4/13/2007

Defending an Indefensible position

Defending an Indefensible position An article by Jasmine Yin in the Today paper tried to defend the position that it is justifiable to pay ministers the million dollar payrise and $1 extra a day for the destitute. And it was argue that the two were separate issues and had 'no logical linkage'. Come on lah, the linkages are so loud and clear for all to see. Only the blind or those who refused to see them would say so. And it was also said that 'Money is not an issue'. What the f... Money is THE issue. If not, all these debate, all the time and resources would not have been spent to justify the million dollar increase. What I want to say is that the $290 for the poor and the multi million dollars for the ministers are very delicately intertwined. One is a social issue that the govt must look after. The other is the pay for the people who are going to look after this issue. How can $290 a month be enough when more than a million cannot be enough? It is all about public service. People who want to make millions must not think of making the millions from taxpayers money. There are many avenues to make the millions. Taxpayers money is to pay a reasonable rate for the passionate people who want to look after the nation and people. Not for cold logical people who want to be multi millionaires and still want the power of public service. Obviously after the debate, both in the media and parliament, many people do not agree with the increase and are unhappy with it. It is the people's view that matters. Maybe not. Maybe it is the decision makers' view that matters.

4 comments:

Matilah_Singapura said...

Inasmuch as I hate to agree with (scum-of-the-earth) ballicking-journalist-lapdogs-of-the-establishment, in this case the assertion is correct.

There is NO logical connection between ministerial pay and welfare payments.

All logic arguments begin with premises, which are either assumed to be or proven to be correct.

The premises for ministerial pay and welfare payments are separate, and thus the issues are separate.

To bring them together is to confuse the (separate) issues even more and introduce all sorts of fallacious and irrelevant ideas.

Leo said...

There's so much negativity in blogsphere on this subject that I'm wondering if Matilah_Singapura is being sarcastic. But I can detect none. So I've just going to take his comments at face value.

I agree. The two issues are separate.

On the one hand the issue is how much to give in handouts to the poor. The other issue is how much to pay for good government (or just government if you question the quality of it).

If we question the validity of the argument that people must be paid what they could otherwise get from other careers, look no further than T. T. Durai.

For all intents and purpose, he started out with good intention and grew the NKF. Along the way, he lost the plot. But think about it, as a lawyer, He might have been able to make as much if not more than what he was paid. He gave that up. But then perhaps he thought he deserved a bonus. And then maybe a bit more benefits. And then, why not do a little business.

Anonymous said...

How much you value someone is usually determined by how much you reward or willing to pay the individual. The unspoken message or uncomfortable truth pervaded in society is that we generally loathe those beneath us and we show it in the way we pay them. This is despite no contribution( especially menial workers) by an individual can be deemed insignificant AS A WHOLE. On that account, we should adjust our reward system accordingly if we unabashedly proclaim our care, without reserve, for our lesser brethren and separate AN ISSUE which not only humiliate the weaker or disadvantaged but also those who shamelessly conspire( adhering to an unjust system of profiteering) to richly benefit at their expense!

redbean said...

How much you value someone is usually determined by how much you reward or willing to pay the individual.

interesting comment. if i value my staff, i will pay them more. then i value myself and i also decide to pay myself more. any problem?