Wooing the super-rich (from BT)

last SG · 2007-05-10T13:25:26+00:00

The corollary negative effects are likely to be rising property prices and a higher cost of living. - Wee Piew CEO HG Metal Manufacturing Ltd The downside...

Gazelle SG

Originally posted by Atobe:

Can you handle any [b]"Proof" even if it was presented to you on a plate ?

What more proof or evidence do you need when events are occurring daily around us, and you cannot even make out the front end from the rear ?

The Singapore Government claims that we have to build a World Class City so that we can attract the Foreign Talents - as they are supposed to bring in and increase the size of our economy, and to create more jobs for Singaporeans.

World Class City at World Class Prices ? Can there be enough foreing talents to use all the facilities of a World Class City build at World Class Costs, that will need to be recovered from prices fixxed at World Class Prices ?

Who else are around in Singapore to help defray the costs of building a World Class City except a mass of Singaporeans paid Third World Wages under Third World Short-Term Work Contracts ?

Singaproeans are mostly employed on Work Contracts that are renewalble every three to five years - if you are lucky; since most Singaporeans are currently offered new jobs with only 6 months to 1 year work contract.

In order to keep property prices stable, the Government cannot reverse the trend of selling Government Land - for Private or Public Development - that were set at artificially high price; as any downward changes will undermine the existing property values.

While the Rich continue to buy and sell properties, and grow their monies through speculative purchases of properties, Singaporeans suffer as a consequence, as their purchase of Private or HDB homes will similarly increase in the selling prices.

Instead of wooing the Super-Rich, why is this Government not helping to create wealthy Singaporeans instead - in a similar way that politics and the laws are drafted in Switzerland that creates and protect the wealth of Swiss Citizens ?

With the large amount of money spent on reclaiming land from the sea and designated as the New Marina - Downtown Financial District - do you think that the Singapore Government will build low cost HDB units there, or if it will attract the Super-Rich to place their monies here, semi- or retire here with the Super-Million Dollar apartment build for their purpose ?

Who has paid for the massive amount spent on land reclamation, and who will be paying for the multi-dolloar spent on infrastructure that include new MRT lines, roads, and utilities ?

With all these infrastructural investments, this Government will spread the cost of the additional facilities in the New Marina Financial District, by increasing the overall costs of all these essential services.

[/b]

All I am asking you is to quote me an example of a policy that supports your argument that Government will continue to provide higher standards of services to pamper the super-rich, and keep the costs reasonable for them by simply spreading the higher costs amongst a larger base of average Singaporeans that are already facing a continuous shrinking of our real income.

I wonder who actually gives your the idea and most Singaporeans are employed on contracts basis?

If I am not mistaken, LV Sands and Genting International both pump in around S$5b each to build both the IR, and at the same time, I think our government has pocketed close to S$2b for the 2 plot of land. I hope this answer your question on where the money to build a world class city has come from, and your question on who is paying for the reclaimation of the land of that plot size.

The single most expensive investment which our government has made (excluding circle line) in downtown area is probably the Esplanade, at $600m without the cost of land. And even that, it is not catering on the rich and famous, it is for people from all walks of life.

What our government has created is a enviroment for people to work and live, it doesnt create an enviroment only for super rich can live here. If that was their intention, I would have reason to believe that our government would have awarded the sentosa IR to Eighth Wonders instead of Genting Int. (And please dont say GIL victory was due to political reasons, unless you have hard evidence to support your case)

Gazelle SG

Originally posted by Atobe:
Firstly, the average Singaporeans by comparison to the Johoreans, will be seen to be richer by far; and the by a comparison of the standard of wages earned (vis-a-vis) the prevailing Exchange Rate, the Johoreans will look at Singaporeans as Super-Rich.

You must have forgotten that most Malaysians living in JB works in Singapore and the earn S$ instead of RM. And FYI, most people living in JB are not Johorians, they are people from all parts of Malaysia who are living there so that they can commute to Singapore. Singaporean going to JB as super-rich? If we are, then Singaporeans shouldnt be packing their cars with tons of grocery and petrol, and seeking for cheap thrill. I think Singaporeans are super greedy, not super rich.

Originally posted by Atobe:
Secondly, for such a large country - by comparison - the Malaysian Government is doing a better job in keeping costs of essential foodstuff at an affordable rate and prevent profiteering by the Suppliers of essential goods.

This can hardly be said of the Singapore Government, where CASE is run by a Government "annointed" appointee, who will work in consultation with the major "Price Fixxer" - the NTUC, also headed by a Government "annointed" appointee.

Again, I think you are making assumption and having your own perception. If my memory serve me right, Malaysia has an aggressive 2020 ambition to be the first muslim developed country in the world. To be a developed country, average wages has to go up, people will have to be more educated. hence do you think it is in the interest of the government to keep wages low and remain focusing on the primary industry?

Malaysian government might have subsidize on some essential food items, but they have definitely collected far more money from things such as highway toll (which goes up every 3 years without the need for justification) and money from oil exploration.

Originally posted by Atobe:

The basic principle that our first Economics Minister - Dr Goh Keng Swee - propounded was the advantage of specialization mentioned in the Economic Theory of Comparative Advantage.

Singapore's advantages are our strategic location and size that require us to industrialise, and leave the primary and agricultural sectors to our neighbors with bigger land and human resource.

We were supposed to increase our wealth so as to improve our purchasing power, and be able to influence and control costs to ourselves.

With the scale of mass or volume purchase, and the strength of our Currency, we were supposed to be in a position to buy all our essential food and material items at a far cheaper price than we can perform ourselves.

Did we achieve this goal ?

I would say that probably 99% of what we consume in Singapore are directly or indirectly imported. Hence I think it might be better for you to take a look at what is happening around the world today instead of blaming our government for not doing anything.

1) Exxonmobil has made record profit last year (even at record crude oil price)

2) Crude oil prices has hit record level, and middle east countries are spending billions after billions to build fantasy islands.

3) Mining giants like BHP and Rio Tinto are all making record profits

4) Lakshmi Mittal has become the UK richest man after he created the largest steel mill that naturally monopolise the global steel market.

5) I think you also have to consider the effect of Mad Cow disease and bird flu, which limit the supply of poultry from cheaper sources. If our government didnt do anything to establish alternative sources, I am sure you will see more profiteering in Singapore and we might have run out of chicken to eat long ago.

I hope this answer your questions on why things are getting more expensive.

Contrary to what you saying, have you noticed that the cost of egg in Singapore has remain the same for the last 20 years.

Originally posted by Atobe:

The NTUC certainly did meet the goal set up by Dr Goh Keng Swee in that it was able to buy in volume all the necessary items needed by Singaporeans, but these were then sold at prices that are far higher than in the place of manufacture and sold to their consumers in the country of origin.

Make a comparative study of prices of essential items sold in Malaysia and Singapore, and the price can be quite revealing to the profiteering of a captive Singaporean market.

I bet you are not aware that some of the basic items in Malaysia are subsidize by the MY government specially for the lower income people who couldnt afford it?

I am curious why didnt you compare NTUC to Giant and Carrefour supermarket in Singapore. How can this be a captive market, when Singapore doesnt impose any import duties on 99.99% of the items that you buy in supermarket?

Originally posted by Atobe:
The accumulated annual bumper profits allowed NTUC to build a glass castle in the most expensive plot of land in downtown Singapore.

NTUC's involvement in the Supermarket business was supported by the Singapore Government - which is totally immersed in any business that generate dollars and cents by the second into the Cash Register.

You mean the plot of land which Carrefour and Coldstorage operate in downtown are not expensive? Do you have reason to believe the NTUC presense in Downtown areas will make grocery in downtown more expensive and not more competitive? As an average Singaporean living in downtown, and if cost is a major concern, would you prefer to have a choice to shop at NTUC?

Originally posted by Atobe:
If the Singaporean Super Rich visit J.B. - the Johoreans will think that Royalty has arrived.

In any case, the Super-Rich do not even bother to visit J.B. as they have the resources to pay for the even higher priced products in the up market supermarkets - Jasons, and Cold Storage.

No, it is not the Super-Rich that visit J.B. but it is the Singaporean Middle and Lower Income Groups that visit J.B.

I think you are contradicting yourself here. Firstly you begin by saying super rich that comes to singapore will create cost pressure on average singaporeans life, and you compare that with the life of johorian affected by Singaporeans visiting JB. And now you are saying that Super Rich can afford to pay higher price. I am not sure if you do know the underlying reason why Singaporeans go to JB for shopping?

Originally posted by Atobe:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"hence there is less impact of the cost of manufacturing those products due to the spike in cost of living in Singapore"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, how can the cost of living in Singapore affect the cost manufacturing those products that are sourced overseas ?

I think you are quoting me out of context here, I was just trying to playdown your concern that the arrival of super rich and rising property prices in prime area will make cost of basic items to rise like what happened in JB. And my point here is that Singapore import 99% of what we consume, hence rising property prices in prime district or the millionair playground in downtown will have minimal cost pressure for average singaporeans life.

Originally posted by Atobe:

BTW, granite and sand quarries in Singapore were shut down in Singapore, and we were made to be dependent on external sources; and exposed our weak flanks to external squeezing; resulting in a string of unforeseen consequences to Singaporeans - paying it all at the end of the line.

Can you see the difference in that costs or selling prices kept purposefully by foreigners or by locals, will end up affecting the Singapore Cost of Living ?

I am not sure what does wooing super rich to Singapore has to do with granite and sands. Singapore, like any open market ecnomy, will always be affected by external force, and the reason why we are able to overcome them is because we have a capable (not perfect) government that can help to counter any external threats.

Atobe SG

Originally posted by Gazelle:

Originally posted by Atobe:

Yes, the majority of those made bankrupts could well be the credit card spenders.

Unfortunately, those who caused the Banks the biggest dents are those in the minority, who borrowed heavily to ride on the property boom prior to the collapse of the property prices.

In any case, my response was addressing the following statement in your previous post, which did not include credit card spenders made bankrupt.

Keep Life simple by not adding irrelevant points - unless you have nothing else to add, but simply wish to digress

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like I mentioned before, if you life is driven by greed and appetide for risk and getting involve in speculating property, can you blame our government if you are made bankrupt? On one hand you are blaming government for no freedom, on the othe hand you are blaming the government for no doing anything go prevent people from buying property? And for your info, the government did increase in the minimum downpayment to restrict speculator prior to the crash.

In any case, I was just tying to highlight to you that credit cards, car loans and failing business are the major caused of bankrupcy in Singapore, rather than what you say that majority of home owners who bought property prior to last recession were made bankrupt. If that is a fact, then majority of singaporeans adult will be made bankrupt isnt it?

No where in my last two response have I even begun to blame the Government for the number of bankruptcies - how did you manage to read this in my last statements and bring this up ?

Since you have brought it up as a question, I shall attempt to give you an answer as to why the Government SHOULD BE BLAMED for the huge number of bankruptcies in Singapoer.

Property market was treated as a casino before the last boom and bust, and the government had the means to control the market and place some dampener on it before the bust. Unfortunately, it refused to recognise its role, as the cabinet ministers (or their spouses on their behalf) are known to be dabbling in the property market as well. Even in the USA, the Federal Reserves and the Government will work in tandem to ensure that property prices are stable and will use the Bank Interest Rates to moderate the market and prevent speculative inflation.

What has our government done ?

In a PriceWaterhouseCoopers 2004 report - (after the last crash in 2002), it mentioned that ''Singapore's GDP per capita of USD24,560 in FY2004 is among the highest in the world, which should put them amongst citizens with the highest buying power. However, the level of personal disposable income is actually lower than perceived due to the high level of indebtedness.''

The report also quote the Singapore Department of Statistcs 2002 Survey that ''the average Singapore household is one of the most indebted in the world. Household debt, as a percentage of personal disposable income, stood at 174% in 2000, higher than countries such as Britain (116%), Japan (100%), and the US (90%). This is due to people chalking up huge amounts for car ownership, private property and club membership. The number of personal bankruptcies has continually reached records levels in recent years.''.

With a car control policy that encourages cars to be scrapped at zero values, and to be changed every ten years; PLUS the high import duties imposed even as other means have already brought car population under control - this only accentuate the debt problem for Singaporeans. Transportation absorb 21% of Singaporean disposable income.

Housing costs could have been made more reasonable without taking away all that Singaporeans have in their CPF, as well as absorbing 22% of their disposable income for housing.

Food is another big ticket item that absorb 21% of the disposable income - with the cost for all these three items being under the direct influence of the Government, whose GLC linked companies have a near monopoly in providing these services, and ringing in bumper profits.

Originally posted by Atobe:

How could those people who have been caught during the last recession benefit from the current property boom, especially those who have been caught by the Banks and not able to pay up on the heavy loans used for the purpose of property speculation ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Property boom will benefit all existing home owners, especially those who have been holding on to negative value property.

This is obvious, but how many from the last boom and bust cycle are around to take advantage of the current boom ?

New entrants into the current boom trend maybe the next victims when the bust trend should suddenly rear its ugly head, when they ignore the signs as already have been loud concerns are already being voiced from New York to Shanghai.

Our government being the biggest beneficiary of a boom trend, will let things roll along for as long as it can continue to milk the benefits of the trend.

LifeIsWonderful SG

seems like there are some die hard PAP fans in singapore (based on this thread). I feel really sorry for certain people because of their lack of empathy, or perhaps they are very ignorant, that they cannot see the sufferings of the poor people in sg. their thinking is very one sided, they only think for the rich people. maybe they should quit their pap job, put all their current money to charity, then become a taxi driver or bus driver, then live that life for a few years then they will understand better. Otherwise, the fallacies remains

Atobe SG

Have you so quickly forgotten the recommendation of the sub-Committee on Policies Related To Taxation, The CPF System, Wages & Land - Economic Review Committee set up after the 2002 crash ?

Try to absorb some of the following Parliament Debates taken from the Official Report of the Eleventh Parliament - in which a MP was quoted as saying ''I see the two main drivers to this : (1) the nature of work is fast moving away from full-time employment to a contract-based and flexi-time model.... ''

Even a MP from the Ruling Party had also complained about the lack of government intervention to control the Cost of Living in Singapore.

Are these actions NOT seen as cutting the options for Singaporeans, while enhancing the economic economic and social environment to woo the Super-Rich to plant their monies here.

Why do you think that this Government is allowing Sentosa Island and the old Keppel Shipyard to be developed into a World Class Private Housing with marinas that allow their yatchs to be moored next to their homes ?

With the IR and these Up-Market Developments, the Government had declared that Singapore shall be the next Monaco to be a playground for the Rich and Famous.

Running out of ideas ? Hardly. Where have you been since the 2002 Crash ?

Atobe SG

continuation

Posted by Gazelle:

If I am not mistaken, LV Sands and Genting International both pump in around S$5b each to build both the IR, and at the same time, I think our government has pocketed close to S$2b for the 2 plot of land. I hope this answer your question on where the money to build a world class city has come from, and your question on who is paying for the reclaimation of the land of that plot size.

Yes, now that LV Sands and Genting International both pumped in around S$5 Billion each to build both the IR, how do you think they will recover their investments from ?

Who do you think will be the biggest repeat users to be targetted in their marketing plan ?

How do you think they will price their facilities so as to recover their investment of S$5 Billion in the shortest possible time ?

Do you think that the S$5 Billion dollars are treated as donations by LV Sands and Genting - to be forgotten ?

The single most expensive investment which our government has made (excluding circle line) in downtown area is probably the Esplanade, at $600m without the cost of land. And even that, it is not catering on the rich and famous, it is for people from all walks of life.

How many people from all walks of life - from the uncles and aunties at the Hawker Centres to Kopitiam, or the Heartlands have even sat in the Theatre Halls of the Esplanade ?

A trip there to take photos outside the Esplanade will probably cost a family of five or six at least S$60 - conservatively estimated to cover cost of transport, food and beverages - and not including the prohibitive prices to attend a concert or theatre show.

With nearly about 64% of our disposable income removed for Housing, Transport and Communication and Food, there remains the other 18% left for Recreation, 4% for Clothing and Footwear, 8% for Education, and 5% for Healthcare - at different quantum of disposable incomes for the various Upper, Middle, and Lower income groups, how many from each of these groups can afford to attend the concerts regularly ?

Will not the cost of the infrastructure be recovered from some other alternative means, as this government has been well adapt at ?

What our government has created is a enviroment for people to work and live, it doesnt create an enviroment only for super rich can live here. If that was their intention, I would have reason to believe that our government would have awarded the sentosa IR to Eighth Wonders instead of Genting Int. (And please dont say GIL victory was due to political reasons, unless you have hard evidence to support your case)

The award of the IR projects are based on a list of criteria that has been well publicised; and also for other reasons that we may very well never know the reasons that Genting can beat Eigth Wonders for the Sentosa IR, considering the visit made by PM Badawi at a critical moment of the bidding process, which is all too much to be a co-incidence.

While this government has created an environment for people to work, it also has created an environment where it will provide its own cash register to ring continuously - this is not an altruistic government.

Gazelle SG

So you are blaming high property price as a cause for making singaporeans indebted for life, and you link that as a reason for the high bankruptcy rate during the last reccession, BUT you are not against the government and their housing policy?

You are quoting a report which was made in 2004 which focus on our economy in 2003, which happen to be the peak of the worst recession in Singapore history, thanks to SARS which started from end 2002 throughout 2003. I am sure there are plenty of reports highlighting the state of our economy right now, you might as well read it first before asking what our government has done over the last few years.

I am surprise that you have actually highlighted the high level of indebtedness of Singaporeans in 2003, especially from someone who is against property boom.

I thought that a rise in property price will help home owner who were caught in last recession to get out of debt (though downsizing of property and refinancing) faster.

oxford mushroom SG

Yes, now that LV Sands and Genting International both pumped in around S$5 Billion each to build both the IR, how do you think they will recover their investments from ?

The IR will boost tourism in Singapore and based on the clients in Macau and Australia, the biggest contributor to the casinos will be Maninland Chinese.

Unlike you atobe, many Singaporeans take public transprt like me

Anyone can speculate. NPNT!

The fact is that the award did not favour local companies despite their link to the government. It was based on commercial considerations...that's transparency.

Gazelle SG

Originally posted by Atobe:

Have you so quickly forgotten the recommendation of the sub-Committee on Policies Related To Taxation, The CPF System, Wages & Land - Economic Review Committee set up after the 2002 crash ?

Try to absorb some of the following Parliament Debates taken from the Official Report of the Eleventh Parliament - in which a MP was quoted as saying ''I see the two main drivers to this : (1) the nature of work is fast moving away from full-time [b]employment to a contract-based and flexi-time model.... ''

Even a MP from the Ruling Party had also complained about the lack of government intervention to control the Cost of Living in Singapore.

Are these actions NOT seen as cutting the options for Singaporeans, while enhancing the economic economic and social environment to woo the Super-Rich to plant their monies here.

Why do you think that this Government is allowing Sentosa Island and the old Keppel Shipyard to be developed into a World Class Private Housing with marinas that allow their yatchs to be moored next to their homes ?

With the IR and these Up-Market Developments, the Government had declared that Singapore shall be the next Monaco to be a playground for the Rich and Famous.

Running out of ideas ? Hardly. Where have you been since the 2002 Crash ?

[/b]

I am really surprise that people could actually think that the underlying reasons for the CPF cut and flex wage policy is not about preventing the hollowing out of industry to other developing country, but it is government way of pampering the rich at the expense of the poor.

And to expect the government to be doing this, during Singapore worst recession??

There is a contrasting difference between having IRs and being a Monaco.
The only link I know so far is that Singapore is trying to be the next monaco for Formula 1. IF Singapore intention is to be like Monaco, than why are we using Venetian in LV as biz model for both our IRs?

Did our government declare that Singapore is going to be the next Monaco, or it is just another assumption of yours? If you want an example of a country trying to be like monaco, it is Dubai, not Singapore.

oxford mushroom SG

Originally posted by Atobe:

Singaproeans are mostly employed on Work Contracts that are renewalble every three to five years - if you are lucky; since most Singaporeans are currently offered new jobs with only 6 months to 1 year work contract.

Why not? I would do that. If I cannot rid myself of a worker that cannot perform, I would be less likely to employ. That is the reason why the French government tried to make it easier for employers to fire young workers. The rigid employment policy there has resulted in the one of highest unemployment rates in the EU despite a flourishing global economy.

Protectionism does not work. Singapore has succeeded through globalisation and we will continue to prosper through the free movement of labour and capital. Protecting the interests of the bumiputras in Malaysia has not worked, even Mahatir admits that.

Only you will think of such a daft way to waste money. High asset value individuals bring in jobs and create wealth for local Singaporeans. Monaco has very little in terms of manufacturing but is wealthy by promoting itself as the playground for the rich and famous.

Who has paid for the massive amount spent on land reclamation, and who will be paying for the multi-dolloar spent on infrastructure that include new MRT lines, roads, and utilities ?

Who gets to enjoy most the efficient public transport and excellent infrastructure in Singapore?

a MP was quoted as saying ''I see the two main drivers to this : (1) the nature of work is fast moving away from full-time employment to a contract-based and flexi-time model.... ''

A flexible wage system encourages employment. As France has demonstrated to us in recent years, the more rigid the system is to try and protect jobs, the less willing employers will be to employ and more unemployment results.

Initial contract jobs enables employers to assess if the worker can make it. For the worker who is in demand, it does not matter. My employer offers me permanent employment but I reject it for a yearly contract, so that I can negotiate my salary yearly and the notice period is shorter.

It does not matter whether you have a permanent or yearly contract, as long as your skills are in demand.

They are the ones who employ Singaporeans. They are the ones who pay the most taxes (and only 40% of Singaporeans pay any taxes at all). They are the ones who will create the buzz that attracts more high asset value individuals like themselves. Having them here will benefit more Singaporeans.

Gazelle SG

Originally posted by Atobe:

Yes, now that LV Sands and Genting International both pumped in around S$5 Billion each to build both the IR, how do you think they will recover their investments from ?

Who do you think will be the biggest repeat users to be targetted in their marketing plan ?

How do you think they will price their facilities so as to recover their investment of S$5 Billion in the shortest possible time ?

Do you think that the S$5 Billion dollars are treated as donations by LV Sands and Genting - to be forgotten ?

Do you think it is feasible for LV Sands and Genting to invest $10b for a 30 years lease, and with the potential of having new player in the market after 10 years if their target customers is Singaporeans?

Do you know how much Singaporeans spend a year gambling overseas?

Do you know about the 70/30 business model which our government expecting from the IR operators?

Do you know how much Genting is pledging every year to update the IR?

Did you know that on weekdays, there is free concert at the concert hall organized by Esplande during lunch time. Yes, FREE OF CHARGE.

Did you know that there is an outdoor stage by the marina that offer shows and performance of free. Yes, FREE of CHARGE, and they are expanding it to make it more comfortable for the audience.

Did PM Badawi visit Singapore prior to the annoucement? I thought the only contact of the politicians was during the annoucement of the Iskandar projects. If you think that it was politcal, then may I ask what did singapore get in return after giving such a lucrative project to Genting? Or are you just doing what everybody is capable of doing, that is SPECULATING without FACTS.

Atobe SG

Originally posted by Gazelle:

So you are blaming high property price as a cause for making singaporeans indebted for life, and you link that as a reason for the high bankruptcy rate during the last reccession, BUT you are not against the government and their housing policy?

If high property prices that lead to an environment of speculative casino mentality is not the responsibility of the government to dampen, whose should it be ?

The Public Housing Policy of this Government is another subject of contention that has been well put forth in other threads - are you not in disagreement ?

You are quoting a report which was made in 2004 which focus on our economy in 2003, which happen to be the peak of the worst recession in Singapore history, thanks to SARS which started from end 2002 throughout 2003. I am sure there are plenty of reports highlighting the state of our economy right now, you might as well read it first before asking what our government has done over the last few years.

Yes, SARS came along before the Economy recovered fully from the 1997 economic crash.

Yes, there are plenty of reports highlighting the state of our economy - from whose account ?

I am surprise that you have actually highlighted the high level of indebtedness of Singaporeans in 2003, especially from someone who is against property boom.

Why should you be surprised ?

Are you disputing the fact that the boom and bust speculation in the uncontrolled Singapore Property Market is NOT the main cause of those caught in the mad period and went bankrupt ?

What make you believe that the number of credit card holders will outnumber those caught speculating on properties ?

I thought that a rise in property price will help home owner who were caught in last recession to get out of debt (though downsizing of property and refinancing) faster.

What makes you believe so strongly that those "caught in the last recession" could still hold on to their property and lasted till this day ?

BTW are we on the same frequency ?

My reference of those "caught in the last recession" are those who were speculating in the property markets, while you may have your point that there could well be some others who have purchased their homes at the PEAK of the last property boom and before the last property market crashed.

In any case, if your "referenced group" decide to off-load their property at this time, will the difference in price cover for the high interest rates paid on their home loans that were already based on the previous high price ?

The current pricing must be at least 50% higher than the last purchase price, or else your "referenced group" can hardly breakeven.

The money recovered from the sale of the high priced home will also have to cover for the period of "homelessness" while a new home has to be considered in this current property BOOM pricing.

Where are you heading to after all is considered ?

Do you think your "referenced group" can still come out ahead ?

Atobe SG

Originally posted by Gazelle:

I am really surprise that people could actually think that the underlying reasons for the CPF cut and flex wage policy is not about preventing the hollowing out of industry to other developing country, but it is government way of pampering the rich at the expense of the poor.

And to expect the government to be doing this, during Singapore worst recession??

You should be surprised - but not at my presentation - but at the Government position in maintaining the CPF and flex wage policy now that stability is supposed to have set in.

We are now into 2007, and the events of hollowing out of the industry had been on-going since the early 1980s, when multi-nationals were already moving aggressively into China and India.

Singapore had more then 20 year headstart to the approaching storm of 1997 - when a combination of factors - crashed the Singapore economy.

What did this bunch of Over-paid Talent do to prepare Singapore during the previous 10 years ?

Were their actions not mere fight-fighting at the expense of Singaporeans ?

There is a contrasting difference between having IRs and being a Monaco.
The only link I know so far is that Singapore is trying to be the next monaco for Formula 1. IF Singapore intention is to be like Monaco, than why are we using Venetian in LV as biz model for both our IRs?

Did our government declare that Singapore is going to be the next Monaco, or it is just another assumption of yours? If you want an example of a country trying to be like monaco, it is Dubai, not Singapore.

You should be more discerning with your assessment before making your remarks - unless you are totally consumed by the reasons for having IRs.

The IRs is disguised as such in order to make the entire project more palatable to conservative Singaporeans, and also to present the old guards from the Ruling Party look less foolish with this U-Turn.

What do you think this Singapore Government has been working at for the last 10 years - attempting to draw in the Rich and Famous to reside and put their monies in Singapore ?

What do you think are the reasons for the approved projects such - as One Degree 15 at Sentosa Island, and the conversion of prime public property at the previous Keppel Shipyard into a Premier Housing Project - Carribean at Keppel Bay with private access to luxury boats while living in sea front homes - considering that it has been 50 years of Ruling Party policy to level the social advantage for all Singaporeans, with seafront bungalows of the 1950s all eradicated ?

Why do you think that there is such a purposeful effort to attract all the Rich and Famous into Singapore with this air of a 'Monaco in the Tropics' ?

In the great IR aka Casino Debate, the effects and life in Monaco (as well as other casino centers) was referred to repeatedly even by MM LKY.

AndrewPKYap SG

Originally posted by Gazelle:
[b]Wooing the super-rich

What are the positive and negative implications of creating an attractive environment in Singapore for the super-rich? Is there a need for specific steps to ensure that this benefits all Singaporeans?

[/b]

Government by the rich for the rich (and raise GST for the poor while they raise their million dollars pay) and now... for the rich foreigner... *sigh*

Atobe SG

Originally posted by Gazelle:

Originally posted by Atobe:

Yes, now that LV Sands and Genting International both pumped in around S$5 Billion each to build both the IR, how do you think they will recover their investments from ?

Who do you think will be the biggest repeat users to be targetted in their marketing plan ?

How do you think they will price their facilities so as to recover their investment of S$5 Billion in the shortest possible time ?

Do you think that the S$5 Billion dollars are treated as donations by LV Sands and Genting - to be forgotten ?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you think it is feasible for LV Sands and Genting to invest $10b for a 30 years lease, and with the potential of having new player in the market after 10 years if their target customers is Singaporeans?

Do you know how much Singaporeans spend a year gambling overseas?

Do you know about the 70/30 business model which our government expecting from the IR operators?

Do you know how much Genting is pledging every year to update the IR?

Was the piece of land leased to LV Sands for 30 years only ?

I must have missed that one.

If LV Sands is prepared to place $10 Billions for 30 years - we should all be very concerned. Do you not think so ?

Originally posted by Atobe:

How many people from all walks of life - from the uncles and aunties at the Hawker Centres to Kopitiam, or the Heartlands have even sat in the Theatre Halls of the Esplanade ?

A trip there to take photos outside the Esplanade will probably cost a family of five or six at least S$60 - conservatively estimated to cover cost of transport, food and beverages - and not including the prohibitive prices to attend a concert or theatre show.

With nearly about 64% of our disposable income removed for Housing, Transport and Communication and Food, there remains the other 18% left for Recreation, 4% for Clothing and Footwear, 8% for Education, and 5% for Healthcare - at different quantum of disposable incomes for the various Upper, Middle, and Lower income groups, how many from each of these groups can afford to attend the concerts regularly ?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[b]Did you know that on weekdays, there is free concert at the concert hall organized by Esplande during lunch time. Yes, FREE OF CHARGE.

Did you know that there is an outdoor stage by the marina that offer shows and performance of free. Yes, FREE of CHARGE, and they are expanding it to make it more comfortable for the audience.

You are certainly very considerate towards the heartlanders in Singapore, who have to toil in the factories, shipyards, or at the hawker centers, the bus and taxi drivers, delivery persons, shop attendants, and the countless others spread across the Singapore island to earn their daily keep.

Thank you very much, but how many can take the trouble to head to the Esplanade for a free concert by some Classical Quartet during a 45 minute or 1 hour lunch break ?

Originally posted by Atobe:

The award of the IR projects are based on a list of criteria that has been well publicised; and also for other reasons that we may very well never know the reasons that Genting can beat Eigth Wonders for the Sentosa IR, considering the visit made by PM Badawi at a critical moment of the bidding process, which is all too much to be a co-incidence.

While this government has created an environment for people to work, it also has created an environment where it will provide its own cash register to ring continuously - this is not an altruistic government

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did PM Badawi visit Singapore prior to the annoucement? I thought the only contact of the politicians was during the annoucement of the Iskandar projects. If you think that it was politcal, then may I ask what did singapore get in return after giving such a lucrative project to Genting? Or are you just doing what everybody is capable of doing, that is SPECULATING without FACTS.

Not exactly prior to the announcement but he was in Singapore for a two day visit a month or two after the first IR result was announced.

Co-incidence ?

There are more then meets the eye if you learn to read between the lines in what is said and not said by some government leaders on both sides of the Causeway.

Only those who are ignorantly self-centered will ask - ''What did Singapore get in return ?'' - when Temasek was given the opportunity to buy a stake in Telekom Malaysia, as well as the Singapore GIC were given official blessing to participate in some prime projects owned by the Malaysian Government.

Atobe SG

Originally posted by oxford mushroom:

Original post by Atobe:

Yes, now that LV Sands and Genting International both pumped in around S$5 Billion each to build both the IR, how do you think they will recover their investments from ?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The IR will boost tourism in Singapore and based on the clients in Macau and Australia, the biggest contributor to the casinos will be Maninland Chinese.

You are a disappoint for the Government with your view, as their stated main objective is not to promote the Casino but the Family aspects of the entire ''Resort''.

A trip there to take photos outside the Esplanade will probably cost a family of five or six at least S$60 - conservatively estimated to cover cost of transport, food and beverages - and not including the prohibitive prices to attend a concert or theatre show.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unlike you atobe, many Singaporeans take public transprt like me

A goofy 'bourgeois' attempting to pass off as an ordinary 'proletariat' ?

Try harder and you may well be awarded the title of 'Champion Fraudster'.

[b]The award of the IR projects are based on a list of criteria that has been well publicised; and also for other reasons that we may very well never know the reasons that Genting can beat Eigth Wonders for the Sentosa IR, considering the visit made by PM Badawi at a critical moment of the bidding process, which is all too much to be a co-incidence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone can speculate. NPNT!

The fact is that the award did not favour local companies despite their link to the government. It was based on commercial considerations...that's transparency.

Try some transparency with all government practices and not on selective basis that involve foreign interests only.

As starter, the COE bidding process will be a good point to start, and the entire Judicial System when dealing with political personalities.

Gazelle SG

Originally posted by Atobe:
quote:

If high property prices that lead to an environment of speculative casino mentality is not the responsibility of the government to dampen, whose should it be ?

The Public Housing Policy of this Government is another subject of contention that has been well put forth in other threads - are you not in disagreement ?

Did the government forced Singaporeans to speculate in property or was the speculation driven by market force and investor's own greed? I could assure you that once the government intervene, anti-gov camp will start with another thread saying that Singapore is like a nanny state. Am I right?

Originally posted by Atobe:
quote:

What makes you believe so strongly that those "caught in the last recession" could still hold on to their property and lasted till this day ?

BTW are we on the same frequency ?

My reference of those "caught in the last recession" are those who were speculating in the property markets, while you may have your point that there could well be some others who have purchased their homes at the PEAK of the last property boom and before the last property market crashed.

In any case, if your "referenced group" decide to off-load their property at this time, will the difference in price cover for the high interest rates paid on their home loans that were already based on the previous high price ?

The current pricing must be at least 50% higher than the last purchase price, or else your "referenced group" can hardly breakeven.

The money recovered from the sale of the high priced home will also have to cover for the period of "homelessness"; while a new home has to be considered in this current property BOOM pricing.

Where are you heading to after all is considered ?

Do you think your "referenced group" can still come out ahead ?

[/b]

a) Speculators are speculators, regardless of what the government does, they will still speculate. And FYI, I think the government has already mentioned that they are monitoring the situation and they would do something when its necessary.

b) And why should the government be blame if someone decided to take a million dollar gamble on property? Even if they got burnt, that is none of our business isnt it? because they are speculators, not home owners.

Atobe SG

Originally posted by oxford mushroom:

Post by Atobe:

Singaproeans are mostly employed on Work Contracts that are renewalble every three to five years - if you are lucky; since most Singaporeans are currently offered new jobs with only 6 months to 1 year work contract.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why not? I would do that. If I cannot rid myself of a worker that cannot perform, I would be less likely to employ. That is the reason why the French government tried to make it easier for employers to fire young workers. The rigid employment policy there has resulted in the one of highest unemployment rates in the EU [b]despite a flourishing global economy.
[/b]

Your tone is impetuously arrogant and spoken with a condescending confidence of your own position being permanent.

Your unsympathetic position to those less fortunate than yourself is obvious.

It will be doubtful if you can even begin to appreciate the problems that this Government has created for the Working Class with this absurb approach.

Have you tried making long term financial plans and working with Banks on home loans with your short term employment contract ?

Since the 1960s - when Singapore embarked on industrialization - any worker who prove themselves to be below par have always been fired without any problems.

The problems arose when the Economy took a downturn, when the over-paid Talents in our Singapore Government could not read the writings on the Wall, and stubbornly pushed on with out-dated and over-reliance on tested economic programs despite warning voices to change.

When the economic realities finally dawned on Singapore, and the accumulation of economic challenges - that were neglected over time - finally bursting, the brunt of the economic structural changes was borne by Singaporeans as a whole.

Structural changes had to happen when long term neglect was in place.

With your past record of dishonesty in debate, can one believe your positon taken ?

Instead of wooing the Super-Rich, why is this Government not helping to create wealthy Singaporeans instead - in a similar way that politics and the laws are drafted in Switzerland that creates and protect the wealth of Swiss Citizens ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Protectionism does not work. Singapore has succeeded through globalisation and we will continue to prosper through the free movement of labour and capital. Protecting the interests of the bumiputras in Malaysia has not worked, even Mahatir admits that.

Have I begun to discuss about 'Protectionism' ?

If the Singapore Government is seriously interested in creating wealth for Singaporeans as a whole, and not merely as political rhetoric, then more concrete measures should be put in place that will allow the Citizens to flourish - politically, economically, and culturally.

The Swiss enjoy a fair amount of 'Protectionsism' - have the Swiss Citizens been disadvantaged by Globalisation ?

With the large amount of money spent on reclaiming land from the sea and designated as the New Marina - Downtown Financial District - do you think that the Singapore Government will build low cost HDB units there.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only you will think of such a daft way to waste money. High asset value individuals bring in jobs and create wealth for local Singaporeans. Monaco has very little in terms of manufacturing but is wealthy by promoting itself as the playground for the rich and famous.

Daft way to waste money ?

Are the residents of Monaco expected to live outside of the wealthy areas of Monaco, or are the Rich n Wealthy living amidst the locals ?

Are there rich enclaves of foreigners in Monaco divided from the local residents ?

Singapore's way of allowing only up-market residential projects in the reclaimed land on the Marina is a departure of this Government's social-political attitude of the 1960s.

During the 1960s, the social levelling policy had resulted in sea front bungalows with their private yatchs and speed boats left high and dry on cut-off slip ways and jetties.

Now, the political rhetoric has changed with the encouragement of private sea front living for the Super*Rich foreigners, with luxury yatchs moored right up to one's main door.

Are Singaporeans not disadvantaged by the Government's wooing of the Super*Rich ?

Who has paid for the massive amount spent on land reclamation, and who will be paying for the multi-dolloar spent on infrastructure that include new MRT lines, roads, and utilities ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who gets to enjoy most the efficient public transport and excellent infrastructure in Singapore?

Since you claimed to be a frequent dependent on the local public transport, have you not taken advantage of the contribution of the other 99.99% Singaporeans paying for the continued upkeep and operation of the system ?

Atobe SG

continuation

Originally posted by Oxford Mushroom

Post by Atobe:

a MP was quoted as saying ''I see the two main drivers to this : (1) the nature of work is fast moving away from full-time employment to a contract-based and flexi-time model.... ''

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[b]A flexible wage system encourages employment. As France has demonstrated to us in recent years, the more rigid the system is to try and protect jobs, the less willing employers will be to employ and more unemployment results.

Initial contract jobs enables employers to assess if the worker can make it. For the worker who is in demand, it does not matter. My employer offers me permanent employment but I reject it for a yearly contract, so that I can negotiate my salary yearly and the notice period is shorter.

It does not matter whether you have a permanent or yearly contract, as long as your skills are in demand.

Refer to my comments on this topic as indicated in the preceding paragraph.

Why do you think that this Government is allowing Sentosa Island and the old Keppel Shipyard to be developed into a World Class Private Housing with marinas that allow their yatchs to be moored next to their homes ?

With the IR and these Up-Market Developments, the Government had declared that Singapore shall be the next Monaco to be a playground for the Rich and Famous.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They are the ones who employ Singaporeans. They are the ones who pay the most taxes (and only 40% of Singaporeans pay any taxes at all). They are the ones who will create the buzz that attracts more high asset value individuals like themselves. Having them here will benefit more Singaporeans.

Would you like to clarify who are the "They'' that you are referring to ?

If you believe that the Super*Rich are the highest tax payers, you may wish to use the following report from the IRAS {Page 114 or PDF Page 6 of 20} and withdraw your statement.

Then again, judging by your dishonesty and consistent avoidance to address issues when confronted with figures but will prefer to twist your way out or simply abandon your position without even an apology - I will not be expecting too much from you.

Gazelle SG

Originally posted by Atobe:
[b]You should be surprised - but not at my presentation - but at the Government position in maintaining the CPF and flex wage policy now that stability is supposed to have set in.

We are now into 2007, and the events of hollowing out of the industry had been on-going since the early 1980s, when multi-nationals were already moving aggressively into China and India.

Singapore had more then 20 year headstart to the approaching storm of 1997 - when a combination of factors - crashed the Singapore economy.

What did this bunch of Over-paid Talent do to prepare Singapore during the previous 10 years ?

Were their actions not mere fight-fighting at the expense of Singaporeans ?

Didnt PM Lee mentioned the increase in employer CPF contribution rate in this year's budget?

You must be kidding me. Could you tell me which major MNC company has actually left Singapore and invest aggressively in China during the 80s? Big multinational companies only started to move in aggressively during the late 90s when China was about to join WTO, and their government privatising the state owned companies. I think the amount of FDI in china during the 80s and 90s is less than wat Singapore is attracting today.

(Would appreciate if you could get your facts right before using it as an arguement)

When the currency crisis hit Thailand in 97, most regional currency and economy collapse and Singapore didnt ran into a recession until about 2000/1, and we didnt have to borrow any money from IMF or worldbank or impose any capital control to stablish our currency. Our government defended it very well.

Is this not something the government has done in preparation to support the economy? Or are you saying that Singapore, as a open economy that has billions dollars of bilateral trade with indonesia and Malaysia should escape the Asia recession if we have a strong government?

Originally posted by Atobe:

You should be more discerning with your assessment before making your remarks - unless you are totally consumed by the reasons for having IRs.

The IRs is disguised as such in order to make the entire project more palatable to conservative Singaporeans, and also to present the old guards from the Ruling Party look less foolish with this U-Turn.

Obviously you are not aware why MM Lee was at Venetian LV and why he made the comment that Singapore IR should generate 70% of their revenue from non-gaming activities. Again, you are speculating.

Originally posted by Atobe:
What do you think this Singapore Government has been working at for the last 10 years - attempting to draw in the Rich and Famous to reside and put their monies in Singapore ?

What do you think are the reasons for the approved projects such - as One Degree 15 at Sentosa Island, and the conversion of prime public property at the previous Keppel Shipyard into a Premier Housing Project - Carribean at Keppel Bay with private access to luxury boats while living in sea front homes - considering that it has been 50 years of Ruling Party policy to level the social advantage for all Singaporeans, with seafront bungalows of the 1950s all eradicated ?

If Singapore intention was only to draw rich and famous into Singapore, I dont think our ministers will be busy wasting their time traveling all over the world to establish FTAs, promoting bilateral trade, initiating projects like biopolis etc. All they need to do is to scrap income tax, capital punishment, relax the law on smoking, nudity. And all these could be done with a simple signature above the dotted line.

If you dont know by now, the government is trying to establish Singapore as a finacial hub for wealth management and that is why more and more rich people will be coming to our shore. To you it might be bad because you couldnt afford to buy yourself a seafront bunglow, but to other Singaporeans, they see load of opportunities as private bankers and they will be one that eventually will be living in million dollar apartment which whinners could only dream of.

Originally posted by Atobe:

Why do you think that there is such a purposeful effort to attract all the Rich and Famous into Singapore with this air of a 'Monaco in the Tropics' ?

In the great IR aka Casino Debate, the effects and life in Monaco (as well as other casino centers) was referred to repeatedly even by MM LKY.

You should just give up on trying to link Monaco to Singapore, because if Singapore is like what you say, billionaire Stanley Ho will be major shareholder of Sentosa IR.

« Previous Page Next Page »