I wonder how many of us remember the time when GST was first implemented in Singapore. It was 1 April 1994, yup April's fool, what jokers the gahmen was! At that time, income tax was decreased and doing the calculations back then, you could actually save money if you are not the type that eats at restaurants or buy expensive things often. Most people didn't kick up a full because, I think, our income tax was lowered quite a lot and the fact that we can have more in our savings. And through the mainstream media, we "believed" it was the best thing for us. It might have been back than.
Forward to this year (2007), tomorrow GST is further increased 2% to 7% with no decrease in our income tax or any other thing for that matter. Increase in GST, bus fares, hospital fees, housing, water, electricity... and we are suppose to save for our retirement! What a joke. And to add insult to injury, we have to retire later in order to save enough for retirement and CPF is decreased if we work pass the age of 55 (correct me if I'm wrong).
Do we still remember in 1994, the gahmen stated, it was only 3% now they say it is ONLY 2% more. The same way they stated that bus fares would increase only 2 cents in 2005. The same way their salary increase is ONLY "0.13% of the gahmen's total expenditure or 0.022% of Singapore's GDP" as stated by MM Lee (See They'll never listen will they news paper article) ("Only" seems to be a favourate word of our gahmen). I can bet you if we were give the same type of increase as our ministers (plus pensions, where appropriate) we would not complain about any hikes would we?
30 June 2007
28 June 2007
ST supports it reporters?
My only comment to this.
Yea, riiiiight! I so believe you. With the Mainstream media in the pockets of the gahmen, you think they'll still "back reporters who do not reveal sources" if the gahmen breaths down their necks?
Today 28 June 2007
SOURCE OF SUPPORT
-----------------
ST says it will back reporters who do not reveal sources
Ansley Ng
ansley@mediacorp.com.sg
THE Straits Times would have given full support to the reporter who
revealed his source to a court even if the journalist had decided not to
obey the court order and risk going to prison, the newspaper's editor Han
Fook Kwang told media professionals last night.
"If he decides not to disclose the source and will face the full
consequence of the court, we will support him, " said Mr Han at a
Singapore Press Club event. "We will support him legally, financially and
professionally. I think it is a reasonable position for any newspaper to
take."
Mr Han was referring to ST reporter Arthur Poon, who was ordered by a
court to reveal a source in a story last November. Mr Poon, together with
The Business Times reporter Wee Li-En and Reuters reporter Mia Shanley,
was served court papers by two rival broking firms for revealing
confidential information involving the sum of an out-of-court settlement.
After initially resisting, the ST and BT reporters disclosed their
respective sources to the High Court, with both pointed to Huntington
Communications, a public relations firm acting for one of the broking
company.
Ms Shanley, however, held on. At a court hearing on May 17, High Court
judge Justice Andrew Ang agreed with the broking firm's lawyers and
ordered Ms Shanley to reveal her source. The reporter appealed to the
Court of Appeal - Singapore's highest court - but was ordered to reveal
her source. She did so only after her source gave her permission.
In an ST report on the case in late May, Mr Han was quoted as saying: "It
has been our long-standing policy that we will not disclose until we are
compelled to do so by the court and we have no further recourse.
We
fought all the way until the court ordered us to disclose our sources."
At the talk last night, Mr Han said that despite the "setback", ST would
continue to "vigorously resist" attempts to make its reporters reveal
their sources.
Other speakers at last night's forum included senior lawyer Peter Low,
Nanyang Technological University (NTU) media academic Dr Ang Peng Hwa and
ST's former editor-in-chief, Mr Peter Lim.
Speaking to an audience made up mostly of journalism and public relations
professionals, the four men provided different views on the issue of
source confidentiality from the legal and journalistic perspective. Citing
examples in countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom and the United
States, Mr Low said that cases in these countries were generally not
treated differently from what a Singaporean court would do.
"The court has the discretion on whether or not to make the reporter
disclose the source of the information," he said.
The kind of confidentiality a journalist has with his source is like the
one shared by doctors with their patients, or lawyers with their clients,
said Dr Ang, Dean of NTU's Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and
Information. "The journalistic privilege is not an absolute right; it is a
balance" he added.
Veteran newsman Mr Lim, who headed ST for about 20 years, echoed Mr Han's
points when asked by a member of the audience what advice he would have
given Mr Poon had he been in charge. "As the editor, I can't offer to go
to jail for him," he said. "It's up to you. If you go to jail, we'll look
after you."
Yea, riiiiight! I so believe you. With the Mainstream media in the pockets of the gahmen, you think they'll still "back reporters who do not reveal sources" if the gahmen breaths down their necks?
Today 28 June 2007
SOURCE OF SUPPORT
-----------------
ST says it will back reporters who do not reveal sources
Ansley Ng
ansley@mediacorp.com.sg
THE Straits Times would have given full support to the reporter who
revealed his source to a court even if the journalist had decided not to
obey the court order and risk going to prison, the newspaper's editor Han
Fook Kwang told media professionals last night.
"If he decides not to disclose the source and will face the full
consequence of the court, we will support him, " said Mr Han at a
Singapore Press Club event. "We will support him legally, financially and
professionally. I think it is a reasonable position for any newspaper to
take."
Mr Han was referring to ST reporter Arthur Poon, who was ordered by a
court to reveal a source in a story last November. Mr Poon, together with
The Business Times reporter Wee Li-En and Reuters reporter Mia Shanley,
was served court papers by two rival broking firms for revealing
confidential information involving the sum of an out-of-court settlement.
After initially resisting, the ST and BT reporters disclosed their
respective sources to the High Court, with both pointed to Huntington
Communications, a public relations firm acting for one of the broking
company.
Ms Shanley, however, held on. At a court hearing on May 17, High Court
judge Justice Andrew Ang agreed with the broking firm's lawyers and
ordered Ms Shanley to reveal her source. The reporter appealed to the
Court of Appeal - Singapore's highest court - but was ordered to reveal
her source. She did so only after her source gave her permission.
In an ST report on the case in late May, Mr Han was quoted as saying: "It
has been our long-standing policy that we will not disclose until we are
compelled to do so by the court and we have no further recourse.
We
fought all the way until the court ordered us to disclose our sources."
At the talk last night, Mr Han said that despite the "setback", ST would
continue to "vigorously resist" attempts to make its reporters reveal
their sources.
Other speakers at last night's forum included senior lawyer Peter Low,
Nanyang Technological University (NTU) media academic Dr Ang Peng Hwa and
ST's former editor-in-chief, Mr Peter Lim.
Speaking to an audience made up mostly of journalism and public relations
professionals, the four men provided different views on the issue of
source confidentiality from the legal and journalistic perspective. Citing
examples in countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom and the United
States, Mr Low said that cases in these countries were generally not
treated differently from what a Singaporean court would do.
"The court has the discretion on whether or not to make the reporter
disclose the source of the information," he said.
The kind of confidentiality a journalist has with his source is like the
one shared by doctors with their patients, or lawyers with their clients,
said Dr Ang, Dean of NTU's Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and
Information. "The journalistic privilege is not an absolute right; it is a
balance" he added.
Veteran newsman Mr Lim, who headed ST for about 20 years, echoed Mr Han's
points when asked by a member of the audience what advice he would have
given Mr Poon had he been in charge. "As the editor, I can't offer to go
to jail for him," he said. "It's up to you. If you go to jail, we'll look
after you."
21 June 2007
The best is yet to come
Coming in to work today, I just realised that July is almost upon us. I need to take this opportunity to document the things our caring gahmen has done to help the citizens.
July 2007 will be remembered in Singapore as the best month ever in our history. Let me recount the things that are going to happen.
1) GST increase (which means everything will increase)
2) NETS increase (which means things have to increase, esp. for small shop owners. Can we blame them?)
3) Electricity increase (can we do without power?)
3) Cable increase (this one, can don't want)
4) Ministers' pay increase (we got say mah?)
And this is the perfect timing too, because our economy is booming and things are really great.
But wait, we seem to have forgotten about the people who didn't get a 60% pay increase. What was the increase in pay of the average Singaporean? 4.2% in 2006. And in 2006 we had the public transport fare increase. From then until now, we had postal increase and polyclinic price increase.
(Am I the only one that realised these increases are happening after the 2006 elections and the beginning of the 5 year term? After this, you'll not see any increase or things happening that can antagonise the people for the next 2-3 years. Doesn't take a genius to guess why. Sometimes I think that we are really stupid, not just uninformed)
How far can that 4.2% go? Lots of Singaporeans (accountants, economist, etc.) have done the math and concluded that even with the increase, the net take home pay of the average Singapore will not cover the increase in everything. This is already before July arrives, after July, the net take home pay of the average Singapore is going to be even less.
It is nice to know the economy is booming (as told by our state controlled main stream media) but how many Singaporeans are actually reaping the benefits of this boom? It would seem that for most people, their net cash flow will decrease even with their increase in pay. And don't get me started on the "hand-out" the gahmen is giving to "soften" the blow. Anyone with primary school math knowledge will realise that the amount given cannot cover the increase in GST for 1 year!
Are we Singaporeans so blind that we cannot see the facts that are laid in front of us. Even the most hard-lined Republicans in US, can see that the current government is not working for the good for the country. Hence, the elections last year showed it. When will we learn that having a single party system is not good for us (or any developed country for that matter) , contrary to what our gahmen tries to tell us.
But I do realise that my rants are going to fall on deaf ears because most Singaporeans are to frightened that if the PAP is not the gahmen anymore, Singapore will be totally destroyed. All companies will immediately pack up and go. Our buildings will immediately turn old and collapse. Our stock market will plunge, thus making our money as strong as Indonesia's. And immediately, we'll revert to a 3rd world country and Singapore will look like a slum in Africa. In fact, if the PAP is not the gahmen anymore, Singapore will immediately look like it has been struck by an atomic bomb and our economy will look like that too.
Are we really so blind as to think that it is only the gahmen that makes the economy boom? Are we so stupid as to think that the part we play is small compared to the gahmen's? We are Singapore, the gahmen doesn't make Singapore Singapore. Listen and take note people, without us the Singapore is NOTHING.
July 2007 will be remembered in Singapore as the best month ever in our history. Let me recount the things that are going to happen.
1) GST increase (which means everything will increase)
2) NETS increase (which means things have to increase, esp. for small shop owners. Can we blame them?)
3) Electricity increase (can we do without power?)
3) Cable increase (this one, can don't want)
4) Ministers' pay increase (we got say mah?)
And this is the perfect timing too, because our economy is booming and things are really great.
But wait, we seem to have forgotten about the people who didn't get a 60% pay increase. What was the increase in pay of the average Singaporean? 4.2% in 2006. And in 2006 we had the public transport fare increase. From then until now, we had postal increase and polyclinic price increase.
(Am I the only one that realised these increases are happening after the 2006 elections and the beginning of the 5 year term? After this, you'll not see any increase or things happening that can antagonise the people for the next 2-3 years. Doesn't take a genius to guess why. Sometimes I think that we are really stupid, not just uninformed)
How far can that 4.2% go? Lots of Singaporeans (accountants, economist, etc.) have done the math and concluded that even with the increase, the net take home pay of the average Singapore will not cover the increase in everything. This is already before July arrives, after July, the net take home pay of the average Singapore is going to be even less.
It is nice to know the economy is booming (as told by our state controlled main stream media) but how many Singaporeans are actually reaping the benefits of this boom? It would seem that for most people, their net cash flow will decrease even with their increase in pay. And don't get me started on the "hand-out" the gahmen is giving to "soften" the blow. Anyone with primary school math knowledge will realise that the amount given cannot cover the increase in GST for 1 year!
Are we Singaporeans so blind that we cannot see the facts that are laid in front of us. Even the most hard-lined Republicans in US, can see that the current government is not working for the good for the country. Hence, the elections last year showed it. When will we learn that having a single party system is not good for us (or any developed country for that matter) , contrary to what our gahmen tries to tell us.
But I do realise that my rants are going to fall on deaf ears because most Singaporeans are to frightened that if the PAP is not the gahmen anymore, Singapore will be totally destroyed. All companies will immediately pack up and go. Our buildings will immediately turn old and collapse. Our stock market will plunge, thus making our money as strong as Indonesia's. And immediately, we'll revert to a 3rd world country and Singapore will look like a slum in Africa. In fact, if the PAP is not the gahmen anymore, Singapore will immediately look like it has been struck by an atomic bomb and our economy will look like that too.
Are we really so blind as to think that it is only the gahmen that makes the economy boom? Are we so stupid as to think that the part we play is small compared to the gahmen's? We are Singapore, the gahmen doesn't make Singapore Singapore. Listen and take note people, without us the Singapore is NOTHING.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
