randommindedness is right here!!!

Jane Goo on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 5:38 pm 

RIC, sorry that I find it challenging to understand your point.

Tharman’s case is about people peeping at the document he was carrying, whereas you are talking about an engineer accidentally launching a missile?

Have a good weekend.

rc on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 11:42 pm 

Anonymous:

i think there is nothing wrong with Singapore only taking in people who can be economically productive and certainly should not take in people who are poor and desperate and would potentially become a burden to the state. i pay taxes and its enough that my tax money goes to support some of my fellow citizens who are not able to make ends meet because of whatever reasons. i don’t want my tax money to go towards supporting non-Singaporeans who come to my country but cannot support themselves.

but if high net worth individuals who pay helluva lot more taxes in a single year than i would ever have to in my lifetime wants to become a citizen here… i say let him/her! he/she pay more taxes means i would not have to pay as much and yet get the same benefits… so. let’s not be xenophobic, let’s keep our options open, welcome people who can contribute… but have to be discerning… ha… quite a conundrum. but hey… that’s life…

e -CON-no miss! on Sun, 25th Oct 2009 4:25 am 

@rc
taxes are not just income tax,it includes GST,COE,ERP,
and “PAPs’.
If you are a 3rd or 4th generation local,you and your family have actually paid more taxes than any FT and their families in TOTAL TAXES!your father paid tax,so did your granddad and great granddad,not to mention your uncles etc.
so you see,all the infrastructures we and our FT friends now enjoy
are paid for already!We did not just build ORCHARD ROAD,it was constructed donkey years ago.We,the locals had,have and are still paying hefty taxes which are now enjoyed by all-local and foreign.Those BIG TICKETS SOCIAL COSTS has been paid for by locals but the social benefits are “reaped” by all,someitmes
with bias towards the new residents.
Take MacRitchie Reservoir,we could’t even feed clean bread to
the fiahes,else we get FINE SGD500!even if you were a curious
schoolboy on an excursion.Now ,our FTs can go canoeing there!
Some of the more “cheeko” local ah-peks got fined at bars and nite-clubs if they are found in the comapny of some scantily-clad ladies;now they the FTs can go bar-top dancing very openly
and soap party at Sentosa!
I only agree if high income FT are those that actually create more jobs etc for locals but if a local can do a JOB but cos of FT policy,it landed easily on a FT,i think it dosen’t make
a difference to income tax collection if that job has landed onto a local’s lap?
as A LOCAL,you would buy cars etc if you have kids and can afford,you contribute to taxes;not so the FTs!
i observe they ratther take the MRT and save money.
So you see,it makes more sense to give that high income job to the LT,not the FT.
By the way,A BIG CHUNK of taxes have gone into NON INFRASTRUCTURAL spending;some into higher salaries,a bit went into MRT,LOTS AND LOTS GONE OVERSEAS!!!

Anonymous on Sun, 25th Oct 2009 10:16 am 

@ rc on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 11:42 pm AND YES, Anonymous is NOT xenophobic at all – by a billion miles!!! It is question NOT of fact of desirability of foreign migration but it is a QUESTION OF QUANTITY AND QUALITY. Those who COMPLEMENT US AND CONTRIBUTE NEW SKILL SETS OR OPPORTUNITY must be welcome with open arms.

Not the like of those with a local diploma from a private school here. They should be given PEP and checked for valid RELEVANT ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION without the burden of infrastructural and social welfare support of this community. They add to a “floating population” ( shrink and expand of unknown dimension like Zhang Yuan Yuan coming and leaving at random) making economic planning impossibly difficult of housing supply, hospitals, MRT, public transports etc). It is a nightmare for us and a permanent albatross on our neck going forward. And factor in the law of diminishing return of migrtion given our IRRECONCIALABLE AND IRRETRIEVABLY INFLEXIBLE OF OPTIONS OF CONSTRAINTS OF LAND, SPACE AND RESOURCES, we are stupidly strangling the survival of our next generation by this wanton indiscriminate migration for political votes manipulation.

Do you really want to stop that, rc – given one last chance to stop this insanely stupid self-destructive behaviour of our Government????