2/06/2013
The wayang in Parliament
The WP has stoically spoken against the White Paper but still conceded to 5.9m people. Several PAP MPs also spoken against the 6.9m population. Among the notables who were not in favour are Christopher De Souza, Arthur Fong and Seah Kian Peng who spoke out strongly about the population projection. Inderjit Singh also wanted the Govt to take a breather to solve the present cumulated problems before embarking on such an ambitious projection. There are more than 40 PAP MPs who are scheduled to speak on the subject.
This White Paper is a good test case to see how independent PAP MPs could be from party stand and whether they can be their own men or women, to speak and vote against party position. The proof is in the pudding. If they are only able to speak but still got to vote along party line, then in the future no PAP candidate should feel so free to declare he is an independent man and would stand on his beliefs, values and principles, even voting against the party if he feels strongly against an issue.
We have seen four PAP MPs so far, and may there be more to come, and the findings could be based on a larger sample size.
97% responded to Poll on the 6.9m population
621 bloggers have voted in the one week Poll on whether they are for or against the 6.9m population in the White Paper. 604 said no, 15 said yes, and 2 said dunno. If this sample is a true representation of the people’s feeling against the population increase, it means an overwhelming majority of the citizens opposed such a big population for the country. And the respondents here are not the unthinking and uneducated Ah Pek and Ah Mah but well read and mostly well informed PMETs.
From feedbacks in cyberspace, not much in the main media, and even from what some MPs in Parliament said, including those from the PAP, the majority of the citizens is against this move. Would the Govt take heed of the citizens’ position and make amendments to the White Paper? Though the Govt is claiming that this is only a number for the planners, it has not come up with a target population size for the people to take note. What is the number that the Govt is working on?
The WP has spoken that it does not support 6.9m but maybe 5.9m. What Govt is avoiding to say is the optimum population size that it wants for the island. The undertone in the White Paper is that 6.9m is workable even if it is the worst case scenario. The infrastructure is being prepared for 6.9m.
Can the people have a say in the final number? Would the Govt want to ask the people, in a referendum perhaps, on what is the number that the people want and abide by the wishes of the people? Be it 5m, 6m or 7m, these are numbers that can be workable and can be the parameters for the restructuring of the economy and the lifestyle and quality of life of the people. Any number would have its pros and cons. It is not an absolute good or bad number, but the bigger number is seen as being too crowded and undesirable. The final number must be what the citizens want and be comfortable with, not what the Govt wants.
Would the Govt seek the people’s view and consent? Or it is already cast in stone?
2/05/2013
Repost from TRE, article by Mr N D
I have reposted this article from TRE which I think many Sinkies are in the same fate, victims of the Govt policies.
HDB unfair policy: I’d rather trade places with PRs
HDB
There is something seriously wrong with a country that penalises its citizens and fawns at foreigners. One such flawed policy which clearly demonstrates this is HDB’s policy on the eligibility to buy new flats.
Under HDB’s policy, a family nucleus consisting of at least one Singapore Citizen is eligible to buy a flat direct from HDB. This means that a family nucleus consisting of PRs can effectively buy a direct HDB flat as long as one of them is a citizen.
This is an unfair policy that allows foreigners to exploit loopholes in the system. A foreigner who buys a flat direct from HDB (with another citizen) effectively enjoys the subsidy which a citizen enjoys because he buys the flat at a subsidised rate. In addition, he enjoys the novelty of owning a brand new unit.
I am a citizen in my twenties. I do know of university peers who are permanent residents. They are two years younger than me because they did not have to do national service. Now, they are the future co-owners of HDB BTO units because they applied for BTO units with citizen counterparts. Also to note, their income was beneath the income ceiling, one of the eligibility criteria to buy a flat. I myself with my partner, also a citizen, are not eligible because our combined income is higher than the income ceiling. Even in the HDB resale market, we are not eligible for any subsidies.
This is great injustice. While I have spent 2 years of my youth in NS and am saddled with ongoing NS reservist liabilities which is disruptive to my career, I am worse off than a free-loading foreigner. The foreigner pays less taxes because of his lower income but is unreasonably rewarded simply because he meets the income ceiling criteria. He enjoys the full subsidy and perks of buying a flat direct from HDB which only a citizen should enjoy. The foreigner did not have to provide any service or commitment to this country to earn this subsidy.
Singapore is now facing a shortage of housing supply. This policy has to be reviewed to put as many citizens first, and to prevent the wrongful disbursements of subsidies to undeserving persons.
I read with interest about suggestions by the Ministry of National Development to raise the income ceiling for buying of HDB flats. However, this must be complemented with more stringent criteria of disallowing PRs from being co-owners of direct HDB flats. Otherwise, the raising of the income ceiling would also mean more foreigners unjustly enriching themselves through this loophole.
In that case, I would rather trade places with my PR peers. Singapore citizenship would be nothing but a liability.
Mr N D
HDB unfair policy: I’d rather trade places with PRs
HDB
There is something seriously wrong with a country that penalises its citizens and fawns at foreigners. One such flawed policy which clearly demonstrates this is HDB’s policy on the eligibility to buy new flats.
Under HDB’s policy, a family nucleus consisting of at least one Singapore Citizen is eligible to buy a flat direct from HDB. This means that a family nucleus consisting of PRs can effectively buy a direct HDB flat as long as one of them is a citizen.
This is an unfair policy that allows foreigners to exploit loopholes in the system. A foreigner who buys a flat direct from HDB (with another citizen) effectively enjoys the subsidy which a citizen enjoys because he buys the flat at a subsidised rate. In addition, he enjoys the novelty of owning a brand new unit.
I am a citizen in my twenties. I do know of university peers who are permanent residents. They are two years younger than me because they did not have to do national service. Now, they are the future co-owners of HDB BTO units because they applied for BTO units with citizen counterparts. Also to note, their income was beneath the income ceiling, one of the eligibility criteria to buy a flat. I myself with my partner, also a citizen, are not eligible because our combined income is higher than the income ceiling. Even in the HDB resale market, we are not eligible for any subsidies.
This is great injustice. While I have spent 2 years of my youth in NS and am saddled with ongoing NS reservist liabilities which is disruptive to my career, I am worse off than a free-loading foreigner. The foreigner pays less taxes because of his lower income but is unreasonably rewarded simply because he meets the income ceiling criteria. He enjoys the full subsidy and perks of buying a flat direct from HDB which only a citizen should enjoy. The foreigner did not have to provide any service or commitment to this country to earn this subsidy.
Singapore is now facing a shortage of housing supply. This policy has to be reviewed to put as many citizens first, and to prevent the wrongful disbursements of subsidies to undeserving persons.
I read with interest about suggestions by the Ministry of National Development to raise the income ceiling for buying of HDB flats. However, this must be complemented with more stringent criteria of disallowing PRs from being co-owners of direct HDB flats. Otherwise, the raising of the income ceiling would also mean more foreigners unjustly enriching themselves through this loophole.
In that case, I would rather trade places with my PR peers. Singapore citizenship would be nothing but a liability.
Mr N D
How can there be a worst case scenario of 6.9m?
Our current population is 5.3m. How can this population shoot to 6.9m? The local population of 3.3m is unlikely to double by 2030. At less than 2.1% fertility rate, or 1.2%, the local population can hardly replace itself and likely to be not more than 4m. So where is the 2.9m coming from? It must be from immigration, the new citizens, the PRs, the E pass holders etc.
Only by import can the population grow to 6.9m. Now who controls the import of foreigners to add to the population? Every foreigner coming into the country must be approved by the Govt. The only reason for foreigners to increase sharply is by sheer design, by the Govt approving it. Thus a worst case scenario is either caused by the Govt blindly approving the influx or sleeping on the job. The foreign composition of our population cannot increase without the Govt’s approval or consent.
That is why I say that there cannot be a worst case scenario. If the govt has capped the population at 6m or whatever, it is in full control to turn off the tap of immigration. What is this talk about a worst case scenario? It is an unnecessary preoccupation or concern.
Citizens of convenience
Legally when a new citizen is given his pink IC and citizenship certificate he is a citizen of the country. There is no dispute to that. But emotionally, psychologically, intentionally, socially, how many of the new citizens are really the citizens like the true blue local citizens? Or when will a new citizen be really like a local citizen, emotionally and psychologically embracing this country as his country, his home? How many are just here for economic gains, for economic expediency, citizens of convenience, and planning another foot to get out at the next opportunity when this place is no longer useful or as attractive as before?
Over the last ten years or so, we may have given at least half a million citizenships to new citizens and many more as PRs. The statistics in favour of citizens in jobs and employment, in housing allocations etc are misleading in this sense as many went to new citizens at the expense of true blue citizens. This is a serious matter that must not go unnoticed and unspoken of. What are the real benefits and disadvantages that have befallen our native citizens?
Of the 5.3m population now, how many are true blue citizens if we exclude those new citizens that are less than 5 or 10 year old? Where are the statistics on this?
If Sinkies are now the absolute minority or going to be, then why should Sinkies be made to do NS to protect a country of foreigners? Should not the pay/allowance of NS men be raised to market value as they are now more like mercenaries hired not to serve country and people but foreigners and their assets? Why are Sinkies slogging and suffering in the field doing NS while foreigners are taking over their cushy jobs and speculating in properties to make money from Sinkies?
Has anything changed? Are the fundamentals of nationhood and national defence changed?
Over the last ten years or so, we may have given at least half a million citizenships to new citizens and many more as PRs. The statistics in favour of citizens in jobs and employment, in housing allocations etc are misleading in this sense as many went to new citizens at the expense of true blue citizens. This is a serious matter that must not go unnoticed and unspoken of. What are the real benefits and disadvantages that have befallen our native citizens?
Of the 5.3m population now, how many are true blue citizens if we exclude those new citizens that are less than 5 or 10 year old? Where are the statistics on this?
If Sinkies are now the absolute minority or going to be, then why should Sinkies be made to do NS to protect a country of foreigners? Should not the pay/allowance of NS men be raised to market value as they are now more like mercenaries hired not to serve country and people but foreigners and their assets? Why are Sinkies slogging and suffering in the field doing NS while foreigners are taking over their cushy jobs and speculating in properties to make money from Sinkies?
Has anything changed? Are the fundamentals of nationhood and national defence changed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)