What problem is this?

‘This govt is truly hopeless. Not only has it squandered billions and billions on stupid schemes it has now allowed the property market to rise to unsustainable levels and create a disastrous lack of availability of homes. It has been aware of the DRAMATIC increase in overseas investment in residential property but wanted to shaft all those ignorant sheeple aka 'working families' even further. It's time to contact your local senator and demand they put an end to the rest of their mad plans. No more looking after foreigners before Australians. No more overseas property investors when Australians can not even purchase homes. No more large unskilled migration when Australians can not find work. No more supporting welfare shopping asylum seekers when Australian pensioners can barely afford food. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.’ The above was reported in news.com.au. There is an uncanny similarity in what is happening in the Australian property scene and what is happening here. But the difference stops right there. The Australians are really facing a serious problem and they are very unhappy with the govt. On the contrary, we don’t really have any problem. If there is any problem, it is a happy one. The people are all laughing to the bank and inviting more foreigners to invest in our properties here. It is a win win situation. The foreigners speculate and make money from their property speculations. The Singaporeans are all happy that their properties are gaining in value. There are no losers. This is the big difference and the quality of the govt shows. We are so fortunate to have a good govt that could turn an otherwise bad situation into a happy one. Thumbs up to the govt, especially Mah Bow Tan, for making so many Singaporeans rich and happy, and to the property speculators too, both foreign and local. The Australians need to send a team of their govt officials to study how we did it.

It was fun and good for a laugh

Several PAP MPs spoke strongly against the principle behind NCMP and NMP. They ridiculed it as a backdoor entry to Parliament, elected by nobody, representing nobody and speaking for nobody. Basically they opposed the scheme. So did Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim who opposed it for basically the same reasons. The inconsistency and contradictory stand of the opposition MPs were picked up by Kan Seng who questioned Low Thia Khiang on his inconsistent stand. Why opposing a scheme and still support it? Ya, how silly for people to oppose an issue on grounds of principle and support it still. Low Thia Khiang stood his ground and said he would resign if his party wants him to take up a NCMP position if he lost his election. And all the MPs had a good laugh. It was all fun, and wayang I supposed. Well at least Low Thai Khiang stood to his principle. This is something that is hard to come by. What about the NCMPs and NMPs who were lambasted for being backdoor entrants? The criticisms thrown at them were unkind and rude in many ways, lack of credibility and speaking for nobody except themselves. Did the NCMPs and NMPs stand up to defend their pathetic positions? Or did they allow the attacks to go on and accept that the criticisms were valid, that they don't really have any right or business to be there? Actually they were not the only ones to get in by the backdoor. Many got in in the same way and crowed like a cockerel that they were more equal than the NCMPs and NMPs. In reality they were there, by back door or front door, because of the system. It is the system that puts them there. And who voted for the system, the same cocks and hens who criticised the system. Is this also a joke or another wayang?

Is my impression correct?

Reading from the interviews with PAP MPs as reported in the ST, I got this impression that the PAP MPs do not think highly of backdoor MPs, ie NCMPs and NMPs. Does this implies that they do not agree with the system of bringing in non elected MPs, representing nobody, into Parliament? If this is so, would they dare to vote against the bill that is planning to increase the number of non elected MPs? Or would they just go along and vote for it despite expressing strong misgivings and being condescending to those backdoor MPs? Calvin Cheng is a great example of this 'disagree but be part of the system' syndrome. He accepted the appointment as a backdoor MP but spoke against it. Could we find people who will stand by their principles, take a stand on issues or things they don't agree and lump them? Or is this how our pragmatic people have been brought up to be, don't agree never mind lah, just accept it, kpkb a bit for show, and just play along? Is being strong about one's principle an important factor in a person's character or value system?

Should HDB dwellers pay property tax?

With the property prices shooting to the sky, many HDB owners are also celebrating their good fortunes for sitting in an ever appreciating property. Quietly in another corner the Inland Revenue is also celebrating as property tax will go up accordingly. And for those who cannot capitalise on their good fortunes, cause they only have that property to live in, they can only smile when reading how much their properties are worth now, but at the same time seeing their property taxes going up in real terms. The question is whether HDB dwellers should be paying property tax at all as their flats are technically on 99 year rental. The 99 year HDB leasehold is very different from a private 99 year leasehold that does not come with so many restrictions and regulations. It straddles somewhere between a genuine leasehold and a rental flat and the property tax paid should be much lower than what it is. For the moment I am not too sure of the formula. Is it based on rental potential or the market value of the flat? Even if it is based on rental value, different location fetches different rentals and most units cannot be fully sublet. The most sore group would be those that are living in their HDB flats but ended having to pay ever higher property taxes while not benefitting from any rental income. So, is higher value really good?

The Helix, a piece of art

The Helix is a piece of art good for walking on. Its utility value as a bridge is nothing more or less than placing two pieces of planks across the river. But looking at it from the point of view of a functional piece of art, one may agree that it is money well spent. Look at the surroundings, the Marina Sands, the new business and financial centre and all the glitz in this new downtown of the future, anything less will not be befitting of a place there. Definitely not two pieces of planks for sure. We have in the Helix a piece of engineering that deserved the time and money spent on it. And from the angle of arts, now we have a major piece of object to show the world. As a young chap, I had done many pieces of scrap metals trying to make them resemble art forms but to no avails. Little engineering skills and cheap material just would not do. You need high tech and good material to make it look really good. The closest piece of scrap art that my creation could match was the piece facing the NTUC building in Finlayson Green. I really hope that our workers have better taste in art appreciation than to put a piece of scrap metal in front of their multi million dollar headquarter. Well, it is just my layman impression of what a piece of scrap metal is. For the sophisticated art connoisseurs, that piece could still be a great piece of art and worth millions. I try imagining placing that piece side by side with the Helix and see the reaction of the public, layman who could not appreciate the beauty of objet d'art and could not see the difference between a piece of scrap and a piece of art. Their reaction, spontaneous, would be the best judge of what the two pieces symbolise. We have removed the slums and replaced them with pieces of fine arts. Soon we will have an open air museum and the tourists can go on a conducted tour downtown to look at the art pieces on the road sides.