It's always like this: beofre I do my NAPFA I akways think I'm going to not be able to do enuff situps or IPU, but it always turns out better than ok.
I round up my results after my 2.4 or Wednesday.
Situps- 47 (A)
SBJ- 249 (A)
Sit and Reach- 46 (A)
Shuttle Run- 9.5 (A)
IPU- 30 (A)
2.4 run- 12.23 (C)
28 points and a Gold. Whippee.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Saturday, May 12, 2007
CA for CA- Singapore government pay increases by 60 percent
The huge financial problems around the world, including in Singapore, yet the Singapore ministers give themselves a pay rise of a whooping/shocking 60% pay rise to S$3.1million a year. One question being asked by Singaporeans is, why are these ministers getting a pay rise, and do they deserve it?
Our ministers pay have not been increased for many years and I think an increase will be suitable not so as to peg our salaries to the top few percent of the working sector. These words, to some degree of similarity, was quoted from Mr Lee Hsien Loong, which shows his reason for the pay increase. You have to accept the fact that ministers' salaries have not increased for many years, and that they have done quite a good job of handling the country and so do deserve some sort of a rise as an incentive to work even harder, but why so much increments, and why must the government peg their pay to the top few percent of the Singapore's working force, shouldn't they peg it to the bottom few to show fairness and that they want to geuninely serve the country and are not here for money?
George Bush works 24/7 serving a country that is thousands of times bigger than Singapore, and he only gets one-fifth of a Singapore minister's salary who works part-time as a minister. Fair? Surely not. George Bush's pay is not even in the top 5 precent of the highest earners in his country, and the hugeness of his country makes it an even harder one to manage.
When running for elections, the main thing the minsters have promised is to serve the people, but it comes with a very heavy financial cost. By serving the people, the ministers have decided they need a increase beacuse they have 'served' the poeple very well. But what does it mean by 'serve'. To serve the people and give themselves huge benifits is not serving, but instead 'working' for the people.
The recent increasing income gap also makes it less a reason for the ministers to increase their pay. When some people in the country are not doing financially well at all, the ministers should go all out to help those in need instead of sitting in parliament and discussing on their pay rise. Why don't the government decide to not increase their pay, instead put their supposed pay rise into a fund or plan to close the vast income gap though financial help and the implementation and finding of new and skilled jobs so the people can earn money.
Singapore is 'democratic', so why not exercise this voting right on how much the minister's pay should be increased by. The citizens can determine the ministers' rise on the amount of work and contributions they have made to the country, which will be a fair reflection and judgement. The citizens also won't complain of the pay rise as they have determined it themselves.
However give credit to the ministers when it's due. Several ministers have agreed to donate the pay rise to charity for the next few years, including the Prime Minister. This indicates that what the ministers want is not money, and want to prove to Singaporeans that they want to use their earnings for a good cause, which is good. However, why not just take away the pay rise and put it into a fund instead.
Yes, the ministers should take a pay hike, but not as much as 60%, perhaps 10% or 20%. To them, it might be just a matter of a peanut or two, but to the working class, it's like 50 bags of peanuts. So to all ministers, why don't you take away some of your peanuts and throw it down for us to eat and we'll be contented.
Word count: 638
Source: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070411/3/47rb4.html
Reflection: WHat I think was good about this article was that I managed to show both views, the view of a minister and that of a citizen. I also managed to relate the pay hike to some issues such as the increasing poverty gap in Singapore and the use of democracy here.
Self rating: 16/20
Note: Ms Yong, if you are reading this, I have two other blog posts somewhere in Feburary, one about the Indonesia floods and one on the Crazy Horse. You might have to look in the archives. thanks.
Our ministers pay have not been increased for many years and I think an increase will be suitable not so as to peg our salaries to the top few percent of the working sector. These words, to some degree of similarity, was quoted from Mr Lee Hsien Loong, which shows his reason for the pay increase. You have to accept the fact that ministers' salaries have not increased for many years, and that they have done quite a good job of handling the country and so do deserve some sort of a rise as an incentive to work even harder, but why so much increments, and why must the government peg their pay to the top few percent of the Singapore's working force, shouldn't they peg it to the bottom few to show fairness and that they want to geuninely serve the country and are not here for money?
George Bush works 24/7 serving a country that is thousands of times bigger than Singapore, and he only gets one-fifth of a Singapore minister's salary who works part-time as a minister. Fair? Surely not. George Bush's pay is not even in the top 5 precent of the highest earners in his country, and the hugeness of his country makes it an even harder one to manage.
When running for elections, the main thing the minsters have promised is to serve the people, but it comes with a very heavy financial cost. By serving the people, the ministers have decided they need a increase beacuse they have 'served' the poeple very well. But what does it mean by 'serve'. To serve the people and give themselves huge benifits is not serving, but instead 'working' for the people.
The recent increasing income gap also makes it less a reason for the ministers to increase their pay. When some people in the country are not doing financially well at all, the ministers should go all out to help those in need instead of sitting in parliament and discussing on their pay rise. Why don't the government decide to not increase their pay, instead put their supposed pay rise into a fund or plan to close the vast income gap though financial help and the implementation and finding of new and skilled jobs so the people can earn money.
Singapore is 'democratic', so why not exercise this voting right on how much the minister's pay should be increased by. The citizens can determine the ministers' rise on the amount of work and contributions they have made to the country, which will be a fair reflection and judgement. The citizens also won't complain of the pay rise as they have determined it themselves.
However give credit to the ministers when it's due. Several ministers have agreed to donate the pay rise to charity for the next few years, including the Prime Minister. This indicates that what the ministers want is not money, and want to prove to Singaporeans that they want to use their earnings for a good cause, which is good. However, why not just take away the pay rise and put it into a fund instead.
Yes, the ministers should take a pay hike, but not as much as 60%, perhaps 10% or 20%. To them, it might be just a matter of a peanut or two, but to the working class, it's like 50 bags of peanuts. So to all ministers, why don't you take away some of your peanuts and throw it down for us to eat and we'll be contented.
Word count: 638
Source: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070411/3/47rb4.html
Reflection: WHat I think was good about this article was that I managed to show both views, the view of a minister and that of a citizen. I also managed to relate the pay hike to some issues such as the increasing poverty gap in Singapore and the use of democracy here.
Self rating: 16/20
Note: Ms Yong, if you are reading this, I have two other blog posts somewhere in Feburary, one about the Indonesia floods and one on the Crazy Horse. You might have to look in the archives. thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)