PAP moves to counter criticism of party, govt in cyberspace

last SG · 2007-02-03T11:48:43+00:00

I think they are most welcome to lurk and read what people thinks of PAP and their policies. But if they are lurking and waiting for opportunities to penali...

stupidissmart SG

Why is MOM not telling it as it is about the extent of unemployment among citizens and why is MOM lumping up figures with the PR in order to muddle the figure.

Do we need the figure to be so detailed ? I have checked germany, france etc other country and they also never break down the figures for PR and citizens. BTW which country do breakdown their unemployment rate to citizen and PR ?

Next shouldn't we might as well ask the different races unemployment rate, or the age group of the unemployement, the qualifications, their religion etc. We do it for all the statistic release like housing or income etc. Tis makes it it become too complicated and costly to be reproduced.

Furthermore, u may get the statistic u want if u ask the relevant department Rolling Eyes

Is HDB subsidizing the prices of low-cost housing or is it just simply giving a discount.

Tat depend on how u view the land cost

Is the land acquired with people's monies owned by the people and will it not be double-charging by selling these low-cost housing at market prices less a bit of discount which is wrongly misrepresented as subsidy.

Land is owned by the people means Gov own the land. But land is not free and it is used to gather tax for running the country. The tax goes to budget and goes to the people. Otherwise it becomes an unfair society where the people get the biggest land at the best location for free while the one having small land at lousy location get no renumeration or justice

It retreated against Port Pelepas. It retreated against challenges from Souzhou local authority. It retreated against Taiwan.

Why ? Because its presumably good and invincible mighty reasoning and ability simply cannot stand up to test by a larger humanity.

Why because their over-pervasive legalistic wrangling against its own citizens like ignoring them and doing as they like irrespective of wrongs do not and cannot work as well in the outer world.

The presumed ability, leadership or talents became hollow hypocrisy the moment they got tested outside the red dot where all rationality of laws and power to reason instantly end in dismal rejection by bigger forces.

That is why they cannot understand why Mahathir and Sonthi do not accept their reign of legalistic wrangling ending up compromising or coming down from the high horse.

Another way is simply because singapore is a country tat depend on diplomancy and they do not want to permanently sour relationship by verbal assaulting other nation. Do u personally encourage the gov to quarrel badly with china over suzhou, attack taiwan without stopping, not giving any face to malaysia and thailand and have relationships becoming permanently soured ? Giving way is not a sign of weakness, but could be a sign for strength.

robertteh SG

quote:Why is MOM not telling it as it is about the extent of unemployment among citizens and why is MOM lumping up figures with the PR in order to muddle the figure.

Stupidissmart

Do we need the figure to be so detailed ? I have checked germany, france etc other country and they also never break down the figures for PR and citizens. BTW which country do breakdown their unemployment rate to citizen and PR ?

Next shouldn't we might as well ask the different races unemployment rate, or the age group of the unemployement, the qualifications, their religion etc. We do it for all the statistic release like housing or income etc. Tis makes it it become too complicated and costly to be reproduced.

Furthermore, u may get the statistic u want if u ask the relevant department Rolling Eyes

Yes, if the government is honest and wants to show the real figures of direct job creation by the policy to allow foreigners to come in and take over citizens' jobs claiming that this is good for the economy.

If government cannot give such a direct job creation and could only give a total job creation, obviously it shows that the jobs filled by foreigners who also were given pr are too insignificant.

If government claims that the policy to allow foreigners to come in and take over any mundane jobs will help our economy to grow they must still look after our people's jobs to avoid unscrupulous employers replacing locals with foreigners for the slightest saving in wage costs.

There is a deliberate attempt to conceal the true picture of direct job creation as a result of allowing liberally the foreigners to lower costs to the employers.

It would seem that the government is always more ready to sacrifice the interest of the people when the people need the government most - securing employment opportunities when unemployed.

quote:Is HDB subsidizing the prices of low-cost housing or is it just simply giving a discount.

Stupidissmart:

Tat depend on how u view the land cost

It has been a subject of queries by the people as published in many letters to the Straits Times' forum page and HDB simply was lost for words - giving a discount to the market price and calling such discount subsidy to public housing. It is sheer dishonesty to say that HDB has subsidised its sale of flats in this manner.

The worse is when the lands were originally owned by people through people's taxes which paid for their acquisition under special powers provided by the Land Acquisition Act for public use and public housing.

It is pure chicanery to tell the people, that HDB had paid the SLA for the lands when such lands were originally acquired for or within the ratio reserved for low-cost public housing period.

It seems that up to now, minister Mah has not been able to rebut people's view that the lands were already owned and paid for and acquired for public housing using taxpayers' monies and when it comes to selling flats built on such lands, the flats should not have been priced at market price with a small discount which was falsely claimed as subsidy.

quote:Is the land acquired with people's monies owned by the people and will it not be double-charging by selling these low-cost housing at market prices less a bit of discount which is wrongly misrepresented as subsidy.

Stupidissmart:

Land is owned by the people means Gov own the land. But land is not free and it is used to gather tax for running the country. The tax goes to budget and goes to the people. Otherwise it becomes an unfair society where the people get the biggest land at the best location for free while the one having small land at lousy location get no renumeration or justice

Government is elected to represent the people and not for its own sake. So it is wrong to say that government could do what it likes and charge the fullest market price it likes for lands which were owned and paid for by the people for public housing.

If people use the land for certain other use like building a shopping centre for the purpose of private business, it is true that we can say that government owns the land and government has to sell such lands for such purposes at the fullest market price.

HDB has lost its original objective and became a profiteering private developer and committed serious wrong against the people.

quote:It retreated against Port Pelepas. It retreated against challenges from Souzhou local authority. It retreated against Taiwan.

Why ? Because its presumably good and invincible mighty reasoning and ability simply cannot stand up to test by a larger humanity.

Why because their over-pervasive legalistic wrangling against its own citizens like ignoring them and doing as they like irrespective of wrongs do not and cannot work as well in the outer world.

The presumed ability, leadership or talents became hollow hypocrisy the moment they got tested outside the red dot where all rationality of laws and power to reason instantly end in dismal rejection by bigger forces.

That is why they cannot understand why Mahathir and Sonthi do not accept their reign of legalistic wrangling ending up compromising or coming down from the high horse.

Stupidismsart:

Another way is simply because singapore is a country tat depend on diplomancy and they do not want to permanently sour relationship by verbal assaulting other nation. Do u personally encourage the gov to quarrel badly with china over suzhou, attack taiwan without stopping, not giving any face to malaysia and thailand and have relationships becoming permanently soured ? Giving way is not a sign of weakness, but could be a sign for strength.

Such consistent behaviour of the government in giving in to bigger forces outside in conducting diplomatic relations while continuously acting against the interests of its own citizens to claim as success is generally known as :"Big fish eats small fish and small fish eats shrimps as characterized or admitted by MM Lee the man responsible for all such so-called no-free lunch talk-down attitude adopted by the ministers towards its own people.

No wonder Singapore has lost its competitiveness and taken many years to recover from recessions. It is time to re-examine such fundamental "government must succeed and people can be sacrificed for government's own narrow NKF practices."

Many talented citizens have migrated to other countries to seek better use of their talent.

This is a serious social problem which has been caused by self-centredness on the part of government which still has not solved the unemployment or restructured the economy. All its claims of success is purely presentations of falsehood and hypocrisy.

bigmouthjoe SG

Someone actually came up with some interesting points on the net.

Effiencency.

> The $100,000 that a Singapore Minister is paid in ONE MONTH is what a
> typical experienced middle-age Singapore manager will earn in an ENTIRE
> YEAR!
> Nearly half-a-million (some 400,000) S'poreans even earn less than $1,500
> per month.

8 Ministers of State (Junior Ministers):
-- Salary range around $1m to $1.5m per year.

5 Parliamentary Secretaries & 1 Political Secretary:
-- Yatiman Yusof, Mohamed Maidin, Hawazi Daipi, Maliki Osman, Koo Tsai Kee.
Political Secretary Tang Guan Seng has been around for umpteen years!
-- Salary around $1m per year. Hardly any Ah Kow, Ahmad or Ali know what
the heck they actually do !!!

82 PAP Members of Parliament:
-- Likewise, what do this whole bunch "actually" do to "justify" their
MP Allowance of $11,900 per month (on top of their regular day job)???
[ SM Goh recently defended the $11,900 per month as "fair". Luckily (for
him), he didn't say the amount is "peanuts" !!! ]

-- They only show their faces mostly near a General Election.
-- They hardly bother to attend our infrequent Parliament sittings
(convenient lame excuse --- business commitments). But when either MM Lee
or PM Lee speak in Parliament, they were "somehow" able to attend! Some
were even caught napping on televised Parliament sessions!
-- At most, they hold weekly Meet-the-People sessions on resident's
problems dealing with bird-brained civil servants.
[Note: if our highly-paid civil servants have been doing a proper job, such
sessions would be unnecessay!].
At say, three hours per weekly session, these MPs are being paid close to
$1,000 per hour!
-- They also get to hold Directorships in many companies (mostly
govt-linked companies), collecting easy "side income" from numerous
director's fees.

http://groups.google.com.sg/group/soc.culture.singapore/msg/2b4dead75e79327b?&hl=en

bigmouthjoe SG

Our increasing cost of education:

5.3 Increasing Cost of Education

(a) Why such costly/posh educational institutions (sinking so much monies
into brick and cement???):

--- $435m SMU new City Campus in Bras Basah area.

--- $322m Republic Polytechnic new Woodlands Campus (latest amongst 5
Polytechnics).
Designed by a famous Japanese architect (expensive Foreign Talent! Singapore
architects not good enough?)

--- $370m new ITE College East Campus (near Singapore Expo).
A really ULTRA-POSH "mega-campus" (for hands-on technical education???).
Hold on -- another two more such mega-campus coming up (Central Campus and
West Campus) !!!

(b) See how, in tiny red dot Singapore, the 4 Universities
(NUS,NTU,SMU,UniSIM) and 5 Polytechnics try to "outdo each other" in
offering "duplicating courses" and resorting to costly Press/TV
advertising campaigns?
The students will, of course, have to pay for all these costs !!!

(b) What the heck is going on ???
First, Golden Taps at the NKF (National Kachang Foundation?)
Next, Golden Chairs at the NTU (Nanyang Technological University) !!!

News report on NTU Business School buying as many as 300 top-end
"ergonomic" Herman Miller office chairs costing $2,200 each (when chairs
costing $300 to $400 are just as good and lasting !!!)

(c) "University fees have increased by an annual average of 5% since 1990
and they have gone up every year, Mr Tharman said" (BT 2 Mar 06).

Mr Tharman, we all know that already. But why are you not telling the
people the detailed numbers of Govt bursaries/scholarships generously
given out to Foreign Students (most of whom are "making use" of Singapore as
a "stepping stone") ???

(d) $1m --- Consulting Fee which the MOE will pay an External Consultant
to review teacher's pay and career structure (annouced recently [clever
timing!] as yet another Big Election Carrot).

MOE has been around for donkey years, and has a massive Personnel Division
headed by 1 Director, 3 Deputy Directors and 12 Department Heads.
And yet have to pay so much in consulting fee to external consultants ???
Why can't they do most of the work with so much in-house resources ???

http://groups.google.com.sg/group/soc.culture.singapore/msg/2b4dead75e79327b?&hl=en

bigmouthjoe SG

How the government is spending our hard-earned money:

9 Incredibly Stupid Spending of the People's Hard-Earned Monies

9.1 $600m --- Amount earmarked for Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) to make
the lifts stop at every floor.

This is proof of yet another HDB Monumental Screw-Up.
In the original design/construction of HDB flats, the lift equipment and
lift shaft are already provided for.
So it would be easy and hardly costly to leave "doorway holes" in the brick
walls of the lift shaft --- so that the lifts can stop at every floor!
BUT HDB did not do so in the very first place (being stupidly penny-wise but
pound-foolish).
SO NOW the HDB is trying to "remedy" their past Monumental Mistake by
spending $600m of the people's hard-earned monies ( IN ADDITION to making
the people suffer all these years without the lifts stopping at every floor
!!!)

WHY, OH WHY must our people Pay And Pay (PAP) for all these Monumental
Blunders of our Highly-Paid Public Officials ???

[ HDB Minister-IN-CHARGE = Mah Bow Tan ]

9.2 $160m --- National Parks Board's Giant 2006 Election Carrot to
"spoil" the "unspoilt beauty" of East Coast Park !!!

[ NPB Minister-IN-CHARGE = Mah Bow Tan ]

9.3 $246m --- 2006 Total Expenditure Budget of the People's Association (a
statutory board under MCYS).
PAP politicians may deny it like hell, but smart S'poreans know very well
the PA has been used to "politicise" the grassroots movement to favour the
PAP.

$500,000 --- PA's "Image Revamp" spending this year in getting Public
Relations company Burson-Marsteller and Dick Lee to "rebrand itself to
appeal to the young".
If young S'poreans are not interested in the PA's programmes:
(i) a Good Govt will close down the PA and help save $246m for taxpayers
(ii) whereas a Dud Govt will spend another $500,000 to keep it afloat at all
costs (perhaps to save the job of loyal civil servant-cum-PA CEO Tan Boon
Huat?)

[ PA Minister-IN-CHARGE = Dr Vivian Balakrishnan ]
[ PA Chairman Lee Hsien Loong/ Dy Chairman Wong Kan Seng/ Members Mah Bow
Tan, Lim Swee Say ]

9.4 $400,000 2005 URA Marina Bay "Branding" Exercise:
URA's highly-paid civil servants allowing themselves to be CONNED by
Foreign CONsultants on the latest management buzzword of "branding".
Ended up spending this sum to re-brand Marina Bay as ......Marina Bay
!!!!!! WHAT THE HECK !!!

[ URA Minister-IN-CHARGE = Mah Bow Tan ]

9.5 $150,000 North-East CDC "Dare To Dream Fund" providing repeated
sponsorships in public funds to "self-styled adventurer" Khoo Swee Chiow.
An angry ST Forum writer wrote " Why should good money be given to a person
for his self-glorification? What does his being underwater for 212 hours
and 30 minutes do for Singapore?".

[ North-East CDC Mayor = Zainul Abidin Rasheed ]

9.6 $250,000 Said to be the cost of 2005 LTA "Image Survey":
Next, it is the LTA's turn to "throw public monies to the wind" by
hiring an (expensive) American Public Relations firm to conduct an "image
survey" to find out what the people "think" of the LTA after the Nicoll
Highway collapse !!!
What a Big Bunch of Bird-Brained Bureaucratic Buffoons !!!

[ LTA Minister-IN-CHARGE = Yeo Cheow Tong ]

9.7 $200,000 --- what LTA spent in 2005 to "save a matured Angsana tree"
located right in the middle of a road (outside Raffles Junior College) ---
resulting in several traffic near-accidents!
Which is more important --- saving human lives or saving a tree???

9.8 $125m --- Cost of LTA Expressway Monitoring & Advisory System (EMAS).
The Electronic Road Signboards were completed in March 1998 but plug was
pulled in October 2003.
LTA did not bother to explain why (as if the public have no right to know
!!!).

9.9 $40.3m --- Contracted Cost of LTA "high-tech/
state-of-the-art/real-time" information on bus arrivals.
In 2003, just months before the project completion, LTA terminated its
contract with Stratech Systems because of software and integration problems.
LTA reportedly face $4m in claims, but refused to disclose how much of the
$40.3m has been paid to Stratech Systems (as if taxpayer-citizens have no
right to know !!!)

http://groups.google.com.sg/group/soc.culture.singapore/msg/2b4dead75e79327b?&hl=en

Atobe SG

Another blundering experiment that LTA carried out was to add a digital count-down timer during the "Red" and "Green" cycles of traffic light controlled junctions.

The brilliant part of the design was that whether it was "Red" or "Green" light status, the digital count-down timer was constantly displaying in bright "RED" LED lights.

The test was cancelled with LTA saying that the "count-down timer" was too confusing, which was a blatant lie - as the test was designed to fail.

In Malaysia, Vietnam and even in Myanmar - the traffic lights with countdown timers will show the correct colors in sync with the "Red" or "Green" light status.

Our LTA should learn something from these supposedly more backward ASEAN countries.

How much did LTA spend on this experiment before scrapping it as failure due to their own brilliant intelligence ?

robertteh SG

truthbedamn wrote:
Given the interminable stream of gripes from people who don't know how to count their blessings, my wish is for Singapore to be reduced to a swamp under the leadership of the ilk of roberttehkh and for its men and women to be despatched as prostitutes to the four corners of the earth! Laughing

Let me ask you and all in the pap this question: between the need to serve the people and the pragmatism of taking unpopular measures non-stop of one kind or another which increase costs of living and divide society into elites rich and the struggling humanity of today, what should a wise leader have done, in the face of our current and previous difficulties especially when a leader should claim to be a great leader who has succeeded in transforming our swamp land from third to first world.

Shouldn't a wise leader have governed with truths, justice, and equity ?

No matter how dire are our circumstances, shouldn't a wise leader still possess and practise these foregoing desirable and relevant and prerequisite in governing our country?

Tell me, you and all pap members : between the choice of taking unpopular measures like taxing and recovering costs to the fullest to increase government surpluses and claim superficial credit for such surpluses and that of looking after people's needs based on truths and justice, which course of action will you choose?

Is it right and equitable to govern the country then with measures to stay in power in the name of meritocracy which only benefited a few connections for one's own sake or in the name of avoiding welfarism which actually drive up the costs of living and cause our gradual loss of economic competitiveness.

Is it not worse to damn the truths and then look the other way and say, well that is life - big eats small, take me on if you can?

LazerLordz SG

I smell an attempt to manage the views here by a few newcomers.

Laughing

Please lah, why work for people who ask you to be a spindoctor.

robertteh SG

This spin-doctor phrase sounds a bit dismissive as if someone has been unhappy with NKF revelations.

4getmenot SG

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

Ahh... but u also make the same assumption tat the minister r pretty lousy and can only find a, lets say $2,000 job outside ? Why don't we just see the system instead of the people. Do u agree tat the job of a minister is either equivalent or close to the job of a CEO of a MNC company ? If the pay is lousy, the people who can get $100,000 outside will not join as minister because they r donating a 80% salary donation to the country. Rolling Eyes If the pay is equvalent, then it is likely people who have talent to run as CEO will consider joining as minister. At least we can be sure tat there will be more candidates interested than giving 20,000 in the post and thus able to pick the better man for the job. The system can get better qualified people to turn the economy u desire isn't it ?

your post makes me laugh really..did you really wrote that or did you just cut and pasted that from someone else posts? becasue seems to me you probably didn;t really read it well enough to understand what you are writing afteralll??!!

Firstly - when you talk about the serving the country etc.. like a Minister, do you really take into account 80% of what you are gonna be paid for? becasue that seems to be what you are implying right there?

Secondly - Why would you want someone whos a CEO of a company to run a country? In other words, you mean managing a company is the same as managing a country?? Laughing

Thirdly, The system works to better turn around the economy, for whom actually does the system work for? Hmm..let me see.. a CEO of a company is being elected as a Minister..no guessing what system he implements works better for.. Rolling Eyes

robertteh SG

If leaders are holding themselves high as capable leaders who could sway the whole world with influence, like the way they conduct themselves to the citizens e.g. arrogance, self-confidence about their leadership abilities and talents and not willing to be subjected to good corporate governance or accountability processes, then our foreign relation will also suffer the same problem.

Being Leaders of a small country called the red dot by Habibi they must learn to conduct such foreign relation with a certain extra finesse which will win respect not only from its own people but from all other leaders and people.

They have been having past difficulties with leaders of other countries before and by now should have learned their lesson from the past.

For example, do not adopt the attitude that they are never wrong in their judgmens or dealings with people or others like has been happening in dealing with the Souzhou local authority over its sale of local industrial lands. If our leaders have been more tactful and not resort to showdown and threats will we have sufferred the setback.

In past dealing with Mahathir over the water issue - do our leaders always have to publicised how right they are ? Do they really understand foreign relations.

If we keep wanting to show we are better or superior than the other countries in the neighbouring region, will it create better foreign relation.

If we keep trying to tell people we are providing them with aids will we really go down well with their people.

As advised to the government Feedback Unit previously, being small and vulnerable we must not conduct ourselves based on haughty arrogance that we are more advanced or superior.

We must conduct genuine people-to-people good relation with actions rather than a great deal of words and broadcasting about our taking over other people's national assets.

So it is time for our foreign ministry to really come up with a more strategic foreign relation master plan and implement it with practical sensibility.

No need to show or broadcast about how good is our leaders' abilities to the people.

Prove the abilities with actions and results.

stupidissmart SG

As said before, possibly no country put in a different figure for unemployment between citizen and PR. PRs decendent have to go for NS as well. I wonder is there such a need to differentiate between PR and citizen... If u view tat PR r foreigners coming over and taking our job, then the figure for citizen itself is questionable since there r many PRs tat become citizens themselves later. Rolling Eyes Tis is especially true since some of the subsidies for PR had reduced compared with citizen.

Another question tat need to be asked is in tis global world should we close up and face companies moving out of singapore ? Frankly u r right in asking if foreigners r snatching jobs and lowering income. But then tis is a global phenomenon and US, Britian and any open developed country r facing. Do u think closing up our economy will help the situation in the long run ?

I think I have given a reply before and it seems the points r not answered... As said, land cost money in cities, and the money do go to the people in terms of budget income. If u put the land department and HDB department as seperate entities, then HDB have to pay the cost of the land to the land department before building the flats, and thus will not be making much or no profit. In fact it is possible to be a subsidy if the gov have to fork money for HDN to be developed tis way.

If land is made as "free", then will it be fair to people who live in same size flat but one is at jurong west and the other is at toa payoh to pay the same price just for building the flat ?

The money to be used in the budget have to come off from somewhere, and people in the cities have to pay a high price for housing throughout the world. Singapore, statistically speaking, has affordable housing compared with other developed cities. If they charged very cheaply for land, then u have to face a very high tax in other areas. The wool can only come from the sheep. U still have not answer the question on whether do u think it is a fair tax to tax the people who lived in bigger house, at better location or do not show efficiency in using the land ?

Wat do u propose the gov do if the outside country play punk with singapore ? Rolling Eyes I mean u can say a lot of things from tis action but the crux is tat the gov did the right thing by not blowing things out of proportion.

stupidissmart SG

The $100,000 that a Singapore Minister is paid in ONE MONTH is what a typical experienced middle-age Singapore manager will earn in an ENTIRE YEAR!

I think the manager for a singapore linked company get paid like the manager for a middle age singapore manager as well. But the CEO is another story

$435m SMU new City Campus in Bras Basah area

How much do u think polytechnics costs to be built ? Even some secondary schools costs a few millions to be built

See how, in tiny red dot Singapore, the 4 Universities
(NUS,NTU,SMU,UniSIM) and 5 Polytechnics try to "outdo each other" in
offering "duplicating courses" and resorting to costly Press/TV
advertising campaigns?
The students will, of course, have to pay for all these costs !!!

I don't know man, is it a bad sign to see them competing with each other ?

First, Golden Taps at the NKF (National Kachang Foundation?)
Next, Golden Chairs at the NTU (Nanyang Technological University) !!!

NKF is not gov linked. NTU did not buy the chair. They only asked for the quotation.

University fees have increased by an annual average of 5% since 1990
and they have gone up every year, Mr Tharman said" (BT 2 Mar 06).

Tat and the foreign scholarship r true. But then america, italy, british and many country r doing the same thing to draw in top students from other countries. If u have done well, u can get a scholarship from other country to go to their country to study and have a lot of benefit as well.

$1m --- Consulting Fee which the MOE will pay an External Consultant
to review teacher's pay and career structure (annouced recently [clever
timing!] as yet another Big Election Carrot).

Experts opinion r never cheap and private sector also pay a lot of money for foreign consultations as well. U do not want your country policy to follow experts in the field ?

$600m --- Amount earmarked for Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) to make

Well in the past, when the technology is not there and to lower cost, the elevator is very slow. If u take a very old elevator, u will realise it takes a minute for a floor and it cannot accelrate or decceletrate fast. If we make a slow elevator stop at every floor, then we can take very long to reach our stop and is unpopular

$160m --- National Parks Board's Giant 2006 Election Carrot to
"spoil" the "unspoilt beauty" of East Coast Park !!!

Is tat a bad thing or a good thing ? The one tat uses the park most often is singaporean u know...

246m --- 2006 Total Expenditure Budget of the People's Association (a
statutory board under MCYS).
PAP politicians may deny it like hell, but smart S'poreans know very well
the PA has been used to "politicise" the grassroots movement to favour the
PAP.

Tis is bad. I agree.

9.4 $400,000 2005 URA Marina Bay "Branding" Exercise:
URA's highly-paid civil servants allowing themselves to be CONNED by
Foreign CONsultants on the latest management buzzword of "branding".
Ended up spending this sum to re-brand Marina Bay as ......Marina Bay
!!!!!! WHAT THE HECK !!!

Tis is funny... Mr. Green But is tat the only thing tis guy do or he contribute the other possible development to the area ?

http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=346

The branding exercise for Marina Bay was not a process to identify a name. Rather, it was an exercise to create a 'competitive strategy' that will guide the development and marketing of Marina Bay. The 9-month long
branding process included the following steps:
a) researching into strategies used by competing cities;
b) interviews with stakeholders, real estate developers, potential investors and tenants both locally and internationally to obtain feedback on a competitive positioning for Marina Bay. Interviews with the broader community to understand what they would like to see at Marina Bay;
c) identifying the differentiating niche of Marina Bay and develop a set of brand identities (which includes validation of the place name "Marina Bay")and to market testing them;
d) design a visual communication system to guide the presentation of marketing collaterals, our communication tone and strategies to give Marina Bay a distinctive identity.

9.5 $150,000 North-East CDC "Dare To Dream Fund" providing repeated
sponsorships in public funds to "self-styled adventurer" Khoo Swee Chiow.
An angry ST Forum writer wrote " Why should good money be given to a person
for his self-glorification? What does his being underwater for 212 hours
and 30 minutes do for Singapore?".

I don't like the guy too. I think his funding should stop

$250,000 Said to be the cost of 2005 LTA "Image Survey":
Next, it is the LTA's turn to "throw public monies to the wind" by
hiring an (expensive) American Public Relations firm to conduct an "image
survey" to find out what the people "think" of the LTA after the Nicoll
Highway collapse !!!

Doing a survery is never cheap and the survey is done to know wat is the people impression of road conditions of singapore like public transport, efficiency etc. Not because of nicoll highway. Tis in a sense is good because they r asking for public opinion since the public is surveyed. Otherwise how r u going to get public opinion ?

http://www.lta.gov.sg/images/POS.pdf

$200,000 --- what LTA spent in 2005 to "save a matured Angsana tree"
located right in the middle of a road (outside Raffles Junior College) ---
resulting in several traffic near-accidents!
Which is more important --- saving human lives or saving a tree???

Tis is a tricky question. Some people r emotional about the tree and they r the one tat suggest saving the tree. When it was saved now they blame the gov for saving the tree ? WHy do u think the gov will care for the tree is it is not the people who ask for it ?

$125m --- Cost of LTA Expressway Monitoring & Advisory System (EMAS).

Tis is plain wrong. The system is functioning well and it is used to help monitor for accidents and notify the drivers so they can choose another route.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Monitoring_and_Advisory_System

$40.3m --- Contracted Cost of LTA "high-tech/
state-of-the-art/real-time" information on bus arrivals.
In 2003, just months before the project completion, LTA terminated its
contract with Stratech Systems because of software and integration problems.
LTA reportedly face $4m in claims, but refused to disclose how much of the
$40.3m has been paid to Stratech Systems (as if taxpayer-citizens have no
right to know !!!)

I don't think tis is the gov fault but the fault of the stupid company and they r now trying to get back the money.

stupidissmart SG

I know it is not address to me since I am not from the PAP but for the sake of discussion and mostly because i am a bit free now...

Let me ask u do u think the gov should act on policies for the short run or policies for the long run ? If u want policies for the short run, it is very simple. Spend a lot of money, reduce tax, chase away all investors, suffer budget deficit and people r happy for a short time. If u talk about long term policy, then we have to tax money, balance budget, solve problems they expect to see 10 years time and woo investors. People r not happy now. But then it is better than facing the problem and solving as we go and not blind to it and truly face worse hardship in future. Times r hard. Almost all developed cities r facing hardship and competition in one way or another. Most of your posts r just complains without offering a solution. Most of your posts also never consider the global trend in the world.

Firstly - when you talk about the serving the country etc.. like a Minister, do you really take into account 80% of what you are gonna be paid for? becasue that seems to be what you are implying right there?

As said, if u offer more money, u get more people as candidates and there can be more selection. There r enthusiastic people who r capable and willing to get a drastic pay cut, but then r they the best in performance and do we have enough of such people before the standard dropped drastically ? Tat is why I ask the normal people first if they r willing to get an 80% pay cut simply because they want to serve the country. If u ask me, I am not Rolling Eyes I am not an angel and I am pretty frank about it

Secondly - Why would you want someone whos a CEO of a company to run a country? In other words, you mean managing a company is the same as managing a country??

Wat is wrong ? The important skills r dscision making, judgement, management, foresight which r common to both CEO and minister. Which jobs has a closer job scope compared with minister ? Cook, clerk, driver ?

Thirdly, The system works to better turn around the economy, for whom actually does the system work for? Hmm..let me see.. a CEO of a company is being elected as a Minister..no guessing what system he implements works better for..

A minister have to be a full time minister. Note the word used is minister. SO he is no longer a CEO.

robertteh SG

quote:Yes, if the government is honest and wants to show the real figures of direct job creation by the policy to allow foreigners to come in and take over citizens' jobs claiming that this is good for the economy.

Stupidissmart:

As said before, possibly no country put in a different figure for unemployment between citizen and PR. PRs decendent have to go for NS as well. I wonder is there such a need to differentiate between PR and citizen... If u view tat PR r foreigners coming over and taking our job, then the figure for citizen itself is questionable since there r many PRs tat become citizens themselves later. Rolling Eyes Tis is especially true since some of the subsidies for PR had reduced compared with citizen.

Another question tat need to be asked is in tis global world should we close up and face companies moving out of singapore ? Frankly u r right in asking if foreigners r snatching jobs and lowering income. But then tis is a global phenomenon and US, Britian and any open developed country r facing. Do u think closing up our economy will help the situation in the long run ?

It is the MOM who has in the first place relaxed or liberalized the employments of foreigners in mundane jobs locals are fit and qualified enough to be employed in which causes the specific demand to MOM to provide accurate and objective job creation figures in the first place, am I right?

So please do not digress to world practices or how other countries deal with PR.

We have specific problems of our own and we are discussing here what we could do best with our strengths and resources and not to be constantly using selective biased comparisons from other less-well-off countries to avoid answering to problems of accountability of governance.

If MOM is to convince the citizens that it is indeed looking after the citizens by liberalizing their employments to take over of some of our local mundane jobs which our own citizens are fit and well qualified in then the onus is on MOM to prove this premise by good figures and facts.

In order to avoid accountability for such proof, it wo uld appear that MOM has continued to give lump-up figure of unemployments and job creations by not distinguishing job creations for the citizens for those who were retrenched for prolonged period as well as those who just join the labour force.

With so many foreigners nowadays being granted pr status upon taking up employments here, how could MOM still lump up the overall job creations for pr and citizens and not show actual job creations due to foreigners taking over our local jobs.

quote:It has been a subject of queries by the people as published in many letters to the Straits Times' forum page and HDB simply was lost for words - giving a discount to the market price and calling such discount subsidy to public housing. It is sheer dishonesty to say that HDB has subsidised its sale of flats in this manner.

stupidissmart:

I think I have given a reply before and it seems the points r not answered... As said, land cost money in cities, and the money do go to the people in terms of budget income. If u put the land department and HDB department as seperate entities, then HDB have to pay the cost of the land to the land department before building the flats, and thus will not be making much or no profit. In fact it is possible to be a subsidy if the gov have to fork money for HDN to be developed tis way.

If land is made as "free", then will it be fair to people who live in same size flat but one is at jurong west and the other is at toa payoh to pay the same price just for building the flat ?

You have been avoiding meeting the main and crucial point in my arguments on this subject all these while which is : lands being already paid for by citizens, through their tax monies, if HDB were to charge the citizens the low-cost housing at market price, HDB would be profiteering and driving up costs of living of our citizens.

quote:Government is elected to represent the people and not for its own sake. So it is wrong to say that government could do what it likes and charge the fullest market price it likes for lands which were owned and paid for by the people for public housing.

stupidissmart:

The money to be used in the budget have to come off from somewhere, and people in the cities have to pay a high price for housing throughout the world. Singapore, statistically speaking, has affordable housing compared with other developed cities. If they charged very cheaply for land, then u have to face a very high tax in other areas. The wool can only come from the sheep. U still have not answer the question on whether do u think it is a fair tax to tax the people who lived in bigger house, at better location or do not show efficiency in using the land ?

This kind of reply is full of unproven assumptions which is the root cause of our many problems.

If government has been taxing and recovering costs to the fullest through all kinds of corporatization schemes to make capital gains for such transfer to the state while continuing to allow the newly created GLCs to raise prices, is this a caring government.

Wouldn't the citizens' taxes end up becoming surpluses for which the government regularly make false and superficial claims as its success.

Evidences exist in abundance that the government's taxing and cost-recovering system of government is at fault for all our high-cost and loss of economic competitiveness.

With so much raising of fees and corporatizations of essential services to GLCs and charging people double for past assets and infrastructures by GLCs all over again for something already paid for by the citizens previously, is it valid to assume that government will be running short of fund if it does not use housing to make profits to substitute for taxes.

You have been making many false assumptions in most of your replies that if HDB did not charge the low-cost housing at market price government would be poor and been unable to pay for the essential services and will then have to keep raising taxes elsewhere.

If you are to assume that if HDB does not charge its flats at market price the government will run out of funds you are engaging in the same governance by falsehood and by exaggerations and by fear tactics.

Hasn't the government already taxed enough and recovered costs fully in nearly all it provides through its tax-and-recover system as mentioned in my other posts resulting all the taxes accumulating as surpluses which are sometimes squandered on carelessly decided and highly risky overseas investments, extravagance and wastes.

quote:Such consistent behaviour of the government in giving in to bigger forces outside in conducting diplomatic relations while continuously acting against the interests of its own citizens to claim as success is generally known as :"Big fish eats small fish and small fish eats shrimps as characterized or admitted by MM Lee the man responsible for all such so-called no-free lunch talk-down attitude adopted by the ministers towards its own people.

stupidissmart:

Wat do u propose the gov do if the outside country play punk with singapore ? Rolling Eyes I mean u can say a lot of things from tis action but the crux is tat the gov did the right thing by not blowing things out of proportion.

This is a typical reply of the government too to any problem raised which its ministers could not solve.

It appears that all that the ministers could do in governing this country is to deny problems and carry on doing their jobs to secure their own positions and to continue to pretend that there is no problem just by showing some GDP or slanted statistics so that people can be fooled into believing there is no problem.

That has been the main reason why Singapore was very slow in recovering from its last three recessions and in solving its many problems e.g. high costs of living or discriminatory practices against our own citizens in regard to employment opportunities or recruitment practices.

What is there for citizens to suggest if government ministers being the talents could not come up with some solutions.

stupidissmart SG

As said, a lot of countries also relaxed and liberized the employments of foreigners. And your point of contention above speaks of the topic os foreigners versus locals in jobs creations. But your definition of locals is citizen while mine is citizens and PR. I also put the point tat the decendents of PR have to serve NS much like citizens, and the fact tat a lot of foreign born people r becoming citizens. Your figure doesn't accurately portray the picture of "liberized employments of foreigners"

If u r worried about foreigners versus PR and citizen, the unemployment figure is just the figure u need.

And u still have not answer the question on whether do u encourage the gov to be a close society or open one ? There seems to be a lot of questions which u have avoided answering...

So please do not digress to world practices or how other countries deal with PR

I think tis is unfair because it there r problems which all countries faces, not just singapore. Even if u change the gov completely, the problem still exists because it is the probem of our society and world. Nobody have the solution to the problem Rolling Eyes Lets use a hypothetical example. It is just like saying singapore average longevity is 70 years old, then u start to ask why doesn't singapore change the longevity to 100 years old. However the population of the other cities and world also faces the same longevity. Nobody have the solution. U r asking the gov to be super gov and solve all the world problem which no country has the solution

We have specific problems of our own and we are discussing here what we could do best with our strengths and resources and not to be constantly using selective biased comparisons from other less-well-off countries to avoid answering to problems of accountability of governance.

I don't know wat u mean by selective biased comparison if I am talking about the rest of the world. Did I give the name of any particular city or country ? Rolling Eyes

In order to avoid accountability for such proof, it wo uld appear that MOM has continued to give lump-up figure of unemployments and job creations by not distinguishing job creations for the citizens for those who were retrenched for prolonged period as well as those who just join the labour force.

Again tis is being difficult and asking the gov to spend a lot of time and money to conduct such surveys about specific numbers which help little. If the gov spend 400,000 for such surveys, u will complain it as unnecessary cost. As said, other countries do not show figures of people who r retrenched for prolonged period as well as those tat just join in the labour force. The unemployment figures itself is sufficient to show how competitive for companies to get people for their job and tis also accurately reflect wat is the situation for the citizens who were retrenched for a prolonged period. If unemployment rate is low, the retrenched people get a higher chance of finding work because companies r more desperate for people

I think u have been avoiding my point so far. I knew your stand. U feel tat the land is owned by the people, they have paid tax etc. But have u understand my points ?

1) Do u agree tat the price for a good location like toa payoh should pay more than the house in jurong west (same size) ? If only building cost is consider, the houses build in toa payoh costs the same as jurong west. Is tat fair to the people living jurong ?

2) Do u agree tat even if u reduce the price of housing very very low, the gov have to tax from some other area to balance the budget ? Do u agree tat tax from people owning the most land, in the better location and do not make efficient in their land deserve to pay more tax ?

3) All land in the city is not free. Despite the things u say about land belonging to citizens etc, up till now u still cannot name me any city tat offer free land to most of the citizen. A large revenue of the gov come from land, especially in the city. And it is a fair way of taxing since land is the major limiting resources city faces

If government has been taxing and recovering costs to the fullest through all kinds of corporatization schemes to make capital gains for such transfer to the state while continuing to allow the newly created GLCs to raise prices, is this a caring government.

I don't really see wat has tis got to do with public housing... I do not really get wat u r trying to say here but there r some department tat need money to maintain by the public such as police, army, teacher, judges, prisons, medical, mint etc. If all department of gov made loses then who pay policemen ? Note tat army itself uses about a huge chunk of the whole GDP. For 2006, army uses 10 billion, education 4 billion, police firemen etc 2 billion, health 2 billion, fiance 2 billion etc

Furthermore it is good for the company to have profit (not gross profit) than loses since it will means the citizens pay the right amount for the resources they use. Otherwise if there is a loss, like housing, and gov raise car tax to offset tis loss, then u r rewarding the people to have bigger houses and punishing the people who had to drive more road.

Evidences exist in abundance that the government's taxing and cost-recovering system of government is at fault for all our high-cost and loss of economic competitiveness.

Tis is just weasel words untill u have proven it.

You have been making many false assumptions in most of your replies that if HDB did not charge the low-cost housing at market price government would be poor and been unable to pay for the essential services and will then have to keep raising taxes elsewhere.

If you are to assume that if HDB does not charge its flats at market price the government will run out of funds you are engaging in the same governance by falsehood and by exaggerations and by fear tactics.

I don't think tis is an assumption. It is simple logic. Gov earn money from houses. If u stop gov from earning money from houses, then gov have lesser money. Gov have lesser money means gov may have to find money elsewhere. Elsewhere means tax at other areas. I don't think I made any assumptions here.

Why do u not answer tis question I have asked ? Wat do u propose the gov do if the outside country play punk with singapore ? To me the most logical thing to do is just to be resilent and let the whole matter past. In fact your earlier reply to tis thread on 20 Feb 1:10 also suggest the same nature. The action tat it did is correct, and I don't know why there is so many things written for doing the right thing...

maurizio13 SG

Well, in times of high unemployment (when citizens can't find employment), the government should restrict the conversion of PR to citizens.

Whatever the government does, companies are still moving out. It's because other developing economies have a larger market, unlike Singapore. Nobody is asking the government to close up the economy, but they should promote policies which are socially beneficial.

Land is free to the government. Your analogy doesn't make sense. If I am the government, why would I take money from my right hand to give to my left hand. Every citizen has the right to affordable housing, if the government can't provide it, every citizen has the right to make their own housing out of plywood.

The difference in your price is not factor of free land price, it's the locality priced by market. But the government is not a profit making organisation, or is it? I stand corrected. Our government does not provide non-profit housing, they make profits from selling public housing.

Well, they should reduce their own spending in their own backyard first. Singapore is the only country with a citizens to MP ratio of 50,000 : 1, all other countries managed with 100,000 : 1. Why do you need so many MPs? Is it because of kiasu syndrome? With a larger MP based oppositions would need a larger MP pool to take over government.

Other than taxes, the government has made heaps from transport and "public" utilities, the cost of 1Kwh of electricity from Singapore Power cost around $2 (approx.), the cost of 1Kwh of electricity in China Beijing is around $0.10. I did some checking on my own from NYMEX traded Natural Gas, I came to the cost of around $0.50 per 1Kwh. Can you tell me how can the government justify making a 300% profit?

One of my friend living in a HDB need to pay $10,000 for upgrading. All he got was a small store room, he said government subsidized 90%, which means government subsidized $90,000. How do you justify this? By the way, my friend lives in a 3-room HDB, cost of his flat is around $200,000. The cost of having an extra storeroom is half of his flat cost.

Without the cost of the land? It would be cheap. Doesn't make sense that polyclinic which is owned by the government pay the government for the land. It's like paying from you left pocket and putting in your right pocket.

My replies will be sporadic and infrequent as I have a report to rush. At least till Saturday.

robertteh SG

quote:It is the MOM who has in the first place relaxed or liberalized the employments of foreigners in mundane jobs locals are fit and qualified enough to be employed in which causes the specific demand to MOM to provide accurate and objective job creation figures in the first place, am I right?

Stupidissmart:

As said, a lot of countries also relaxed and liberized the employments of foreigners. And your point of contention above speaks of the topic os foreigners versus locals in jobs creations. But your definition of locals is citizen while mine is citizens and PR. I also put the point tat the decendents of PR have to serve NS much like citizens, and the fact tat a lot of foreign born people r becoming citizens. Your figure doesn't accurately portray the picture of "liberized employments of foreigners"

If u r worried about foreigners versus PR and citizen, the unemployment figure is just the figure u need.

And u still have not answer the question on whether do u encourage the gov to be a close society or open one ? There seems to be a lot of questions which u have avoided answering...

If I may put it succinctly, your arguments so far are not of right or wrong on their own premise, but "when others thief, I will or commit no theft."

quote:So please do not digress to world practices or how other countries deal with PR

Stupidissmart:

I think tis is unfair because it there r problems which all countries faces, not just singapore. Even if u change the gov completely, the problem still exists because it is the probem of our society and world. Nobody have the solution to the problem Rolling Eyes Lets use a hypothetical example. It is just like saying singapore average longevity is 70 years old, then u start to ask why doesn't singapore change the longevity to 100 years old. However the population of the other cities and world also faces the same longevity. Nobody have the solution. U r asking the gov to be super gov and solve all the world problem which no country has the solution

Let me give you one example where citizens may accept comparisons with other countries:-

If you cannot answer the premise of arguments and must make wide-ranging comparisons like "which other countries did not tax and recover costs" or "which countries could provide such market-price public low-cost housing", please make comparison on apple-to-apple basis or at least make comparison with how other government have delivered the greatest benefits of the greatest number or good corporate governance.

Please do not make comparison so as to give more excuses to entrench in fallacies and wrongs which bring about greatest suffering of the greatest number for the benefit of only a few"

quote:We have specific problems of our own and we are discussing here what we could do best with our strengths and resources and not to be constantly using selective biased comparisons from other less-well-off countries to avoid answering to problems of accountability of governance.

stupidissmart:

I don't know wat u mean by selective biased comparison if I am talking about the rest of the world. Did I give the name of any particular city or country ? Rolling Eyes

Read the foregoing advice on the basis for comparison we should adopt to have fruitful arguments and all my explanations why government was wrong in its policy on public low-cost housing. Please do not make biased comparison just to support pre-conceived notion or wrongs. Please at least if you must make comparison do by comparing with others who have done well to benefit all or majority of citizens and not to support any dubious or wrongs or benefits only the durais and a few.

quote:In order to avoid accountability for such proof, it wo uld appear that MOM has continued to give lump-up figure of unemployments and job creations by not distinguishing job creations for the citizens for those who were retrenched for prolonged period as well as those who just join the labour force.

stupidissmart:

Again tis is being difficult and asking the gov to spend a lot of time and money to conduct such surveys about specific numbers which help little. If the gov spend 400,000 for such surveys, u will complain it as unnecessary cost. As said, other countries do not show figures of people who r retrenched for prolonged period as well as those tat just join in the labour force. The unemployment figures itself is sufficient to show how competitive for companies to get people for their job and tis also accurately reflect wat is the situation for the citizens who were retrenched for a prolonged period. If unemployment rate is low, the retrenched people get a higher chance of finding work because companies r more desperate for people

Ex-president Ong Teng Cheong has asked only for accounting figures like valuation of assets which are available in most audited accounts of every ministry and GLC but sadly he was denied with this sort of excuse.

What a shame that he was unable to vindicate his vision for the greatest good of the greatest number. If the government is proactive and honestly committed to serving the people, it would have relented and let him have all those accounting figures and what is do difficult to do as as compared with throwing away citizens' monies in bad deals like souzhou and shin corp.

A good government will go to the end to serve its people and not continuously giving excuses to entrench in its own self-centred practices for its own superficial success.

quote:You have been avoiding meeting the main and crucial point in my arguments on this subject all these while which is : lands being already paid for by citizens, through their tax monies, if HDB were to charge the citizens the low-cost housing at market price, HDB would be profiteering and driving up costs of living of our citizens.

stupidissmart:

I think u have been avoiding my point so far. I knew your stand. U feel tat the land is owned by the people, they have paid tax etc. But have u understand my points ?

1) Do u agree tat the price for a good location like toa payoh should pay more than the house in jurong west (same size) ? If only building cost is consider, the houses build in toa payoh costs the same as jurong west. Is tat fair to the people living jurong ?

2) Do u agree tat even if u reduce the price of housing very very low, the gov have to tax from some other area to balance the budget ? Do u agree tat tax from people owning the most land, in the better location and do not make efficient in their land deserve to pay more tax ?

3) All land in the city is not free. Despite the things u say about land belonging to citizens etc, up till now u still cannot name me any city tat offer free land to most of the citizen. A large revenue of the gov come from land, especially in the city. And it is a fair way of taxing since land is the major limiting resources city faces

Your points as shown in the foregoing were mere regurgitations of ministers' denial of problems.

Even if you intend to make it look like you have some points your points have been previously answered by my points which you have avoided to answer.

For example, in avoiding answer to my point that lands being acquired by the HDB under Housing & Development Board Act with the sanction of the Land Acquisition Act should not have been sold or developed for profits by HDB but you avoid this substantive point entirely by saying that such lands could not be allocated fairly to all citizens except by selling or developing them to allow HDB to make profits. What kind of argument is this except a denial without answering to the logic in my argument.

HDB could easily have continued with what its previous minister Mr. Lim Kim San has done - selling or developing the lands for low-cost housing by recovering the costs of development and construction. To be fair to citizens, allocation has been on needs and first come first served basis and no citizens have cried foul of such an allocation of low-cost housing. Where is the distortion of our national resource if it is to provide low cost housing to serve the people and tie them to loyalty for the country and be finally build a prosperous country with more property taxes to collect etc. What could be wrong with the original objective and practice of low-cost housing as introduced by Lim Kim San which Mah Bow Tan the ministers for revenues changed probably to secure his own position.

quote:If government has been taxing and recovering costs to the fullest through all kinds of corporatization schemes to make capital gains for such transfer to the state while continuing to allow the newly created GLCs to raise prices, is this a caring government.

stupidissmart:

I don't really see wat has tis got to do with public housing... I do not really get wat u r trying to say here but there r some department tat need money to maintain by the public such as police, army, teacher, judges, prisons, medical, mint etc. If all department of gov made loses then who pay policemen ? Note tat army itself uses about a huge chunk of the whole GDP. For 2006, army uses 10 billion, education 4 billion, police firemen etc 2 billion, health 2 billion, fiance 2 billion etc

Furthermore it is good for the company to have profit (not gross profit) than loses since it will means the citizens pay the right amount for the resources they use. Otherwise if there is a loss, like housing, and gov raise car tax to offset tis loss, then u r rewarding the people to have bigger houses and punishing the people who had to drive more road.

Yes my reference to our taxing-and-recovering system of government is to show you that government has under such a system no need to profit from low cost housing as it has all the alternative means of replenishing its governing revenues from all these other profiteering methodologies like corporatising essential medicare and utility and public transport services into profit generating devices so where is there a justification to use HDB to make windfall profits except to serve its own nkf -type of reserve and golden tap purposes perhaps.

quote:Evidences exist in abundance that the government's taxing and cost-recovering system of government is at fault for all our high-cost and loss of economic competitiveness.

stupidissmart:

Tis is just weasel words untill u have proven it.

When the government has clung on to a tax-and-recover system of government to avoid welfare, it should have taken care to avoid over-charging as when you wants to avoid welfare, people will need to work on their own efforts to survive and should not be deprived of their fruits of labor. So the system of tax-and-recover government to avoid welfarism has gone to the other wrongful extreme. Leaders who have talents or abilities who are paid muli-millions should have such ability to understand such pitfall.

So, my reference to the government's tax-and-recover system is not irrelevant but highly relevant to the point under discussion namely should citizens pay market prices for their low-cost housing when lands were already paid for by them through taxes.

quote:You have been making many false assumptions in most of your replies that if HDB did not charge the low-cost housing at market price government would be poor and been unable to pay for the essential services and will then have to keep raising taxes elsewhere.

If you are to assume that if HDB does not charge its flats at market price the government will run out of funds you are engaging in the same governance by falsehood and by exaggerations and by fear tactics.

stupidissmart:

I don't think tis is an assumption. It is simple logic. Gov earn money from houses. If u stop gov from earning money from houses, then gov have lesser money. Gov have lesser money means gov may have to find money elsewhere. Elsewhere means tax at other areas. I don't think I made any assumptions here.

Profiteering by HDB against the citizens is well proven as a major policy error as elaborated in the foregoing and up to now minister Mah was still keeping mum and unable to explain why he claimed that HDB is subsidizing the low-cost housing. He also could not answer why if HDB must charge its flat at market price, making adjustments for location etc, it is subsidizing the flats.

Apparently some one has been lying like is seen happening by Durai of NKF with the support of the highest office. That is precisely the reason citizens are not being served the greatest benefits of the greatest number and all the grandiose vision of collecting more taxes in order to pay for more benefits of the citizens has been a grand deception.

quote:This is a typical reply of the government too to any problem raised which its ministers could not solve.

It appears that all that the ministers could do in governing this country is to deny problems and carry on doing their jobs to secure their own positions and to continue to pretend that there is no problem just by showing some GDP or slanted statistics so that people can be fooled into believing there is no problem.

That has been the main reason why Singapore was very slow in recovering from its last three recessions and in solving its many problems e.g. high costs of living or discriminatory practices against our own citizens in regard to employment opportunities or recruitment practices.

What is there for citizens to suggest if government ministers being the talents could not come up with some solutions.

stupidissmart:

Why do u not answer tis question I have asked ? Wat do u propose the gov do if the outside country play punk with singapore ? To me the most logical thing to do is just to be resilent and let the whole matter past. In fact your earlier reply to tis thread on 20 Feb 1:10 also suggest the same nature. The action tat it did is correct, and I don't know why there is so many things written for doing the right thing...

I have answered your counter questions specifically as shown in the foregoing but you choose to stay in the art of comparing with the worse-off examples in other countries by all the retorts that our problems are also the problems of other countries. Please feel free to compare if comparison will be for the best and betterment of all citizens and not to suit the arguments of government's stubborn narrow-minded policy of taxing and recovering all possible costs to enrich its own surpluses and claim success.

stupidissmart SG

Well, in times of high unemployment (when citizens can't find employment), the government should restrict the conversion of PR to citizens.

U mean the gov should restrict the number of PR to citizen just because they want the figure to look different ? I mean they r going to work either as a work permit or PR. The job is not going to com eto singaporean anyway.

Whatever the government does, companies are still moving out. It's because other developing economies have a larger market, unlike Singapore. Nobody is asking the government to close up the economy, but they should promote policies which are socially beneficial.

I think there r policies tat pull companies in and policies tat push companies away. If we need to retain them, we have to have policies tat pull them over. If u do not expect gov to cloe the economy, then u have to expect foreigners to come over

Nah, land is not limitless, especially in singapore. If u say tat singapore got too much land then u r right. As said before, the money r used to pay for army, policemen teachers etc. The money come from the left hand and pay these expenses. Everyone have a housing in singapore, so it may be a sense a sign tat show it is affordable.

The difference in your price is not factor of free land price, it's the locality priced by market. But the government is not a profit making organisation, or is it? I stand corrected. Our government does not provide non-profit housing, they make profits from selling public housing.

I think u have to refer to my 3 points on housing again. Sadly no one seems to answer these 3 questions

1) Do u agree tat the price for a good location like toa payoh should pay more than the house in jurong west (same size) ? If only building cost is consider, the houses build in toa payoh costs the same as jurong west. Is tat fair to the people living jurong ?

2) Do u agree tat even if u reduce the price of housing very very low, the gov have to tax from some other area to balance the budget ? Do u agree tat tax from people owning the most land, in the better location and do not make efficient in their land deserve to pay more tax ?

3) All land in the city is not free. Despite the things u say about land belonging to citizens etc, up till now u still cannot name me any city tat offer free land to most of the citizen. A large revenue of the gov come from land, especially in the city. And it is a fair way of taxing since land is the major limiting resources city faces

I think it may be a bit funny to see only 45 people debating and 17 of them r ministers... other country have a larger number of land size and bigger population

Other than taxes, the government has made heaps from transport and "public" utilities, the cost of 1Kwh of electricity from Singapore Power cost around $2 (approx.), the cost of 1Kwh of electricity in China Beijing is around $0.10. I did some checking on my own from NYMEX traded Natural Gas, I came to the cost of around $0.50 per 1Kwh. Can you tell me how can the government justify making a 300% profit?

Maybe because china has coal as its natural resources and singapore buy the coal from them ? Although public transport ear a lot of money, a lot goes back to other investors and leave singapore gov to, lets say, 100 million. Is it enough to pay the 4 billion needed for the army ?

One of my friend living in a HDB need to pay $10,000 for upgrading. All he got was a small store room, he said government subsidized 90%, which means government subsidized $90,000. How do you justify this? By the way, my friend lives in a 3-room HDB, cost of his flat is around $200,000. The cost of having an extra storeroom is half of his flat cost.

U need to see the figure properly. 10,000 is 5% of 200,000. I don't see it surprising to cost 100,000 for the storeroom and properly lift tat stop at every floor and changes to the environment etc. But he can sell the flat back at a higher price now isn't it ?

I think it is fair because if I am the decision maker for building the poly, I will build less taller building (higher building, higher building cost) and use up more land if land is free for me.

stupidissmart SG

If I may put it succinctly, your arguments so far are not of right or wrong on their own premise, but "when others thief, I will or commit no theft."

But so far your arguments do not consider practicality and assume everything as ideal. Your statement r mostly "the gov should do tis do tat" but when asked u for "how", u just repeat "the gov should do tis do tat". When I try to answer "why" the gov did tat, u still repeat "the gov should do tis do tat". Is practicality anyway relevant to u ?

It seems to me tat u r avoiding the contact whether is the problem a domestic problem or a global problem. And I still do not see your example which u promise to give on the first line and I am a bit confused of wat u actually want.

1) U r complaining tat gov charge the citizen for the land. However all cities charge for the use of land. They charge the land even though it is housing for the citizens. Name me any developed city tat do otherwise. I don't see why tis is a wrong statement or tis comparison is wrong Rolling Eyes

2) U r complaining tat singapore tax their citizen. However again all cities tax their citizens. If they don't tax, then who pay for the army, police, teachers etc ? Tis is a fact the whole world faces R u being realistic or expect money to drop from the sky to feed the army ?

I am just pointing out facts of society in the world but suddenly u accuse me of bringing about greatest suffering of the greatest number for the benefit of only a few. I don't see the link why telling the fact on taxing is bringing out suffering to people. Do u believe there is no need for tax ?

We have to be practical u know. Why don't u suggest how to get money ? It is easy to say we should have very cheap housing, we should not be tax at all etc but how r u going to do tat ?

Please at least if you must make comparison do by comparing with others who have done well to benefit all or majority of citizens and not to support any dubious or wrongs or benefits only the durais and a few.

Please tell me the logic flow why does stating the fact on tax benefit the few "durais" and cause problem to the masses ? Wat do u understand from the word "tax"

The books of Temasek was shown now for a few years Rolling Eyes

What a shame that he was unable to vindicate his vision for the greatest good of the greatest number. If the government is proactive and honestly committed to serving the people, it would have relented and let him have all those accounting figures and what is do difficult to do as as compared with throwing away citizens' monies in bad deals like souzhou and shin corp.

I felt a bit frustrated because up till now u still use suzhou as an example of "bad deals" when i have already shown it is making profit Rolling Eyes And u never rebuked on tis fact. R u just repeating and recycling your points ?

For example, in avoiding answer to my point that lands being acquired by the HDB under Housing & Development Board Act with the sanction of the Land Acquisition Act should not have been sold or developed for profits by HDB but you avoid this substantive point entirely by saying that such lands could not be allocated fairly to all citizens except by selling or developing them to allow HDB to make profits. What kind of argument is this except a denial without answering to the logic in my argument.

I have already stated tat there is little or no profit if u consider the land as a cost. But u refuse to accept land as part of the cost price. I have stated why land must be consider as cost price but up till now u still refuse to answer any of the 3 questions I had posed.

« Previous Page Next Page »