Elevating terrorists to cult status

With shocking disbelief I kept reading flattery comments about the great limping terrorist and the expert suicide bomb maker in the media. In the case of the former, his greatest achievement was to escape from detention, while the later was credited for several bombings in Indonesia and the death of innocent people. They were showered with praises as charismatic, super intelligent, great in deception and disguises, experts in their arts of sabotage and military skills. If the little military training and knowledge they had should qualified them to be so glorified, we should better do some glorifications for our own combatants and leaders or they will pale in comparison to these two terrorists. The bad consequences of flattery remarks on two terrorists could raise them to cult status and attracting more naive and gullible recruits into their cause. Would it be better to call a spade a spade, like a half baked school dropout limping terrorist, a killer of innocent people in suicide bombings, misfits of the community, mad men, criminals etc etc? We do not want a Che Quevara and his guerilla fighters fighting the govt do we?

A serious proposition by a blogger

Below are some recommendations by Gerald Giam on how to solve the high prices of housing. The full post is at his blog http://geraldgiam.sg. It shows that bloggers can put up serious articles that are as good as those in the paid media or papers submitted in Parliament. Here it is. I have a few suggestions on how we can lower the cost of public housing for Singaporeans, without causing asset destruction or panic selling. Sell new flats at cost-plus pricing The first thing HDB should do is to reduce the price of its new flats. HDB maintains that flats remain “affordable” and that it still provides a “market subsidy” for buyers. The market subsidy simply means that new HDB flats are priced lower than existing resale properties in the same area. It is not based on the cost of construction and land. Mr Leong Sze Hian from The Online Citizen has calculated that HDB could be making a profit of over $170,000 per flatin the new Punggol development. Mr See Leong Kit, in a letter published in TODAY, also arrived at a similar estimate of $140,000 profit per unit for the Pinnacle@Duxton development. For a start, in the spirit transparency, HDB should disclose the profits it makes from each project ─ by showing how much exactly it cost them to build the flats alongside the prices that they are being sold for. HDB is a government agency. It should not behave like a profit-maximising corporation. There is no reason why new HDB flats cannot be priced at cost plus ─ no more than 5% above the cost price of building the flat and acquiring the land. Reducing the price of new flats will immediately make it more affordable for many more lower- and middle-income couples who do not have the savings to pay over $300,000 for a new flat. It would also have a knock on effect of slowly lowering the price of resale flats, which would also benefit home buyers. Perhaps HDB is concerned that these homeowners will sell their flat 5 years later for an obscene profit in the open market. To prevent this from happening, HDB could require that the flats cannot be sold for more than 10% above the cost price (adjusted for inflation) for the first 10 years. This will prevent home owners from profiting excessively after receiving the government subsidy. Another way of reducing costs is to build flats without all the frills. In recent years, HDB seems to have taken on the mindset of a private developer, coming up with ways on how to meet the apparent demand from yuppie Singaporeans for condo-style living. This is treading down the wrong path. HDB flats should remain no-frills public housing. There is no need to provide posh condo lookalikes and price them like private apartments. Those who want a more high-class living environment should consider buying private properties. Build more new flats During a parliamentary debate in September, opposition leader Low Thia Khiang questioned whether HDB is under-building flats to meet the demand of flat buyers. Mr Mah Bow Tan dismissed it, saying simply that there was “no basis to say HDB is under-building”. He fanned out statistics that showed that the HDB built 2,400 flats in 2007, 8,000 in 2008 and another 8,000 this year. As always, government statistics don’t tell the full story. Just last week, the Sale of Balanced Flats launched by HDB received over 20,691 applications for only 2,132 available flats ─ almost 10 times oversubscribed. The recent Punggol Residences Built-to-Order five-room flats released in August were also 10 times oversubscribed, with 1,587 balloters for just 154 units. The PAP government has dismissed these clear indications that there is a shortage of flats by suggesting that most of those people who applied were just trying their luck and not really interested in buying a place to stay. This is an insult to the thousands of home buyers who have tried numerous times but failed to find a flat that fits their basic requirements. It is likely that the main reason why the HDB does not want to build more new flats is because it will lower the overall price of even the resale market, which may be politically troublesome for them. The HDB needs to examine whether it’s mandate is to provide affordable housing for Singaporeans, or feed voters with unsustainable promises of constantly increasing home asset prices. PRs increasing flat demand Part of the reason for the high prices of resale flats is the large influx of foreigners who take up permanent residency, thus making them eligible to buy HDB flats in the open market. A recent ERA report revealed that 40% of resale flat buyers are permanent residents (PR). This is a phenomenal proportion, considering that HDB flats were built to house Singaporeans, not foreigners. It’s questionable whether all of these PRs intend to sink their roots in Singapore or whether they see Singapore as a stepping stone to better opportunities in the US, or Australia, or back in China when conditions there improve. I welcome foreigners to come to Singapore, to contribute to our economy and add to our social diversity. Many of my friends and colleagues are foreigners, and I have seen the benefits many of them have brought to Singapore. However, I am strongly opposed to the government’s policy of allowing in so many foreigners in such a short amount of time, as this has put a severe strain on the housing market, the public transport system and the job situation. The immigration policy is so liberal that within weeks of arriving in Singapore, a foreigner with the right qualifications can apply for PR and get it approved within three months. Without having contributed even a year to Singapore, these PRs are eligible to buy public housing and benefit from a system which Singaporeans have spent a lifetime building up. Impose waiting period for PRs to buy flats To rectify this, I propose that all PRs must have lived and worked continuously in Singapore for at least three years before they are allowed to buy HDB flats. This would filter out all those PRs who have shown little commitment to our country and are just taking up residence in order to be able to buy a subsidised flat, save on rental and sell it a few years later for a huge profit. Lest this proposal causes alarm to skilled workers who are considering applying for PR, I would point out that under this proposed policy, HDB should look at the entire duration that the PR has been in Singapore, not just the period since he got his blue NRIC. Skilled foreigners who have demonstrated a commitment to making Singapore their home should have no worries about this new policy disadvantaging them. Conclusion I have laid out in this article just a few suggestions on reining in unaffordable public housing costs for home buyers. It is a work-in-progress and by no means comprehensive. I hope that policy makers will consider some of these suggestions for the sake of the thousands of Singaporean home buyers ─ including future home buyers ─ who are just seeking for a decent roof over their head.

Psycho analysing an angry blogger

In two days, this blogger posted 3 comments under the nick of Macdonald Bloggers, Pee on it and Empty Empathy in www.mysingaporenews.blogspot.com in the threads 'Blogging is a waste of time' and 'Amazing Grace'. It was a rare opportunity to look at the content of such a post to reveal what or who is behind these angry comments. For a start let me make a general assumption that both of us do not know each other except for the postings. So he was angry with my posts and sought to destroy me as a blogger, not my posts and views. I am making another assumption that he must have read plenty of my posts, can't be just because of one post and he became so incensed. If the latter, then he is fit to register in IMH. For he claimed that I am flawed and writing rubbish and all the bloggers reading my posts are foolish, listening to a fool. Now why and how could a person be so infuriated by my posts? He came across as a person in rage, blabbing non stop, at the top of his voice, and pointing an intimidating finger at me? Is he of sound mind? I am using he as a neutral term for he could be a she, but more likely he. One thing for sure, in his rage he could not see what he was writing, or he was just a careless person, and all kinds of mistakes, spelling and grammatical errors splashed across his 3 comments. It could also mean that he is a very impulsive person, that when provoked, or felt provoked, he lost his mind, he must let it off immediately from his chest. This is typical of a person who cannot control his own emotion. His 3 comments showed how bitter and combative he is. He just wanted to whack and whack. A very dangerous man that is ruled by his emotion than his head. Uncontrollable! The other thing is that he isn't that clever either. He thought by posting under 3 different nicks he could easily pass off as 3 bloggers. But he failed to cover his tracks. All his style and mannerism were exposed in his posts. Not clever indeed. But he believes he is very clever. My conclusion, a very impulsive, aggressive and angry man that can go into a rage and becomes very destructive. He loses his cool easily and will shout at the top of his voice to win an argument by drowning out his opponents. He is also careless but very conceited. He thought by a barrage of shouting and pointing fingers at his target, he will win the argument. Unfortunately in a blog, people can quietly and carefully read through his posts over and over again, coolly, to dissect him and know what he really is. Imagine if one day someone were to reveal his identity and tell his peers that these were his posts, and the kind of person he is? His alumni, colleagues, friends, if he still has, his alma mater, professional associations, clients, etc will be shocked to know him, the true person behind that false facade he is showing to the world. What kind of upbring did he gone through? Not very good indeed.

The monopolistic competition myth continues in Parliament

The competition between Singtel and Starhub has exploded the myth of competition in a monopolistic environment with people shaking their heads and fearing that they will be the ultimate sacrificial lambs. Can there really be competition that will benefit the consumers? This issue was raised in Parliament yesterday. This was what Lui Tuck Yew, the Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts had to say. The Govt could fix the price service provider could charge the consumers. 'But a move like this, even if intended to keep prices low for viewers, may backfire and deprive them of programming altogether. It is like fixing the prices of public flats and HDB will not build affordable and quality flats anymore. In HDB's case, it is a national duty to build flats, so it will still build. But a programme provider like the EPL may not want to sell their products to Singapore, and all the football fans will suffer. See, the problem is not so easy to solve. Can there be other ways out? Can we open up the sky to look for better and cheaper solutions? Satellite disks? Free competition what? Free market is good for consumers and we believe in the principle of free market forces, free trade and free flow of information. Can this avenue be considered?

The oldies are a treasure to an organisation!

Did anyone say this?When have oldies became a treasure to an organisation and must be duly rewarded? Sounded like the grandpas and grandmas are the treasures in a family. There is now a reawakening and a new call to be good to the oldies. No longer were they seen as retards, slow and useless piece of woods to be quickly discarded when they hit retirement age, at 55 or 60. Now people are seriously saying that the oldies must be paid according to their worth and contributions, not to cut their pay when they reached the magical age of senility. Is there a change of heart or a case of today I proclaim the oldies as bad, tomorrow as good, then I suka suka say they are bad again, good, bad....It was bearly 10 years ago when many oldies, or not even oldies, were given the red ticket to retire unceremoniously. Many were in their early 50s and many are still jobless or driving taxis despite their experience in managerial and executive positions. Can these premature sacking of the oldies be reversed, and these not really oldies but now oldies be invited into the workforce again? Or can they claim for some kind of compensation for the bad mistakes done to them in the past? Who was the wise kid who decided that these not so oldies should go? Who is the wise kid today to say the oldies must be treasured? My god, what kind of mindset change could happen so fast? The think tanks must be thinking too hard and go flipping about with such a major and serious issues. How could they not know that oldies are treasures, that oldies need to work till 80 or 90, but only today to realise this?