Should ministers over-charging the people step down?

robertteh SG

If HDB flats are to be sold at true subsidy (priced at construction cost + +) HDB will be justified to collect the resale levy from those who purchased subsidized flats more than twice, (called two bites of the cherry) - once at for purchase of the entry level flat (2 room or 3 room) and 2nd time for an upgraded flat (4 rom or bigger)

Minister has a duty to the people to ensure that the resale levy is charged indeed only when there is truly a subsidy with substantiation from independent body.

In later years after 1970s, the HDB slowly increased their its flat sale price to market values by gerrymandering with calculation of its flat costing.

It did so by transferring the compulsorily acquired lands (at cheap prices which in any case are paid for by citizens under taxes) to the State Land Office and then buy it back to give an impression of incurring land costs at market value when it has not. From such serreptitious creative accounting, HDB then told the people that it has subsidised the NDB flat prices even as it is sold at market prices or close to market prices with a small discount.

Such method of charging people for HDB flat prices amounts to double-charging or profiteering.

If ministers keep charging people in this manner, are they serving the people any more? Should such ministers step down to make way for those who can serve the people better?

robertteh SG

I have posted my view on the wrong to double- or triple-tax the people however right it is to tax the people.

If the government must tax the motorists at least try to be fair and objective and not overdo or overkill.

It looks like the government is always trying all ways and means to increase their revenues to build reserve without any bother to use reserve to lower the high costs of living created.

So when the government tells the people motorists should pay for road congestions, should it keep charging motorists any amount they like.

As it government for years has been over-taxing people for owning by the punitive vehicle excise duty(at 175% of OMV). When COE was added as a new and more preferred way of vehicle tax, at the rate of tens of thousands per COE, the government should know that it would be double charging to keep collecting the old vehicle excise duty.

Yet for years, government has continued with both the excise and COE and lately increased more charges in the form of ERPs.

To me, such measures are only aimed at increasing government revenues but hardly are they original or creative solutions.

By this revenue-centred approach, it looks like the government will keep increasing ERP gantries and raise the ERP entry fees without solving the problems of road congestion or being fair.

Why do I say this : that the government will continue mindlessly increasing taxes on people?

Just look at how the LTA are setting up the ERPs and deciding on the fees payable.

At first, LTA introduced ERPs at Orchard Road the charges were set at $2.00-$3.00 per entry resulting in Orchard Road becoming a ghost town on certain mornings.

At a ORBA (Orchard Road Business Association) Meeting, I pointed out that Orchard Road had become a deserted place on certain mornings and since the objective of ERP is to control traffic congestion and by that reasoning, if there is no traffic, due to over-control shouldn't the government pay motorists to enter and bring life back to city?

Many people in the meeting took the cue and began to ask the government at that meeting to reduce the Orchard Road ERP charges. One to two weeks later the ERP fee to Orchard Road was reduced.

When civil servants at LTA added to new ERPs to existing ERPs, congestions represented by that extra or new ERP did not increase 100% but the total ERP fees for the same route to town often increase by a whopping 100% due to keeping the existing downstream ERP fee at the old rate while adding the new ERP gantry.

ERP gantries have therefore become the tool for the LTA to increase fees by 100% along the same route most of the time without considering people's plight.

Don't tell me that road congestion has always increased by an upward curve of 100% to deserve the 100% or doubling of ERP fees for the same route?

Has a more objective study been made to peg the total ERP fees for the same route to the actual congestions percentages before adding new ERPs or increasing ERP fees?

Life is not fair but government does not need the extra monies or rub salt into the wound or make it more unbearable for motorists. If we must add one more gantry to the same route, take care there is no double counting.

Don't just make citizens' life so unbearable with all kinds of fee increases. If we must tax the motorists don't double- or triple-tax them but get our scholars at LTA and ministers to solve problems according to accountability and logic.

The devil is always in the details or implementation. Why don't our talents manage the country with a more caring attitude in whatever they are doing.

robertteh SG

It is not too difficult to see by now after so many posts by the public to the various ministries and feedback unit that many problems have been caused by ministers who failed to do the necessary home work.

It should have become quite clear that two ministers of different calibre have solved the same problem in radically different ways.

When Minister Yeo was in charge whether in Ministry of Health or Transport, he would consistentl go for fee increases even in recession time and even such increases are clearly not justifiable or substantiable.

When prople complain, he would justify his fee increases with all sorts of superficial look-good presentations and statistics which do not answer fully the problems under consideration. He seldom showes a more caring attitude to look into the underlying problem.

The same thing happened when ministers tried to increase the HDB prices. People have pointed out the lands are acquired using taxpayers' monies and there is no justification in selling them to people under homeownership scheme at market prices with land costs being charged to them. This amounts to double-charging for the land on the people.

Instead of looking into the underlying problem and meet the people's expectation and aspiration, such ministers avoided answering the problem and released statistics only to favour their own case for fare or HDB flat increases.

We would need more creative ministers who could see the larger picture to manage transport and housing so that people will not get double-charged or triple-charged which in any governmment or systems is inhuman and immoral.

The worse that could happen is tranport companies are making huge profits and distributing huge bonuses to their directors while HDB made 14 billions out of such flat sale over a period of 12 years.

Ministers should have looked into such NKF types of underlying problems and not support unwarranted fare or medical fee or HDB land double-charges.

Miniisters should be loyal to the citizens as stakeholders first and not GLC directors in paying their excessive NKF-type salaries and bonuses. The citizens as stakeholders and the public should be their paymasters since ministers get their million-dollar salaries from their taxes.

Now many directors of transport companies are made millinnaires from exceptional fare increases so there is apparently unjustiable fare increases which benefited the interested parties.

If the ministers are to conduct audit into such transport companies there would be causes for repatration of some excessive salaries and bonuses which should have been returned to lower fares.

So let new ministers of the creative type like Minister Khaw take over the transport and housing and utility services to look into creative ways to reduce the hospital, transport and utility charges which now take up more than 60% of household incomes in the lower income households.

Do not keep to the old practices of gerrymandering the problems and past practices at the expense of solving underlying serious problems.

Ministers who are not able to work creatively and solve problem and tackle costs are not fit to lead the country. They should step down.

Li Ka Shing SG

Hello...robert...

Firstly Im not too familiar with the ERP pricing method...but if you have some suggestions for them not to overcharge and reduce traffic too much....I think that's good.....

But about the HDB thing...

Im not too sure....

HDB prices are supposed to be low already, no? Compared to private developments, they are cheaper?

If the prices are lowered further, because it is a government effort, and government gets its money from tax, from the citizens, ....errrr....Im not too sure if this won't srew up the whole system...

Singapore land is limited, and Singapore land is indeed expensive at the market rate. HDB is a government effort to provide affordable housing for mass Singaporeans in the midst of scarce land.

Right now 85% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats.

The government has a view of providing affordable housing.

But,

How much should the government subsidize? How far should the government go to provide this affordable housing in the midst of scarce land? Totally unconnected with market price? Say, for example, with market price of private land? Because government money is tax money from citizens?

Im not able to answer or analyze this completely, but I suspect it will screw up the whole system. System as in, the whole economy.

You can imagine with Singapore's scarce land....and 85% of Singaporeans living in HDBs....and housing having correlation with savings, expenditure, inflation rate, banking system.....I really suspect the whole economy will go jumping upside down in a violent trance, if there is really such a measure to 'overhaul' this HDB pricing.

They have economists figuring out these things Im sure.

Anti-RuleSS SG

They will never step down as their salary are simply too good for them to ever think of leaving their job.