Mah Bow Tan can come and kiss my a$$.
And in any case, when PAP used the MRT and the HDB upgrading as a
threat(or treat) to those who were living in opposition wards, so
as to entice or threaten people to vote PAP, there were two weak
points of those two 'treats'.
First thing, MRT being built using taxpayers'
money shouldn't be used as a treat to get people to vote for ruling
party- by law and technical aspects. Since taxpayers pay taxes
annually, all taxpayers should benefit. Therefore the MRT building
and extension shd be extend not to just those who voted for PAP,
but also to those who didn't.
Second thing, HDB upgrading, while it may only
affect the value of each individvual flats, it has an extremely
small effect. Sure the place looks great, but don't forget existing
HDB flatowners still have to pay a sum to HDB to get upgrading. So
two questions should be asked:
1) since HDB earns so much for selling 50k(cost of building one
single HDB unit) for 400k, so why don't they pay 100% of the
upgrading costs?
2) Since upgrading doesn't affect the overall cost of one
individual unit, then isn't the owner paying something that he
wouldn't get back in the long term?
And we should also consider the fact that: did the current
flatowner used his own cash, a bank loan or his individual CPF
account to get his flat? So would his flat become a liability or an
asset in that case?
These are questions that need to be answered. And unfortunately,
while these questions are complicated, people have neglected. You
think flats and MRTs are so fine and dandy in this country?
