The income ceiling to buy 2 rm flats has been raised from $2000 to $5000 for the affordable HDB flats in mature estates. But the ceiling of $2000 will stay for new estates to keep them affordable for the lower incomes.
This policy change is funny in many ways. If people can afford to buy a flat with only $1000 pm income, the raising to $5000 seems to be unnecessary. And if it needs a $5000 income to be able to afford a 2 rm flat, should not the other categories of ceiling be raised proportionately to make them affordable as well?
The official reasoning is that raising the ceiling would provide those earning $5000 another option to buy down instead of being forced to buy more expensive but still affordable flats. This is a dramatic change in policy direction from the HDB. In the past or current, the policy is to make sure that the buyer will expend whatever he has in his savings or his income to buy the most expensive flats available. If he earns a bit more, force him to buy from the sharks in the private sector. And this policy has singlehandedly led to the present situation whereby many did not have much left in their savings for retirement, and a 30 year mortgage repayment that eats up their disposable income. Oops, think I make a mistake here. Someone was reported in the main media that many Singaporeans have enough savings in the CPF for retirement. Believe me, it is true.
The old thinking of doing things right may not be right in this particular case. The little change in direction may help a little in allowing people to buy what they really can afford and still with some savings and a little more disposable income to go with. To focus on doing things right, HDB may want to seriously look at the old policy of forcing people to buy more expensive but still affordable flats and extend this policy change to all the other categories of affordable HDB flats. The right way to go is to remove the ceilings and build more flats to meet the demands. Don’t interfere with the people’s income and how they should spend their money. Many would want to buy smaller and really affordable flats and save at the same time for their retirement and a little luxury with the extra cash available.
The flawed policy of not building to frustrate the people by creating a false demand is obnoxious and definitely not right. Would HDB do the right thing and do it right by going all the way instead of just stopping at 2?
And believe me, some daft Sinkies will still argue that by not putting a ceiling on the income, there will be so big a demand for smaller flats that the lower income will be deprived of their chances of buying one. And some great talents will superimpose this view, when the simple thing to do is to build what the people want. If the demand is for cheaper 3 rm or 4 rm flats, then build it for the people.
Why insist on people spending all their money to buy more expensive affordable flats, or why not follow the private developers and build 650 sq ft flat to sell at $1m? Then keep harping that the quality of life will not be affected. Can do or no can do?
3/28/2012
Lady got hit – acid in MRT train
According to media reports, the woman boarded a SMRT train at Raffles Place on her way home and sat on an empty seat which appeared to be wet.
Thinking that the transparent fluid is water, the woman sat on it only to discover a stinging sensation to her buttocks. The pain got worse and worse and she eventually alighted at Dhoby Ghaut MRT station to check...
To her shock, she discovered her buttocks was ‘burnt’. On admission to the hospital, she was told she required skin grafting due to the extensive damage. The transparent fluid is likely to be highly concentrated sulfuric acid.
http://temasektimes.wordpress.com/20...skin-grafting/
Is the above just an accident or something more ominous? The authority needs to get to the bottom of this. Someone must have seen who left the acid on the train seat. Pray that it was just a minor accident. If not, things could get nasty.
Thinking that the transparent fluid is water, the woman sat on it only to discover a stinging sensation to her buttocks. The pain got worse and worse and she eventually alighted at Dhoby Ghaut MRT station to check...
To her shock, she discovered her buttocks was ‘burnt’. On admission to the hospital, she was told she required skin grafting due to the extensive damage. The transparent fluid is likely to be highly concentrated sulfuric acid.
http://temasektimes.wordpress.com/20...skin-grafting/
Is the above just an accident or something more ominous? The authority needs to get to the bottom of this. Someone must have seen who left the acid on the train seat. Pray that it was just a minor accident. If not, things could get nasty.
Malaysia - A refreshing and innovative initiative
Malaysia boleh! The latest news or rumour that Malaysia is going to charge tolls on the new eastern highway from the immigration only on Singaporean cars is the most brilliant thing that I have heard on governance. The tax burden of the country should be borne by the foreigners benefiting from the country. This is a notable principle for all govts to consider, especially Singapore.
And this kind of taxation policy can only be applicable and effective when the foreigners form a large percentage of the population, or users of the highway in the Malaysian case. Why not, these foreigners are here because they know what is best for them and should repay the generosity of the host country. Singaporeans driving into Malaysia must pay generously to the host country for their enjoyment there. You cannot fault such a thinking and cannot even try to fight it. Why have to pay to go into Disneyland? It is their country, silly you. You visit someone’s country, you play by their rules. Only silly countries will bend down on their knees to welcome foreigners and treat foreigners better than their citizens.
In Singapore, we have almost 50% foreigners in the country and rightfully they should share a bigger tax burden for the opportunity to be here, to get rich and to enjoy all our hospitality, and to litter everywhere. Why are we paying for them to be here using our tax money instead?
And this is paradise that the whole world is queuing up to come in. Those who refuse to pay need not come. Many are waiting in line to come in, to smuggle themselves in, to pay to come in. Or this is a myth, no one wants to come?
Malaysia is doing the right thing. Country and citizens first. Imagine what it would be like if the tax burden of the citizens is transferred to foreigners, PRs and temporary workers? Simply brilliant! Chee Hean should have mentioned this to his govt officials yesterday and make them think of better ways to tax the foreigners as a substitute to taxing the citizens.
And this kind of taxation policy can only be applicable and effective when the foreigners form a large percentage of the population, or users of the highway in the Malaysian case. Why not, these foreigners are here because they know what is best for them and should repay the generosity of the host country. Singaporeans driving into Malaysia must pay generously to the host country for their enjoyment there. You cannot fault such a thinking and cannot even try to fight it. Why have to pay to go into Disneyland? It is their country, silly you. You visit someone’s country, you play by their rules. Only silly countries will bend down on their knees to welcome foreigners and treat foreigners better than their citizens.
In Singapore, we have almost 50% foreigners in the country and rightfully they should share a bigger tax burden for the opportunity to be here, to get rich and to enjoy all our hospitality, and to litter everywhere. Why are we paying for them to be here using our tax money instead?
And this is paradise that the whole world is queuing up to come in. Those who refuse to pay need not come. Many are waiting in line to come in, to smuggle themselves in, to pay to come in. Or this is a myth, no one wants to come?
Malaysia is doing the right thing. Country and citizens first. Imagine what it would be like if the tax burden of the citizens is transferred to foreigners, PRs and temporary workers? Simply brilliant! Chee Hean should have mentioned this to his govt officials yesterday and make them think of better ways to tax the foreigners as a substitute to taxing the citizens.
Teo Chee Hean - The paradox of governance
Chee Hean made a keynote speech to the elite civil servants, or shall I called them govt officials, on the role of govt last night. His key point was the role of government, and the paradox is that some people want more govt some want less. This is nothing new and is really not an issue. He also mentioned about doing the right things and doing them right.
What ever paradoxes there are, the worst paradox is a govt doing what it should not be doing and not doing what it should be doing. Put it in another way, things that the people did not want to govt to be doing but the govt insists on doing and things that the people want the govt to do but not doing. This is the paradox that the govt cannot see. It only believes in the proverbial ‘I’. It is always the ‘I decide, I say, I do’. The govt is the authority to do what it likes and to draw the OB markers.
The govt has never thought that the people also have their likes and their rights and also their OB markers. I recommend that all civil servants, not govt officials, should read JS Mills and try to understand what he meant by the rights of individuals. This may help them to understand that they must not cross into the rights of individuals though the govt has all the power to do so, to violate individual rights in the name of the common good. Think how many individual rights have the govt violated and think how not to do so.
Chee Hean also talked about the govt as a regulator, enabler and provider. As regulator, ‘the govt acts to safeguard the interests of the people, to find the right balance in its intervention’. Think housing policy, think influx of foreigners and population growth. Has the govt failed badly in these areas as a regulator?
Similarly, as an enabler, the govt is to ‘create a conducive environment so that “desirable activities can flourish”.’ This, the govt has succeeded in some areas and not in some other areas, depending on the beneficiaries and the losers.
As a provider, the ‘govt shall provide where there are societal needs non government players are not able to meet, such as national security.’ He agreed that there were debates or unhappiness in areas like education, public transport, housing and healthcare which should be provided by the govt but privatized. So the govt need not be the provider that it should be. And is the govt providing for the aged? Currently to some extent, but eventually may be zero as the aged are compelled through all the compulsory schemes in CPF and Medisave to provide for themselves. This would make the govt’s job easier or even redundant except to be the regulator to ensure the aged provide for themselves.
Very paradoxical indeed. Doing the right things and doing them right are as controversial as affordability. What is right and what is wrong can be very subjective and personal.
What ever paradoxes there are, the worst paradox is a govt doing what it should not be doing and not doing what it should be doing. Put it in another way, things that the people did not want to govt to be doing but the govt insists on doing and things that the people want the govt to do but not doing. This is the paradox that the govt cannot see. It only believes in the proverbial ‘I’. It is always the ‘I decide, I say, I do’. The govt is the authority to do what it likes and to draw the OB markers.
The govt has never thought that the people also have their likes and their rights and also their OB markers. I recommend that all civil servants, not govt officials, should read JS Mills and try to understand what he meant by the rights of individuals. This may help them to understand that they must not cross into the rights of individuals though the govt has all the power to do so, to violate individual rights in the name of the common good. Think how many individual rights have the govt violated and think how not to do so.
Chee Hean also talked about the govt as a regulator, enabler and provider. As regulator, ‘the govt acts to safeguard the interests of the people, to find the right balance in its intervention’. Think housing policy, think influx of foreigners and population growth. Has the govt failed badly in these areas as a regulator?
Similarly, as an enabler, the govt is to ‘create a conducive environment so that “desirable activities can flourish”.’ This, the govt has succeeded in some areas and not in some other areas, depending on the beneficiaries and the losers.
As a provider, the ‘govt shall provide where there are societal needs non government players are not able to meet, such as national security.’ He agreed that there were debates or unhappiness in areas like education, public transport, housing and healthcare which should be provided by the govt but privatized. So the govt need not be the provider that it should be. And is the govt providing for the aged? Currently to some extent, but eventually may be zero as the aged are compelled through all the compulsory schemes in CPF and Medisave to provide for themselves. This would make the govt’s job easier or even redundant except to be the regulator to ensure the aged provide for themselves.
Very paradoxical indeed. Doing the right things and doing them right are as controversial as affordability. What is right and what is wrong can be very subjective and personal.
3/27/2012
Shimun Lai's facebook comment
Shimun Lai, a 19-year-old at Nanyang Polytechnic, posted a racially insensitive comment about smell and race that has gone viral. This kind of insensitive remarks will be repeated by the less sensitive and will irk those being targeted. People get offended by all kinds of things, some genuine, some imagery, some real, some unreal, some unjustified.
One aspect of Shimun Lai’s complaint is genuine and can be minimized, that is bad body odour, or unclean body. This problem is not race biased but affects all races, local and foreigners. All human beans have body odour and it smells badly if not wash properly. Then there are some with bad personal hygiene and do not take bath regularly. Some tend to sweat profusely and smell foul. Some have bad personal habits that produce very unpleasant bad odour.
And in the close proximity of trains and buses, even inside working areas or offices, really bad smell is a problem. And the person with the smell may not know it when people start to avoid them and stay away from them. The polite ones affected by the smell will endure quietly or walk away. The less intolerant will show their displeasure and may even tell the person off.
This little irritating problem calls for a public campaign to educate everyone to adopt simple personal hygiene routines to keep themselves clean and be less offensive to those around them. It may be a bit too much to ask for from manual workers as their work demands will make them dirty and smelly very quickly. And you have the foreigners with their own standard of personal hygiene and habits which they are used to without knowing that they smell and irritate and even offend those around them. We don’t have to live with their dirty smell.
For friendly co existence and acceptance, the offenders should be educated or briefed to keep themselves clean. It is not too demanding a request or expectation. It is actually very rude to walk around smelling and forcing it on others. In the train and buses, it can be unbearable. It is rude and offensive. The ministry should do its part to reduce this social stigma. What is the point of nice clean buses, beautiful restaurants and theatres, when the person next door did not bother to clean himself or herself. And I say this again, it is not a racial thing but affects everyone. Anyone who does not keep himself or herself clean will smell and will be unwelcomed.
Let’s do something to prevent this social problem from becoming an irritating issue. Everyone can spread the word around to their friends, and friends to their friends politely. It does not cost much to wash and bath and be clean. This is a first world country and first world habits, culture and social graces must be the norm. We should not go backward to accept and accommodate third world social habits by lowering down our standard of simple hygiene. We have allowed spitting and littering to return to our midst. It is a sorry state of affair.
Why do you think politicians irked when shaking hands with people? It is not fair to blame the politicians. Why should a pair of clean hands be dirtied by a pair of soiled hands? The politician is not impolite to want to wash the soil hands quickly. It is the other party that is rude and offensive.
One aspect of Shimun Lai’s complaint is genuine and can be minimized, that is bad body odour, or unclean body. This problem is not race biased but affects all races, local and foreigners. All human beans have body odour and it smells badly if not wash properly. Then there are some with bad personal hygiene and do not take bath regularly. Some tend to sweat profusely and smell foul. Some have bad personal habits that produce very unpleasant bad odour.
And in the close proximity of trains and buses, even inside working areas or offices, really bad smell is a problem. And the person with the smell may not know it when people start to avoid them and stay away from them. The polite ones affected by the smell will endure quietly or walk away. The less intolerant will show their displeasure and may even tell the person off.
This little irritating problem calls for a public campaign to educate everyone to adopt simple personal hygiene routines to keep themselves clean and be less offensive to those around them. It may be a bit too much to ask for from manual workers as their work demands will make them dirty and smelly very quickly. And you have the foreigners with their own standard of personal hygiene and habits which they are used to without knowing that they smell and irritate and even offend those around them. We don’t have to live with their dirty smell.
For friendly co existence and acceptance, the offenders should be educated or briefed to keep themselves clean. It is not too demanding a request or expectation. It is actually very rude to walk around smelling and forcing it on others. In the train and buses, it can be unbearable. It is rude and offensive. The ministry should do its part to reduce this social stigma. What is the point of nice clean buses, beautiful restaurants and theatres, when the person next door did not bother to clean himself or herself. And I say this again, it is not a racial thing but affects everyone. Anyone who does not keep himself or herself clean will smell and will be unwelcomed.
Let’s do something to prevent this social problem from becoming an irritating issue. Everyone can spread the word around to their friends, and friends to their friends politely. It does not cost much to wash and bath and be clean. This is a first world country and first world habits, culture and social graces must be the norm. We should not go backward to accept and accommodate third world social habits by lowering down our standard of simple hygiene. We have allowed spitting and littering to return to our midst. It is a sorry state of affair.
Why do you think politicians irked when shaking hands with people? It is not fair to blame the politicians. Why should a pair of clean hands be dirtied by a pair of soiled hands? The politician is not impolite to want to wash the soil hands quickly. It is the other party that is rude and offensive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)