myth 95

'HDB flats are too small' A Ms Sangeetha Bysheim wrote to the media complaining, oh no sorry, feedback, that HDB flat is a squash for more kids. How wrong can she be. In a 3 room flat, it can take in easily and comfortably 10 people, father and mother and 4 children to a room. And there is still space in the living room to park maybe another 4 bodies when lights out. And Ignatius Lourdesamy from the HDB rightly replied that our flats are big, bigger than in Hongkong, Tokyo and Seoul, and bigger than private apartments. Singaporeans should not be complaining about small flats. They did not know how good life is in Singapore. Go to Africa and see those natives living in thatch huts or in open space! 'HDB flats are also designed for more efficient use of space.' Now this is very important in land scarce Singapore. What Sangeetha should suggest is that all flats and houses must also be designed to save space. After all we are going to have 8 million residents in years to come. Maybe there should be a law to regulate the size of space entitlement for each citizen. As an example each person is entitled to 3 by 3 metres of bedroom space, no matter whether it is HDB flat, private flat or landed properties. If hardlanders are deemed fit to be squeezed into a small hole, or in public transport, then anyone who thinks that such condition is acceptable should also be prepared to be in the same shit hole. There is a saying that you need to be in the same shit to appreciate what it is like. Try living it is one way. There are still people who believed that Singaporeans can survive on a household income of less than $1000, or a big family to live inside a pigeon hole of 50 to 90 sq metres.

GST - The realists and the cock teasers

GST - The realists and the cock teasers The GST increase will be debated in Parliament early next year. Debate for what or about what? The realists know that debating the GST in Parliament is but a waste of time. So they are now concentrating on preparing the people to accept the increase and how to adjust to it, or what the Govt can do to share the loot. The cock teasers will still be trying talk about alternatives to GST. There are many other ways to raise fund than raising GST. Yesterday's teaser was to legislate a $2 levy on every working people and use it to help the poor. Today's teaser is by a Roger Tan who suggested that a better way is to sell Govt bonds. I am yawning again.

GST - The realists and the cock teasers

GST - The realists and the cock teasers The GST increase will be debated in Parliament early next year. Debate for what or about what? The realists know that debating the GST in Parliament is but a waste of time. So they are now concentrating on preparing the people to accept the increase and how to adjust to it, or what the Govt can do to share the loot. The cock teasers will still be trying talk about alternatives to GST. There are many other ways to raise fund than raising GST. Yesterday's teaser was to legislate a $2 levy on every working people and use it to help the poor. Today's teaser is by a Roger Tan who suggested that a better way is to sell Govt bonds. I am yawning again.

it is great to give

It is always a great thing to give Khoo Teck Puat gave $34 million to Beijing University. His own money. It is easier to give other people's money, or taxpayer's money. There is now a storm at NUS for giving 40% of its bursary to foreigners. At NTU, bursary is only for Singaporeans. There is a difference in philosophy here. One believes in charity begins at home. One is international philantrophy, give to the world. Hopefully their pocket is deep enough. Now the donors are not happy. They donated in the belief that this will be given to help needy local students. Now, was there a written position or an implied understanding of who the donation shall go to? According to Education Correspondence, Sandra Davie, these detractors, a new term for complainers, are unhappy. Maybe using the term detractor is more pleasant. But if there was an understanding, implied or written, that the fund should go to local students, then the complainers are more than detractors. The onus of proof to justify the allocation of funds to foreign students will then lie squarely on the administrators of the fund. Then I wonder what is the best term to describe them

thoughtless violation of ownership

What is ownership? What is it that belongs to you? And if it is yours, can anyone take it from you against your wish or without your permission? Or can anyone, through a show of hands, that they are the majority, thus they decide against your property or interests? Or can the govt legislate anything it wants from you? The truth is that all these is happening right in front of us. And Singaporeans did not even have a second thought whether it is right for such things to happen. A very good example is an article in the newspaper by a writer, Nelson Quah, suggesting a mandatory deduction of $2 from all employees to set up a fund for the poor. And this is not the first time Singaporeans are suggesting such a measure with no respect for ownership. Whose money? Who does all these Singaporeans think they are to decide to take someone else money or property because they think it is for a good cause? Just legislate it and it becomes legal. Look at what is happening to our CPF? It is perfectly legal. It is also your money, or maybe not now.