PAP moves to counter criticism of party, govt in cyberspace
-
If leaders are holding themselves high as capable leaders who could sway the whole world with influence, like the way they conduct themselves to the citizens e.g. arrogance, self-confidence about their leadership abilities and talents and not willing to be subjected to good corporate governance or accountability processes, then our foreign relation will also suffer the same problem.
Being Leaders of a small country called the red dot by Habibi they must learn to conduct such foreign relation with a certain extra finesse which will win respect not only from its own people but from all other leaders and people.
They have been having past difficulties with leaders of other countries before and by now should have learned their lesson from the past.
For example, do not adopt the attitude that they are never wrong in their judgmens or dealings with people or others like has been happening in dealing with the Souzhou local authority over its sale of local industrial lands. If our leaders have been more tactful and not resort to showdown and threats will we have sufferred the setback.
In past dealing with Mahathir over the water issue - do our leaders always have to publicised how right they are ? Do they really understand foreign relations.
If we keep wanting to show we are better or superior than the other countries in the neighbouring region, will it create better foreign relation.
If we keep trying to tell people we are providing them with aids will we really go down well with their people.
As advised to the government Feedback Unit previously, being small and vulnerable we must not conduct ourselves based on haughty arrogance that we are more advanced or superior.
We must conduct genuine people-to-people good relation with actions rather than a great deal of words and broadcasting about our taking over other people's national assets.
So it is time for our foreign ministry to really come up with a more strategic foreign relation master plan and implement it with practical sensibility.
No need to show or broadcast about how good is our leaders' abilities to the people.
Prove the abilities with actions and results. -
Yes, if the government is honest and wants to show the real figures of direct job creation by the policy to allow foreigners to come in and take over citizens' jobs claiming that this is good for the economy.
As said before, possibly no country put in a different figure for unemployment between citizen and PR. PRs decendent have to go for NS as well. I wonder is there such a need to differentiate between PR and citizen... If u view tat PR r foreigners coming over and taking our job, then the figure for citizen itself is questionable since there r many PRs tat become citizens themselves later.
Tis is especially true since some of the subsidies for PR had reduced compared with citizen.
Another question tat need to be asked is in tis global world should we close up and face companies moving out of singapore ? Frankly u r right in asking if foreigners r snatching jobs and lowering income. But then tis is a global phenomenon and US, Britian and any open developed country r facing. Do u think closing up our economy will help the situation in the long run ?It has been a subject of queries by the people as published in many letters to the Straits Times' forum page and HDB simply was lost for words - giving a discount to the market price and calling such discount subsidy to public housing. It is sheer dishonesty to say that HDB has subsidised its sale of flats in this manner.
I think I have given a reply before and it seems the points r not answered... As said, land cost money in cities, and the money do go to the people in terms of budget income. If u put the land department and HDB department as seperate entities, then HDB have to pay the cost of the land to the land department before building the flats, and thus will not be making much or no profit. In fact it is possible to be a subsidy if the gov have to fork money for HDN to be developed tis way.
If land is made as "free", then will it be fair to people who live in same size flat but one is at jurong west and the other is at toa payoh to pay the same price just for building the flat ?Government is elected to represent the people and not for its own sake. So it is wrong to say that government could do what it likes and charge the fullest market price it likes for lands which were owned and paid for by the people for public housing.
The money to be used in the budget have to come off from somewhere, and people in the cities have to pay a high price for housing throughout the world. Singapore, statistically speaking, has affordable housing compared with other developed cities. If they charged very cheaply for land, then u have to face a very high tax in other areas. The wool can only come from the sheep. U still have not answer the question on whether do u think it is a fair tax to tax the people who lived in bigger house, at better location or do not show efficiency in using the land ?Such consistent behaviour of the government in giving in to bigger forces outside in conducting diplomatic relations while continuously acting against the interests of its own citizens to claim as success is generally known as :"Big fish eats small fish and small fish eats shrimps as characterized or admitted by MM Lee the man responsible for all such so-called no-free lunch talk-down attitude adopted by the ministers towards its own people.
Wat do u propose the gov do if the outside country play punk with singapore ? I mean u can say a lot of things from tis action but the crux is tat the gov did the right thing by not blowing things out of proportion. -
The $100,000 that a Singapore Minister is paid in ONE MONTH is what a typical experienced middle-age Singapore manager will earn in an ENTIRE YEAR!
I think the manager for a singapore linked company get paid like the manager for a middle age singapore manager as well. But the CEO is another story$435m SMU new City Campus in Bras Basah area
How much do u think polytechnics costs to be built ? Even some secondary schools costs a few millions to be builtSee how, in tiny red dot Singapore, the 4 Universities
I don't know man, is it a bad sign to see them competing with each other ?
(NUS,NTU,SMU,UniSIM) and 5 Polytechnics try to "outdo each other" in
offering "duplicating courses" and resorting to costly Press/TV
advertising campaigns?
The students will, of course, have to pay for all these costs !!!First, Golden Taps at the NKF (National Kachang Foundation?)
NKF is not gov linked. NTU did not buy the chair. They only asked for the quotation.
Next, Golden Chairs at the NTU (Nanyang Technological University) !!!University fees have increased by an annual average of 5% since 1990
Tat and the foreign scholarship r true. But then america, italy, british and many country r doing the same thing to draw in top students from other countries. If u have done well, u can get a scholarship from other country to go to their country to study and have a lot of benefit as well.
and they have gone up every year, Mr Tharman said" (BT 2 Mar 06).$1m --- Consulting Fee which the MOE will pay an External Consultant
Experts opinion r never cheap and private sector also pay a lot of money for foreign consultations as well. U do not want your country policy to follow experts in the field ?
to review teacher's pay and career structure (annouced recently [clever
timing!] as yet another Big Election Carrot).$600m --- Amount earmarked for Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) to make
Well in the past, when the technology is not there and to lower cost, the elevator is very slow. If u take a very old elevator, u will realise it takes a minute for a floor and it cannot accelrate or decceletrate fast. If we make a slow elevator stop at every floor, then we can take very long to reach our stop and is unpopular$160m --- National Parks Board's Giant 2006 Election Carrot to
Is tat a bad thing or a good thing ? The one tat uses the park most often is singaporean u know...
"spoil" the "unspoilt beauty" of East Coast Park !!!246m --- 2006 Total Expenditure Budget of the People's Association (a
Tis is bad. I agree.
statutory board under MCYS).
PAP politicians may deny it like hell, but smart S'poreans know very well
the PA has been used to "politicise" the grassroots movement to favour the
PAP.9.4 $400,000 2005 URA Marina Bay "Branding" Exercise:
Tis is funny...
URA's highly-paid civil servants allowing themselves to be CONNED by
Foreign CONsultants on the latest management buzzword of "branding".
Ended up spending this sum to re-brand Marina Bay as ......Marina Bay
!!!!!! WHAT THE HECK !!!
But is tat the only thing tis guy do or he contribute the other possible development to the area ?
http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=346
The branding exercise for Marina Bay was not a process to identify a name. Rather, it was an exercise to create a 'competitive strategy' that will guide the development and marketing of Marina Bay. The 9-month long
branding process included the following steps:
a) researching into strategies used by competing cities;
b) interviews with stakeholders, real estate developers, potential investors and tenants both locally and internationally to obtain feedback on a competitive positioning for Marina Bay. Interviews with the broader community to understand what they would like to see at Marina Bay;
c) identifying the differentiating niche of Marina Bay and develop a set of brand identities (which includes validation of the place name "Marina Bay")and to market testing them;
d) design a visual communication system to guide the presentation of marketing collaterals, our communication tone and strategies to give Marina Bay a distinctive identity.9.5 $150,000 North-East CDC "Dare To Dream Fund" providing repeated
I don't like the guy too. I think his funding should stop
sponsorships in public funds to "self-styled adventurer" Khoo Swee Chiow.
An angry ST Forum writer wrote " Why should good money be given to a person
for his self-glorification? What does his being underwater for 212 hours
and 30 minutes do for Singapore?".$250,000 Said to be the cost of 2005 LTA "Image Survey":
Doing a survery is never cheap and the survey is done to know wat is the people impression of road conditions of singapore like public transport, efficiency etc. Not because of nicoll highway. Tis in a sense is good because they r asking for public opinion since the public is surveyed. Otherwise how r u going to get public opinion ?
Next, it is the LTA's turn to "throw public monies to the wind" by
hiring an (expensive) American Public Relations firm to conduct an "image
survey" to find out what the people "think" of the LTA after the Nicoll
Highway collapse !!!
http://www.lta.gov.sg/images/POS.pdf$200,000 --- what LTA spent in 2005 to "save a matured Angsana tree"
Tis is a tricky question. Some people r emotional about the tree and they r the one tat suggest saving the tree. When it was saved now they blame the gov for saving the tree ? WHy do u think the gov will care for the tree is it is not the people who ask for it ?
located right in the middle of a road (outside Raffles Junior College) ---
resulting in several traffic near-accidents!
Which is more important --- saving human lives or saving a tree???$125m --- Cost of LTA Expressway Monitoring & Advisory System (EMAS).
Tis is plain wrong. The system is functioning well and it is used to help monitor for accidents and notify the drivers so they can choose another route.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Monitoring_and_Advisory_System$40.3m --- Contracted Cost of LTA "high-tech/
I don't think tis is the gov fault but the fault of the stupid company and they r now trying to get back the money.
state-of-the-art/real-time" information on bus arrivals.
In 2003, just months before the project completion, LTA terminated its
contract with Stratech Systems because of software and integration problems.
LTA reportedly face $4m in claims, but refused to disclose how much of the
$40.3m has been paid to Stratech Systems (as if taxpayer-citizens have no
right to know !!!) -
Let me ask you and all in the pap this question: between the need to serve the people and the pragmatism of taking unpopular measures non-stop of one kind or another which increase costs of living and divide society into elites rich and the struggling humanity of today, what should a wise leader have done, in the face of our current and previous difficulties especially when a leader should claim to be a great leader who has succeeded in transforming our swamp land from third to first world.
I know it is not address to me since I am not from the PAP but for the sake of discussion and mostly because i am a bit free now...
Let me ask u do u think the gov should act on policies for the short run or policies for the long run ? If u want policies for the short run, it is very simple. Spend a lot of money, reduce tax, chase away all investors, suffer budget deficit and people r happy for a short time. If u talk about long term policy, then we have to tax money, balance budget, solve problems they expect to see 10 years time and woo investors. People r not happy now. But then it is better than facing the problem and solving as we go and not blind to it and truly face worse hardship in future. Times r hard. Almost all developed cities r facing hardship and competition in one way or another. Most of your posts r just complains without offering a solution. Most of your posts also never consider the global trend in the world.Firstly - when you talk about the serving the country etc.. like a Minister, do you really take into account 80% of what you are gonna be paid for? becasue that seems to be what you are implying right there?
As said, if u offer more money, u get more people as candidates and there can be more selection. There r enthusiastic people who r capable and willing to get a drastic pay cut, but then r they the best in performance and do we have enough of such people before the standard dropped drastically ? Tat is why I ask the normal people first if they r willing to get an 80% pay cut simply because they want to serve the country. If u ask me, I am not I am not an angel and I am pretty frank about itSecondly - Why would you want someone whos a CEO of a company to run a country? In other words, you mean managing a company is the same as managing a country??
Wat is wrong ? The important skills r dscision making, judgement, management, foresight which r common to both CEO and minister. Which jobs has a closer job scope compared with minister ? Cook, clerk, driver ?Thirdly, The system works to better turn around the economy, for whom actually does the system work for? Hmm..let me see.. a CEO of a company is being elected as a Minister..no guessing what system he implements works better for..
A minister have to be a full time minister. Note the word used is minister. SO he is no longer a CEO. -
quote:Yes, if the government is honest and wants to show the real figures of direct job creation by the policy to allow foreigners to come in and take over citizens' jobs claiming that this is good for the economy.
It is the MOM who has in the first place relaxed or liberalized the employments of foreigners in mundane jobs locals are fit and qualified enough to be employed in which causes the specific demand to MOM to provide accurate and objective job creation figures in the first place, am I right?
Stupidissmart:
As said before, possibly no country put in a different figure for unemployment between citizen and PR. PRs decendent have to go for NS as well. I wonder is there such a need to differentiate between PR and citizen... If u view tat PR r foreigners coming over and taking our job, then the figure for citizen itself is questionable since there r many PRs tat become citizens themselves later. Rolling Eyes Tis is especially true since some of the subsidies for PR had reduced compared with citizen.
Another question tat need to be asked is in tis global world should we close up and face companies moving out of singapore ? Frankly u r right in asking if foreigners r snatching jobs and lowering income. But then tis is a global phenomenon and US, Britian and any open developed country r facing. Do u think closing up our economy will help the situation in the long run ?
So please do not digress to world practices or how other countries deal with PR.
We have specific problems of our own and we are discussing here what we could do best with our strengths and resources and not to be constantly using selective biased comparisons from other less-well-off countries to avoid answering to problems of accountability of governance.
If MOM is to convince the citizens that it is indeed looking after the citizens by liberalizing their employments to take over of some of our local mundane jobs which our own citizens are fit and well qualified in then the onus is on MOM to prove this premise by good figures and facts.
In order to avoid accountability for such proof, it wo uld appear that MOM has continued to give lump-up figure of unemployments and job creations by not distinguishing job creations for the citizens for those who were retrenched for prolonged period as well as those who just join the labour force.
With so many foreigners nowadays being granted pr status upon taking up employments here, how could MOM still lump up the overall job creations for pr and citizens and not show actual job creations due to foreigners taking over our local jobs.quote:It has been a subject of queries by the people as published in many letters to the Straits Times' forum page and HDB simply was lost for words - giving a discount to the market price and calling such discount subsidy to public housing. It is sheer dishonesty to say that HDB has subsidised its sale of flats in this manner.
You have been avoiding meeting the main and crucial point in my arguments on this subject all these while which is : lands being already paid for by citizens, through their tax monies, if HDB were to charge the citizens the low-cost housing at market price, HDB would be profiteering and driving up costs of living of our citizens.
stupidissmart:
I think I have given a reply before and it seems the points r not answered... As said, land cost money in cities, and the money do go to the people in terms of budget income. If u put the land department and HDB department as seperate entities, then HDB have to pay the cost of the land to the land department before building the flats, and thus will not be making much or no profit. In fact it is possible to be a subsidy if the gov have to fork money for HDN to be developed tis way.
If land is made as "free", then will it be fair to people who live in same size flat but one is at jurong west and the other is at toa payoh to pay the same price just for building the flat ?quote:Government is elected to represent the people and not for its own sake. So it is wrong to say that government could do what it likes and charge the fullest market price it likes for lands which were owned and paid for by the people for public housing.
This kind of reply is full of unproven assumptions which is the root cause of our many problems.
stupidissmart:
The money to be used in the budget have to come off from somewhere, and people in the cities have to pay a high price for housing throughout the world. Singapore, statistically speaking, has affordable housing compared with other developed cities. If they charged very cheaply for land, then u have to face a very high tax in other areas. The wool can only come from the sheep. U still have not answer the question on whether do u think it is a fair tax to tax the people who lived in bigger house, at better location or do not show efficiency in using the land ?
If government has been taxing and recovering costs to the fullest through all kinds of corporatization schemes to make capital gains for such transfer to the state while continuing to allow the newly created GLCs to raise prices, is this a caring government.
Wouldn't the citizens' taxes end up becoming surpluses for which the government regularly make false and superficial claims as its success.
Evidences exist in abundance that the government's taxing and cost-recovering system of government is at fault for all our high-cost and loss of economic competitiveness.
With so much raising of fees and corporatizations of essential services to GLCs and charging people double for past assets and infrastructures by GLCs all over again for something already paid for by the citizens previously, is it valid to assume that government will be running short of fund if it does not use housing to make profits to substitute for taxes.
You have been making many false assumptions in most of your replies that if HDB did not charge the low-cost housing at market price government would be poor and been unable to pay for the essential services and will then have to keep raising taxes elsewhere.
If you are to assume that if HDB does not charge its flats at market price the government will run out of funds you are engaging in the same governance by falsehood and by exaggerations and by fear tactics.
Hasn't the government already taxed enough and recovered costs fully in nearly all it provides through its tax-and-recover system as mentioned in my other posts resulting all the taxes accumulating as surpluses which are sometimes squandered on carelessly decided and highly risky overseas investments, extravagance and wastes.quote:Such consistent behaviour of the government in giving in to bigger forces outside in conducting diplomatic relations while continuously acting against the interests of its own citizens to claim as success is generally known as :"Big fish eats small fish and small fish eats shrimps as characterized or admitted by MM Lee the man responsible for all such so-called no-free lunch talk-down attitude adopted by the ministers towards its own people.
This is a typical reply of the government too to any problem raised which its ministers could not solve.
stupidissmart:
Wat do u propose the gov do if the outside country play punk with singapore ? Rolling Eyes I mean u can say a lot of things from tis action but the crux is tat the gov did the right thing by not blowing things out of proportion.
It appears that all that the ministers could do in governing this country is to deny problems and carry on doing their jobs to secure their own positions and to continue to pretend that there is no problem just by showing some GDP or slanted statistics so that people can be fooled into believing there is no problem.
That has been the main reason why Singapore was very slow in recovering from its last three recessions and in solving its many problems e.g. high costs of living or discriminatory practices against our own citizens in regard to employment opportunities or recruitment practices.
What is there for citizens to suggest if government ministers being the talents could not come up with some solutions. -
It is the MOM who has in the first place relaxed or liberalized the employments of foreigners in mundane jobs locals are fit and qualified enough to be employed in which causes the specific demand to MOM to provide accurate and objective job creation figures in the first place, am I right?
As said, a lot of countries also relaxed and liberized the employments of foreigners. And your point of contention above speaks of the topic os foreigners versus locals in jobs creations. But your definition of locals is citizen while mine is citizens and PR. I also put the point tat the decendents of PR have to serve NS much like citizens, and the fact tat a lot of foreign born people r becoming citizens. Your figure doesn't accurately portray the picture of "liberized employments of foreigners"
If u r worried about foreigners versus PR and citizen, the unemployment figure is just the figure u need.
And u still have not answer the question on whether do u encourage the gov to be a close society or open one ? There seems to be a lot of questions which u have avoided answering...So please do not digress to world practices or how other countries deal with PR
I think tis is unfair because it there r problems which all countries faces, not just singapore. Even if u change the gov completely, the problem still exists because it is the probem of our society and world. Nobody have the solution to the problem Lets use a hypothetical example. It is just like saying singapore average longevity is 70 years old, then u start to ask why doesn't singapore change the longevity to 100 years old. However the population of the other cities and world also faces the same longevity. Nobody have the solution. U r asking the gov to be super gov and solve all the world problem which no country has the solutionWe have specific problems of our own and we are discussing here what we could do best with our strengths and resources and not to be constantly using selective biased comparisons from other less-well-off countries to avoid answering to problems of accountability of governance.
I don't know wat u mean by selective biased comparison if I am talking about the rest of the world. Did I give the name of any particular city or country ?In order to avoid accountability for such proof, it wo uld appear that MOM has continued to give lump-up figure of unemployments and job creations by not distinguishing job creations for the citizens for those who were retrenched for prolonged period as well as those who just join the labour force.
Again tis is being difficult and asking the gov to spend a lot of time and money to conduct such surveys about specific numbers which help little. If the gov spend 400,000 for such surveys, u will complain it as unnecessary cost. As said, other countries do not show figures of people who r retrenched for prolonged period as well as those tat just join in the labour force. The unemployment figures itself is sufficient to show how competitive for companies to get people for their job and tis also accurately reflect wat is the situation for the citizens who were retrenched for a prolonged period. If unemployment rate is low, the retrenched people get a higher chance of finding work because companies r more desperate for peopleYou have been avoiding meeting the main and crucial point in my arguments on this subject all these while which is : lands being already paid for by citizens, through their tax monies, if HDB were to charge the citizens the low-cost housing at market price, HDB would be profiteering and driving up costs of living of our citizens.
I think u have been avoiding my point so far. I knew your stand. U feel tat the land is owned by the people, they have paid tax etc. But have u understand my points ?
1) Do u agree tat the price for a good location like toa payoh should pay more than the house in jurong west (same size) ? If only building cost is consider, the houses build in toa payoh costs the same as jurong west. Is tat fair to the people living jurong ?
2) Do u agree tat even if u reduce the price of housing very very low, the gov have to tax from some other area to balance the budget ? Do u agree tat tax from people owning the most land, in the better location and do not make efficient in their land deserve to pay more tax ?
3) All land in the city is not free. Despite the things u say about land belonging to citizens etc, up till now u still cannot name me any city tat offer free land to most of the citizen. A large revenue of the gov come from land, especially in the city. And it is a fair way of taxing since land is the major limiting resources city facesIf government has been taxing and recovering costs to the fullest through all kinds of corporatization schemes to make capital gains for such transfer to the state while continuing to allow the newly created GLCs to raise prices, is this a caring government.
I don't really see wat has tis got to do with public housing... I do not really get wat u r trying to say here but there r some department tat need money to maintain by the public such as police, army, teacher, judges, prisons, medical, mint etc. If all department of gov made loses then who pay policemen ? Note tat army itself uses about a huge chunk of the whole GDP. For 2006, army uses 10 billion, education 4 billion, police firemen etc 2 billion, health 2 billion, fiance 2 billion etc
Furthermore it is good for the company to have profit (not gross profit) than loses since it will means the citizens pay the right amount for the resources they use. Otherwise if there is a loss, like housing, and gov raise car tax to offset tis loss, then u r rewarding the people to have bigger houses and punishing the people who had to drive more road.Evidences exist in abundance that the government's taxing and cost-recovering system of government is at fault for all our high-cost and loss of economic competitiveness.
Tis is just weasel words untill u have proven it.You have been making many false assumptions in most of your replies that if HDB did not charge the low-cost housing at market price government would be poor and been unable to pay for the essential services and will then have to keep raising taxes elsewhere.
I don't think tis is an assumption. It is simple logic. Gov earn money from houses. If u stop gov from earning money from houses, then gov have lesser money. Gov have lesser money means gov may have to find money elsewhere. Elsewhere means tax at other areas. I don't think I made any assumptions here.
If you are to assume that if HDB does not charge its flats at market price the government will run out of funds you are engaging in the same governance by falsehood and by exaggerations and by fear tactics.This is a typical reply of the government too to any problem raised which its ministers could not solve.
Why do u not answer tis question I have asked ? Wat do u propose the gov do if the outside country play punk with singapore ? To me the most logical thing to do is just to be resilent and let the whole matter past. In fact your earlier reply to tis thread on 20 Feb 1:10 also suggest the same nature. The action tat it did is correct, and I don't know why there is so many things written for doing the right thing...
It appears that all that the ministers could do in governing this country is to deny problems and carry on doing their jobs to secure their own positions and to continue to pretend that there is no problem just by showing some GDP or slanted statistics so that people can be fooled into believing there is no problem.
That has been the main reason why Singapore was very slow in recovering from its last three recessions and in solving its many problems e.g. high costs of living or discriminatory practices against our own citizens in regard to employment opportunities or recruitment practices.
What is there for citizens to suggest if government ministers being the talents could not come up with some solutions. -
Well, in times of high unemployment (when citizens can't find employment), the government should restrict the conversion of PR to citizens.Originally posted by stupidissmart:As said before, possibly no country put in a different figure for unemployment between citizen and PR. PRs decendent have to go for NS as well. I wonder is there such a need to differentiate between PR and citizen... If u view tat PR r foreigners coming over and taking our job, then the figure for citizen itself is questionable since there r many PRs tat become citizens themselves later. Tis is especially true since some of the subsidies for PR had reduced compared with citizen.
Another question tat need to be asked is in tis global world should we close up and face companies moving out of singapore ? Frankly u r right in asking if foreigners r snatching jobs and lowering income. But then tis is a global phenomenon and US, Britian and any open developed country r facing. Do u think closing up our economy will help the situation in the long run ?
Whatever the government does, companies are still moving out. It's because other developing economies have a larger market, unlike Singapore. Nobody is asking the government to close up the economy, but they should promote policies which are socially beneficial.
Land is free to the government. Your analogy doesn't make sense. If I am the government, why would I take money from my right hand to give to my left hand. Every citizen has the right to affordable housing, if the government can't provide it, every citizen has the right to make their own housing out of plywood.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I think I have given a reply before and it seems the points r not answered... As said, land cost money in cities, and the money do go to the people in terms of budget income. If u put the land department and HDB department as seperate entities, then HDB have to pay the cost of the land to the land department before building the flats, and thus will not be making much or no profit. In fact it is possible to be a subsidy if the gov have to fork money for HDN to be developed tis way.
If land is made as "free", then will it be fair to people who live in same size flat but one is at jurong west and the other is at toa payoh to pay the same price just for building the flat ?
The difference in your price is not factor of free land price, it's the locality priced by market. But the government is not a profit making organisation, or is it? I stand corrected. Our government does not provide non-profit housing, they make profits from selling public housing.
Well, they should reduce their own spending in their own backyard first. Singapore is the only country with a citizens to MP ratio of 50,000 : 1, all other countries managed with 100,000 : 1. Why do you need so many MPs? Is it because of kiasu syndrome? With a larger MP based oppositions would need a larger MP pool to take over government.Originally posted by stupidissmart:The money to be used in the budget have to come off from somewhere, and people in the cities have to pay a high price for housing throughout the world. Singapore, statistically speaking, has affordable housing compared with other developed cities. If they charged very cheaply for land, then u have to face a very high tax in other areas. The wool can only come from the sheep. U still have not answer the question on whether do u think it is a fair tax to tax the people who lived in bigger house, at better location or do not show efficiency in using the land?
Other than taxes, the government has made heaps from transport and "public" utilities, the cost of 1Kwh of electricity from Singapore Power cost around $2 (approx.), the cost of 1Kwh of electricity in China Beijing is around $0.10. I did some checking on my own from NYMEX traded Natural Gas, I came to the cost of around $0.50 per 1Kwh. Can you tell me how can the government justify making a 300% profit?
One of my friend living in a HDB need to pay $10,000 for upgrading. All he got was a small store room, he said government subsidized 90%, which means government subsidized $90,000. How do you justify this? By the way, my friend lives in a 3-room HDB, cost of his flat is around $200,000. The cost of having an extra storeroom is half of his flat cost.
Without the cost of the land? It would be cheap. Doesn't make sense that polyclinic which is owned by the government pay the government for the land. It's like paying from you left pocket and putting in your right pocket.Originally posted by stupidissmart:How much do u think polytechnics costs to be built ? Even some secondary schools costs a few millions to be built
My replies will be sporadic and infrequent as I have a report to rush. At least till Saturday. -
quote:It is the MOM who has in the first place relaxed or liberalized the employments of foreigners in mundane jobs locals are fit and qualified enough to be employed in which causes the specific demand to MOM to provide accurate and objective job creation figures in the first place, am I right?
If I may put it succinctly, your arguments so far are not of right or wrong on their own premise, but "when others thief, I will or commit no theft."
Stupidissmart:
As said, a lot of countries also relaxed and liberized the employments of foreigners. And your point of contention above speaks of the topic os foreigners versus locals in jobs creations. But your definition of locals is citizen while mine is citizens and PR. I also put the point tat the decendents of PR have to serve NS much like citizens, and the fact tat a lot of foreign born people r becoming citizens. Your figure doesn't accurately portray the picture of "liberized employments of foreigners"
If u r worried about foreigners versus PR and citizen, the unemployment figure is just the figure u need.
And u still have not answer the question on whether do u encourage the gov to be a close society or open one ? There seems to be a lot of questions which u have avoided answering...quote:So please do not digress to world practices or how other countries deal with PR
Let me give you one example where citizens may accept comparisons with other countries:-
Stupidissmart:
I think tis is unfair because it there r problems which all countries faces, not just singapore. Even if u change the gov completely, the problem still exists because it is the probem of our society and world. Nobody have the solution to the problem Rolling Eyes Lets use a hypothetical example. It is just like saying singapore average longevity is 70 years old, then u start to ask why doesn't singapore change the longevity to 100 years old. However the population of the other cities and world also faces the same longevity. Nobody have the solution. U r asking the gov to be super gov and solve all the world problem which no country has the solution
If you cannot answer the premise of arguments and must make wide-ranging comparisons like "which other countries did not tax and recover costs" or "which countries could provide such market-price public low-cost housing", please make comparison on apple-to-apple basis or at least make comparison with how other government have delivered the greatest benefits of the greatest number or good corporate governance.
Please do not make comparison so as to give more excuses to entrench in fallacies and wrongs which bring about greatest suffering of the greatest number for the benefit of only a few"quote:We have specific problems of our own and we are discussing here what we could do best with our strengths and resources and not to be constantly using selective biased comparisons from other less-well-off countries to avoid answering to problems of accountability of governance.
Read the foregoing advice on the basis for comparison we should adopt to have fruitful arguments and all my explanations why government was wrong in its policy on public low-cost housing. Please do not make biased comparison just to support pre-conceived notion or wrongs. Please at least if you must make comparison do by comparing with others who have done well to benefit all or majority of citizens and not to support any dubious or wrongs or benefits only the durais and a few.
stupidissmart:
I don't know wat u mean by selective biased comparison if I am talking about the rest of the world. Did I give the name of any particular city or country ? Rolling Eyesquote:In order to avoid accountability for such proof, it wo uld appear that MOM has continued to give lump-up figure of unemployments and job creations by not distinguishing job creations for the citizens for those who were retrenched for prolonged period as well as those who just join the labour force.
Ex-president Ong Teng Cheong has asked only for accounting figures like valuation of assets which are available in most audited accounts of every ministry and GLC but sadly he was denied with this sort of excuse.
stupidissmart:
Again tis is being difficult and asking the gov to spend a lot of time and money to conduct such surveys about specific numbers which help little. If the gov spend 400,000 for such surveys, u will complain it as unnecessary cost. As said, other countries do not show figures of people who r retrenched for prolonged period as well as those tat just join in the labour force. The unemployment figures itself is sufficient to show how competitive for companies to get people for their job and tis also accurately reflect wat is the situation for the citizens who were retrenched for a prolonged period. If unemployment rate is low, the retrenched people get a higher chance of finding work because companies r more desperate for people
What a shame that he was unable to vindicate his vision for the greatest good of the greatest number. If the government is proactive and honestly committed to serving the people, it would have relented and let him have all those accounting figures and what is do difficult to do as as compared with throwing away citizens' monies in bad deals like souzhou and shin corp.
A good government will go to the end to serve its people and not continuously giving excuses to entrench in its own self-centred practices for its own superficial success.quote:You have been avoiding meeting the main and crucial point in my arguments on this subject all these while which is : lands being already paid for by citizens, through their tax monies, if HDB were to charge the citizens the low-cost housing at market price, HDB would be profiteering and driving up costs of living of our citizens.
Your points as shown in the foregoing were mere regurgitations of ministers' denial of problems.
stupidissmart:
I think u have been avoiding my point so far. I knew your stand. U feel tat the land is owned by the people, they have paid tax etc. But have u understand my points ?
1) Do u agree tat the price for a good location like toa payoh should pay more than the house in jurong west (same size) ? If only building cost is consider, the houses build in toa payoh costs the same as jurong west. Is tat fair to the people living jurong ?
2) Do u agree tat even if u reduce the price of housing very very low, the gov have to tax from some other area to balance the budget ? Do u agree tat tax from people owning the most land, in the better location and do not make efficient in their land deserve to pay more tax ?
3) All land in the city is not free. Despite the things u say about land belonging to citizens etc, up till now u still cannot name me any city tat offer free land to most of the citizen. A large revenue of the gov come from land, especially in the city. And it is a fair way of taxing since land is the major limiting resources city faces
Even if you intend to make it look like you have some points your points have been previously answered by my points which you have avoided to answer.
For example, in avoiding answer to my point that lands being acquired by the HDB under Housing & Development Board Act with the sanction of the Land Acquisition Act should not have been sold or developed for profits by HDB but you avoid this substantive point entirely by saying that such lands could not be allocated fairly to all citizens except by selling or developing them to allow HDB to make profits. What kind of argument is this except a denial without answering to the logic in my argument.
HDB could easily have continued with what its previous minister Mr. Lim Kim San has done - selling or developing the lands for low-cost housing by recovering the costs of development and construction. To be fair to citizens, allocation has been on needs and first come first served basis and no citizens have cried foul of such an allocation of low-cost housing. Where is the distortion of our national resource if it is to provide low cost housing to serve the people and tie them to loyalty for the country and be finally build a prosperous country with more property taxes to collect etc. What could be wrong with the original objective and practice of low-cost housing as introduced by Lim Kim San which Mah Bow Tan the ministers for revenues changed probably to secure his own position.quote:If government has been taxing and recovering costs to the fullest through all kinds of corporatization schemes to make capital gains for such transfer to the state while continuing to allow the newly created GLCs to raise prices, is this a caring government.
Yes my reference to our taxing-and-recovering system of government is to show you that government has under such a system no need to profit from low cost housing as it has all the alternative means of replenishing its governing revenues from all these other profiteering methodologies like corporatising essential medicare and utility and public transport services into profit generating devices so where is there a justification to use HDB to make windfall profits except to serve its own nkf -type of reserve and golden tap purposes perhaps.
stupidissmart:
I don't really see wat has tis got to do with public housing... I do not really get wat u r trying to say here but there r some department tat need money to maintain by the public such as police, army, teacher, judges, prisons, medical, mint etc. If all department of gov made loses then who pay policemen ? Note tat army itself uses about a huge chunk of the whole GDP. For 2006, army uses 10 billion, education 4 billion, police firemen etc 2 billion, health 2 billion, fiance 2 billion etc
Furthermore it is good for the company to have profit (not gross profit) than loses since it will means the citizens pay the right amount for the resources they use. Otherwise if there is a loss, like housing, and gov raise car tax to offset tis loss, then u r rewarding the people to have bigger houses and punishing the people who had to drive more road.quote:Evidences exist in abundance that the government's taxing and cost-recovering system of government is at fault for all our high-cost and loss of economic competitiveness.
When the government has clung on to a tax-and-recover system of government to avoid welfare, it should have taken care to avoid over-charging as when you wants to avoid welfare, people will need to work on their own efforts to survive and should not be deprived of their fruits of labor. So the system of tax-and-recover government to avoid welfarism has gone to the other wrongful extreme. Leaders who have talents or abilities who are paid muli-millions should have such ability to understand such pitfall.
stupidissmart:
Tis is just weasel words untill u have proven it.
So, my reference to the government's tax-and-recover system is not irrelevant but highly relevant to the point under discussion namely should citizens pay market prices for their low-cost housing when lands were already paid for by them through taxes.quote:You have been making many false assumptions in most of your replies that if HDB did not charge the low-cost housing at market price government would be poor and been unable to pay for the essential services and will then have to keep raising taxes elsewhere.
Profiteering by HDB against the citizens is well proven as a major policy error as elaborated in the foregoing and up to now minister Mah was still keeping mum and unable to explain why he claimed that HDB is subsidizing the low-cost housing. He also could not answer why if HDB must charge its flat at market price, making adjustments for location etc, it is subsidizing the flats.
If you are to assume that if HDB does not charge its flats at market price the government will run out of funds you are engaging in the same governance by falsehood and by exaggerations and by fear tactics.
stupidissmart:
I don't think tis is an assumption. It is simple logic. Gov earn money from houses. If u stop gov from earning money from houses, then gov have lesser money. Gov have lesser money means gov may have to find money elsewhere. Elsewhere means tax at other areas. I don't think I made any assumptions here.
Apparently some one has been lying like is seen happening by Durai of NKF with the support of the highest office. That is precisely the reason citizens are not being served the greatest benefits of the greatest number and all the grandiose vision of collecting more taxes in order to pay for more benefits of the citizens has been a grand deception.quote:This is a typical reply of the government too to any problem raised which its ministers could not solve.
I have answered your counter questions specifically as shown in the foregoing but you choose to stay in the art of comparing with the worse-off examples in other countries by all the retorts that our problems are also the problems of other countries. Please feel free to compare if comparison will be for the best and betterment of all citizens and not to suit the arguments of government's stubborn narrow-minded policy of taxing and recovering all possible costs to enrich its own surpluses and claim success.
It appears that all that the ministers could do in governing this country is to deny problems and carry on doing their jobs to secure their own positions and to continue to pretend that there is no problem just by showing some GDP or slanted statistics so that people can be fooled into believing there is no problem.
That has been the main reason why Singapore was very slow in recovering from its last three recessions and in solving its many problems e.g. high costs of living or discriminatory practices against our own citizens in regard to employment opportunities or recruitment practices.
What is there for citizens to suggest if government ministers being the talents could not come up with some solutions.
stupidissmart:
Why do u not answer tis question I have asked ? Wat do u propose the gov do if the outside country play punk with singapore ? To me the most logical thing to do is just to be resilent and let the whole matter past. In fact your earlier reply to tis thread on 20 Feb 1:10 also suggest the same nature. The action tat it did is correct, and I don't know why there is so many things written for doing the right thing... -
Well, in times of high unemployment (when citizens can't find employment), the government should restrict the conversion of PR to citizens.
U mean the gov should restrict the number of PR to citizen just because they want the figure to look different ? I mean they r going to work either as a work permit or PR. The job is not going to com eto singaporean anyway.Whatever the government does, companies are still moving out. It's because other developing economies have a larger market, unlike Singapore. Nobody is asking the government to close up the economy, but they should promote policies which are socially beneficial.
I think there r policies tat pull companies in and policies tat push companies away. If we need to retain them, we have to have policies tat pull them over. If u do not expect gov to cloe the economy, then u have to expect foreigners to come overLand is free to the government. Your analogy doesn't make sense. If I am the government, why would I take money from my right hand to give to my left hand. Every citizen has the right to affordable housing, if the government can't provide it, every citizen has the right to make their own housing out of plywood.
Nah, land is not limitless, especially in singapore. If u say tat singapore got too much land then u r right. As said before, the money r used to pay for army, policemen teachers etc. The money come from the left hand and pay these expenses. Everyone have a housing in singapore, so it may be a sense a sign tat show it is affordable.The difference in your price is not factor of free land price, it's the locality priced by market. But the government is not a profit making organisation, or is it? I stand corrected. Our government does not provide non-profit housing, they make profits from selling public housing.
I think u have to refer to my 3 points on housing again. Sadly no one seems to answer these 3 questions
1) Do u agree tat the price for a good location like toa payoh should pay more than the house in jurong west (same size) ? If only building cost is consider, the houses build in toa payoh costs the same as jurong west. Is tat fair to the people living jurong ?
2) Do u agree tat even if u reduce the price of housing very very low, the gov have to tax from some other area to balance the budget ? Do u agree tat tax from people owning the most land, in the better location and do not make efficient in their land deserve to pay more tax ?
3) All land in the city is not free. Despite the things u say about land belonging to citizens etc, up till now u still cannot name me any city tat offer free land to most of the citizen. A large revenue of the gov come from land, especially in the city. And it is a fair way of taxing since land is the major limiting resources city facesWell, they should reduce their own spending in their own backyard first. Singapore is the only country with a citizens to MP ratio of 50,000 : 1, all other countries managed with 100,000 : 1. Why do you need so many MPs? Is it because of kiasu syndrome? With a larger MP based oppositions would need a larger MP pool to take over government.
I think it may be a bit funny to see only 45 people debating and 17 of them r ministers... other country have a larger number of land size and bigger populationOther than taxes, the government has made heaps from transport and "public" utilities, the cost of 1Kwh of electricity from Singapore Power cost around $2 (approx.), the cost of 1Kwh of electricity in China Beijing is around $0.10. I did some checking on my own from NYMEX traded Natural Gas, I came to the cost of around $0.50 per 1Kwh. Can you tell me how can the government justify making a 300% profit?
Maybe because china has coal as its natural resources and singapore buy the coal from them ? Although public transport ear a lot of money, a lot goes back to other investors and leave singapore gov to, lets say, 100 million. Is it enough to pay the 4 billion needed for the army ?One of my friend living in a HDB need to pay $10,000 for upgrading. All he got was a small store room, he said government subsidized 90%, which means government subsidized $90,000. How do you justify this? By the way, my friend lives in a 3-room HDB, cost of his flat is around $200,000. The cost of having an extra storeroom is half of his flat cost.
U need to see the figure properly. 10,000 is 5% of 200,000. I don't see it surprising to cost 100,000 for the storeroom and properly lift tat stop at every floor and changes to the environment etc. But he can sell the flat back at a higher price now isn't it ?Without the cost of the land? It would be cheap. Doesn't make sense that polyclinic which is owned by the government pay the government for the land. It's like paying from you left pocket and putting in your right pocket.
I think it is fair because if I am the decision maker for building the poly, I will build less taller building (higher building, higher building cost) and use up more land if land is free for me. -
If I may put it succinctly, your arguments so far are not of right or wrong on their own premise, but "when others thief, I will or commit no theft."
But so far your arguments do not consider practicality and assume everything as ideal. Your statement r mostly "the gov should do tis do tat" but when asked u for "how", u just repeat "the gov should do tis do tat". When I try to answer "why" the gov did tat, u still repeat "the gov should do tis do tat". Is practicality anyway relevant to u ?Let me give you one example where citizens may accept comparisons with other countries:-
It seems to me tat u r avoiding the contact whether is the problem a domestic problem or a global problem. And I still do not see your example which u promise to give on the first line and I am a bit confused of wat u actually want.
If you cannot answer the premise of arguments and must make wide-ranging comparisons like "which other countries did not tax and recover costs" or "which countries could provide such market-price public low-cost housing", please make comparison on apple-to-apple basis or at least make comparison with how other government have delivered the greatest benefits of the greatest number or good corporate governance.
Please do not make comparison so as to give more excuses to entrench in fallacies and wrongs which bring about greatest suffering of the greatest number for the benefit of only a few"
1) U r complaining tat gov charge the citizen for the land. However all cities charge for the use of land. They charge the land even though it is housing for the citizens. Name me any developed city tat do otherwise. I don't see why tis is a wrong statement or tis comparison is wrong
2) U r complaining tat singapore tax their citizen. However again all cities tax their citizens. If they don't tax, then who pay for the army, police, teachers etc ? Tis is a fact the whole world faces R u being realistic or expect money to drop from the sky to feed the army ?
I am just pointing out facts of society in the world but suddenly u accuse me of bringing about greatest suffering of the greatest number for the benefit of only a few. I don't see the link why telling the fact on taxing is bringing out suffering to people. Do u believe there is no need for tax ?
We have to be practical u know. Why don't u suggest how to get money ? It is easy to say we should have very cheap housing, we should not be tax at all etc but how r u going to do tat ?Please at least if you must make comparison do by comparing with others who have done well to benefit all or majority of citizens and not to support any dubious or wrongs or benefits only the durais and a few.
Please tell me the logic flow why does stating the fact on tax benefit the few "durais" and cause problem to the masses ? Wat do u understand from the word "tax"Ex-president Ong Teng Cheong has asked only for accounting figures like valuation of assets which are available in most audited accounts of every ministry and GLC but sadly he was denied with this sort of excuse.
The books of Temasek was shown now for a few yearsWhat a shame that he was unable to vindicate his vision for the greatest good of the greatest number. If the government is proactive and honestly committed to serving the people, it would have relented and let him have all those accounting figures and what is do difficult to do as as compared with throwing away citizens' monies in bad deals like souzhou and shin corp.
I felt a bit frustrated because up till now u still use suzhou as an example of "bad deals" when i have already shown it is making profit And u never rebuked on tis fact. R u just repeating and recycling your points ?For example, in avoiding answer to my point that lands being acquired by the HDB under Housing & Development Board Act with the sanction of the Land Acquisition Act should not have been sold or developed for profits by HDB but you avoid this substantive point entirely by saying that such lands could not be allocated fairly to all citizens except by selling or developing them to allow HDB to make profits. What kind of argument is this except a denial without answering to the logic in my argument.
I have already stated tat there is little or no profit if u consider the land as a cost. But u refuse to accept land as part of the cost price. I have stated why land must be consider as cost price but up till now u still refuse to answer any of the 3 questions I had posed. -
HDB could easily have continued with what its previous minister Mr. Lim Kim San has done - selling or developing the lands for low-cost housing by recovering the costs of development and construction. To be fair to citizens, allocation has been on needs and first come first served basis and no citizens have cried foul of such an allocation of low-cost housing. Where is the distortion of our national resource if it is to provide low cost housing to serve the people and tie them to loyalty for the country and be finally build a prosperous country with more property taxes to collect etc. What could be wrong with the original objective and practice of low-cost housing as introduced by Lim Kim San which Mah Bow Tan the ministers for revenues changed probably to secure his own position.
Tat is wrong since the housing of isolated places still cost lesser than places tat r central. If u talk about 20 years ago, there r still more land 20 years ago and singapore do not face such intense competition from other countries then.Yes my reference to our taxing-and-recovering system of government is to show you that government has under such a system no need to profit from low cost housing as it has all the alternative means of replenishing its governing revenues from all these other profiteering methodologies like corporatising essential medicare and utility and public transport services into profit generating devices so where is there a justification to use HDB to make windfall profits except to serve its own nkf -type of reserve and golden tap purposes perhaps.
As said, if u want free housing, gov made a big loss here and u have to pay much much more for the medical and other areas. And it will not be a fair way to tax since it rewards people for wasting land and having good location while punishing people with lousy small land at lousy locations. Aren't u taxing the poor and landless but give to the rich and people with more land here ? U want the rich and poor divide to be greater ?When the government has clung on to a tax-and-recover system of government to avoid welfare, it should have taken care to avoid over-charging as when you wants to avoid welfare, people will need to work on their own efforts to survive and should not be deprived of their fruits of labor. So the system of tax-and-recover government to avoid welfarism has gone to the other wrongful extreme. Leaders who have talents or abilities who are paid muli-millions should have such ability to understand such pitfall.
I feel your writing is very "flowery" and sometime lack concisesiveness. If u allow me to summarise, u simply means the citizens r tax for the resources they use and should not be taxed more for the land. If wat I interprete is right, I have to say housing is using up resources and thus have to pay tax for it. Land is in fact the most limiting resources singapore has. Why should it be free and make tax unfair tat increase rich and poor divide ?
So, my reference to the government's tax-and-recover system is not irrelevant but highly relevant to the point under discussion namely should citizens pay market prices for their low-cost housing when lands were already paid for by them through taxes.
U need to know tat your other tax r used to pay for many services like police or army or teachers or prison etc. So far I see tat u r avoiding the issue where these services need a large chunk of money to function properly. If your question is since tax is pay through other measures, why pay more tax for land for your housing. My answer is those other tax u pay r used to pay for policing and defense and teachers etc. Do u pay a army tax or a police tax or a fireman tax ? No right ? These services r paid from your other tax like income tax or corporate tax and land tax.Profiteering by HDB against the citizens is well proven as a major policy error as elaborated in the foregoing and up to now minister Mah was still keeping mum and unable to explain why he claimed that HDB is subsidizing the low-cost housing. He also could not answer why if HDB must charge its flat at market price, making adjustments for location etc, it is subsidizing the flats.
I think he have said land is not free before but it is never accepted. They also elaborate why land has a cost and it again is never accepted. Do u expect them to keep arguing like.. like... like.. me I have answered your counter questions specifically as shown in the foregoing but you choose to stay in the art of comparing with the worse-off examples in other countries by all the retorts that our problems are also the problems of other countries. Please feel free to compare if comparison will be for the best and betterment of all citizens and not to suit the arguments of government's stubborn narrow-minded policy of taxing and recovering all possible costs to enrich its own surpluses and claim success.
Can u give me an evidence tat I am comparing with the worse off countries ? I am comparing with the rest of the world, including better off countries. I have stated many times tat there is a global phenomenon and all countries faces the problem. But u have chosen to ignore wat the other countries r doing and expect the gov to come out with solution no one have. -
That's far too simplistic. How will closing our doors to foreign investors improve employment for our citizens? The main reason for unemployment in Singapore is not the shortage of jobs but a mismatch between jobs and skills, between remuneration and expectations.Originally posted by maurizio13:Well, in times of high unemployment (when citizens can't find employment), the government should restrict the conversion of PR to citizens.
At the top, there are highly skilled jobs in the biomedical, financial and precision engineering industries and that unemployed Singaporeans cannot handle. At the lower end, there are low-skilled jobs in the cleaning industry that Singaporeans refuse to do. Then there are decent paying jobs in wafer fabs but Singaporeans are not interested in them because of the need to work shifts and wear protective clothing, which they find restrictive.
Without foreign workers to fill these jobs, investors will move their businesses elsewhere, causing more Singaporeans to lose their jobs. The loss of tax revenue will also mean there will be less money available to assist the poor.
However, I do agree that low skilled jobs in the IRs should primarily go to Singaporeans as much as possible. As I have often said, the casinos are the only employers able to pay more for low-skilled jobs and we should reserve these for those Singaporeans who for some reason cannot be retrained for a higher-skilled vocation.
In your dreams, maybe. Go read the newspaper about land acquisition and compensation at market prices. It is true that LTA could acquire land cheaply in the 1970s based on land usage when all there is on the land is an attap house and a papaya tree. That is not possible today and in fact, the government now will pay compensation based on more than just current land usage but future potential as well.Originally posted by maurizio13:Land is free to the government.
As for your points about utilities costs, as SIS mentioned, China relies heavily on coal and they have the largest reserve of coal in the world. In case you haven't realized, we do not have oil or coal or natural gas. And by the way, natural gas coming from the sea cannot be used directly in your house. There are processing and transportation costs. Your calculations are far too simplistic.
Estate upgrading is more than about adding a storeroom. You have conveniently forgotten about the lift landings, covered walkways and other improvements to the flat and common areas. Are you trying to hoodwink others? -
:If I may put it succinctly, your arguments so far are not of right or wrong on their own premise, but "when others thief, I will or commit no theft."
I am sure if you are to read my earlier posts again you will be able to see that I have been the one who has given many concrete examples and logics to back up my arguments.
Stupidissmart:
But so far your arguments do not consider practicality and assume everything as ideal. Your statement r mostly "the gov should do tis do tat" but when asked u for "how", u just repeat "the gov should do tis do tat". When I try to answer "why" the gov did tat, u still repeat "the gov should do tis do tat". Is practicality anyway relevant to u ?
I have been pointing out to you many times that the government has been wrong in pursuing all these years a wrongful system of taxing and recovering of fullest costs resulting in taxes being accumulated as continual surpluses for which the government has been quick to claim as its superficial success.
I am sure citizens do not expect the government to be idealistic and to deliver wonders like in an utopia. I am sure also people do not ask for welfarism or free lunch although the same cannot be said of ministers who went to the parliament to vote for their own nkf-type of salary inreases and other golden-tap self-rewards.
I am sure citizens will be very happy if the government could just simply owns up and realizes its fundamental policy error in over-taxing the people through all kinds of corporatisation schemes to rid themselves of responsibilty to the people and stop boasting regularly of such tax surpluses as its success.
The example of HDB changing its low-cost housing policy as practised up to 1970s to profiteering in the 1980s is a case in point of such over-taxing policy which does not bring about the greatest benefits to the greatest number which should be the main pillar of a practical and pragmatic government.
Uncaring sucking of monies from the people is not a sign of pragmatism or practicality.
I also did not disagree with all the government actions. I agree that it has certain duties to take unpopular measures for the greatest benefits of the greatest number.
The issue now is by exacting another and another round of taxes, is the government really serving the people or being practical in its governance.
Or is the government only treating people as the target for sucking more monies to build its surpluses and extravagant spending and even losses on self-centred investments like souzhou or shin corp.
Is the government being practical or oppressive in creating jobs for the foreigners even for mundane jobs under its pro-foreign S-pass foreign employment policy. What people want to know is whether by pro-foreign employment policy, indeed more jobs are being created to the citizens including the thousands who have been retrenched and become prolonged unemployed despite high education since the last three prolonged recessions from which Singapore has taken the longest to recover.
If the lower and middle income earners should end up with lower wages due to retrechments or globalization etc should not our leaders set personal examples by being subjected to the same foreign employment policy instead of constantly lecturing the people for the fault or lack of training even though the ministers have patently failed in their economic restructuring plans for ages without results.
Is such protectism of the elites and their own kind also done out of pragmatism. Is it not hoarding of people's taxes a sin as it leads to more constant increases of fees and charges including selling the low-cost housing to make obscene double-profits on lands and assets.
What happen to all the taxes people have been paying and all the surpluses hoarded by the government.
What is so impractical to use part of such surpluses created by over-taxing as people's relief-of-living-costs endowment schemes to offset the constantly increasing taxes and gst by all the ministies and GLCs which cause great burdens to the people.
What is so impractical to ask the ministers not to lose people's surpluses by billions nowadays in overseas projects like souzhou and shin corp which do not benefit the people.
I have given you many examples to substantiate my argument to discontinue the taxing and recovering system of government but you now claim without basis that I am being idealistic or repetitive in posing of these views or queries. See who is the one who refuses to listen to logic and arguments.
You are not willing to reason with reasons or accept the fact going to the other extreme of over-taxing to recover all possible costs could produce the worse consequences than welfarism.
A system of government's profiteering from its corporatization schemes to free itself from practically any provisions of essential government services is one where the government is working for its own sake and no longer serving the people.
I have also shown you that it is wrong to abuse the so-called meritocracy to favor the elites and the rich but you have been too engrossed in selective comparisons with worse-off countries to listen to such plain truth.
The issue facing our society today is whether when the leaders are being confronted with logics and rationality are they prepared to accept robust arguments and make amends or are they merely interested in regurgitating all the past policies and propagandas which have been largely shamefully exposed in the NKF saga.
It appears that to you the government always acts for its own interests forgetting the principle of governing for the greatest benefits of the greatest number. If the leaders are not listening and always seeking to blame the people for the slightest failures of their duties, how can the people be made to listen.
So it appears that the system has produced the serious problem where the high costs are not only affecting the lower income families but also large number of middle income families so much so that government is being forced to rethink its many past policies.
Yet the government has not been willing or candid or truthful to admit there is any major policy error and would rather like the people to keep quiet or insist that they are unfailing in whatever their judgments.
If we must avoid welfarism by pointing to western societies which suffer from welfarism, is it also practical to over-charge the citizens for low-cost housing?
So it is more important for the government to change rather than the people who have not done any wrong as they are the ones who contributed to the nation building through their blood and toil in building up the surpluses.
So people do not want to see government being too clever by using the nkf creative accounting as to enrich the state coffers forever and claim superficial success.
Thus it is my humble view that even if government has to take certain unpopular action out of practicality or pragmatism, it still has the duty to substantiate its actions with well argued easons and logics so as to produce the greatest benefits to the greatest number.
If the government loses cannot do so for any reason or refuses to admit its many past errors then it cannot expect to have the moral authority to ask people to give more births or pay more taxes or tackle any daunting challenges ahead in upgrading the economic competitiveness.
The large number of citizens' migration to other countries is a case in point to show you what an uncaring and arrogant government can do to a country progress and prosperity.When you see the the rationality is weak you would dismiss it as being donpracticality and assume everything as ideal. Your statement r mostly "the gov should do tis do tat" but when asked u for "how", u just repeat "the gov should do tis do tat". When I try to answer "why" the gov did tat, u still repeat "the gov should do tis do tat". Is practicality anyway relevant to u ?
I did not deny that government has to do certain things out of practicality but I would like to point out again that it is wrong to continue its high-cost taxing and recovering policy on the excuse of practicality or pragmatism.
I am sure now you should stop citing practicality or pragmatism as the rationale for government unpopular over-taxing on the people.
I am sure you could see how shallow is the argument by the ministers always given to protect its unpopular over-taxing policy by making comparison only with the worse-off countries to suit your foregone conclusions of whatever government does.:Let me give you one example where citizens may accept comparisons with other countries:-
I did not say that there is no need to tax the citizens for lands or construction costs in providing the low-cost housing as set up in the Housing and Development Act. What I am pointing out at pain is to ask the government to stop using the low cost housing for profiteering at the expense of the people.
If you cannot answer the premise of arguments and must make wide-ranging comparisons like "which other countries did not tax and recover costs" or "which countries could provide such market-price public low-cost housing", please make comparison on apple-to-apple basis or at least make comparison with how other government have delivered the greatest benefits of the greatest number or good corporate governance.
Please do not make comparison so as to give more excuses to entrench in fallacies and wrongs which bring about greatest suffering of the greatest number for the benefit of only a few"
Stupidissmart:
It seems to me tat u r avoiding the contact whether is the problem a domestic problem or a global problem. And I still do not see your example which u promise to give on the first line and I am a bit confused of wat u actually want.
1) U r complaining tat gov charge the citizen for the land. However all cities charge for the use of land. They charge the land even though it is housing for the citizens. Name me any developed city tat do otherwise. I don't see why tis is a wrong statement or tis comparison is wrong Rolling Eyes
2) U r complaining tat singapore tax their citizen. However again all cities tax their citizens. If they don't tax, then who pay for the army, police, teachers etc ? Tis is a fact the whole world faces Rolling Eyes R u being realistic or expect money to drop from the sky to feed the army ?
I am just pointing out facts of society in the world but suddenly u accuse me of bringing about greatest suffering of the greatest number for the benefit of only a few. I don't see the link why telling the fact on taxing is bringing out suffering to people. Do u believe there is no need for tax ?
We have to be practical u know. Why don't u suggest how to get money ? It is easy to say we should have very cheap housing, we should not be tax at all etc but how r u going to do tat ?
Please read my posts carefully again. You have been rather presumptuous in putting all these assumptions on my standpoints or my facts.
All that I have posted is to question the wisdom or practicality of taxing all sorts of direct and indirect taxes and profiteering on government's corporatization schemes so as to maximise the surpluses of the government to no end.
It is about time the government understands that such a sytem will produce political instability and will lead to killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Therefore I have given you the rationale of my many arguments and please do not continue to make use false assumptions like welfarism or no-free lunch arguments or selective comparison of situations in other countries as such propagandas have long been exposed as narrow-minded and self-centred to justify past wrongful policies which do not bring about the greatest benefit to the great number. So it is obvious who has been causing all the problems as posted and it is time for our younger leaders to question the wisdom of continuing to govern the country with such past policies.quote
The word tax means collection of sufficient fees and charges by the government substantiated by truthful accurate and reliable accounts so as to cover or offset the expected and forecast ongoing expenses of running the government without resorting directly or indirectly to profiteering or accumulation of taxes for the purpose of building surpluses from which to make claim of superficial success as has happened in the NKF saga.
lease at least if you must make comparison do by comparing with others who have done well to benefit all or majority of citizens and not to support any dubious or wrongs or benefits only the durais and a few.
Stupidissmart:
Please tell me the logic flow why does stating the fact on tax benefit the few "durais" and cause problem to the masses ? Wat do u understand from the word "tax"
Where any of the people's assets like lands and infrastructure have been paid for by the people out of taxes, such assets when corporatised and transferred to the pte ltd GLCs should be returned to the current accounts as revenues for easing of burdens of the people and not for superficial claim of success.
Any budgeted expenditure allocated to any ministry wherever avoidable especially of an non-essential nature should be deferred from spending een if allocated or budgeted and monies returned to people's relief-of-cost-of-living endowment fund to help easing the burden of the people and to check on wastage.:Ex-president Ong Teng Cheong has asked only for accounting figures like valuation of assets which are available in most audited accounts of every ministry and GLC but sadly he was denied with this sort of excuse.
So what happened to people's surpluses ? Are there being accounted for or lost on improper investments who were made without due evaluations as has happened in souzhou and shin corp.
Stupidissmart:
The books of Temasek was shown now for a few years Rolling Eyes:What a shame that he was unable to vindicate his vision for the greatest good of the greatest number. If the government is proactive and honestly committed to serving the people, it would have relented and let him have all those accounting figures and what is do difficult to do as as compared with throwing away citizens' monies in bad deals like souzhou and shin corp.
How can a deal be a good deal if it is a deal which causes heavy losses to the people's hard-earned monies paid to profiteering HDB and GLCs through their blood and toil. Some people for being unable to pay their necessity bills even jumped the MRT tracks to end their lives because of over-taxing.
Stupidissmart:
I felt a bit frustrated because up till now u still use suzhou as an example of "bad deals" when i have already shown it is making profit Rolling Eyes And u never rebuked on tis fact. R u just repeating and recycling your points b?:For example, in avoiding answer to my point that lands being acquired by the HDB under Housing & Development Board Act with the sanction of the Land Acquisition Act should not have been sold or developed for profits by HDB but you avoid this substantive point entirely by saying that such lands could not be allocated fairly to all citizens except by selling or developing them to allow HDB to make profits. What kind of argument is this except a denial without answering to the logic in my argument.
Again since you obviously do not wish to see reasons and examples given so I shall now repeat my point here - HDB is entitled to change for land use on its low cost housing program but only to recover the construction costs as lands were already paid for by the people by way of taxes.
Stupidissmart:
I have already stated tat there is little or no profit if u consider the land as a cost. But u refuse to accept land as part of the cost price. I have stated why land must be consider as cost price but up till now u still refuse to answer any of the 3 questions I had posed.
Any attempts by HDB or any GLCs to charge for fees higher than consumption items such as consumables, materials and construction would amount to profiteering.
People do not elect their government to become developers and profiteer at the expense of their living. -
There is a lot of things u say, but the points again r repeated again and again and again. Lets put it into short concise sentence
1) Housing land should be free and not making any profit
I have already mentioned upteen times tat is is not feasible, practical, and even desirable. LAND MUST BE CONSIDERED AS A COST PRICE. I HAVE SHOWN MANY TIMES, WHY. I have answered your question on all account but u refeuse to do it for my question. R u sincere with your discussion or u have something to hide ? I have posed 3 questions for several times but it is never answered. I will post them again and again until they r answered
1) Do u agree tat the price for a good location like toa payoh should pay more than the house in jurong west (same size) ? If only building cost is consider, the houses build in toa payoh costs the same as jurong west. Is tat fair to the people living jurong ?
2) Do u agree tat even if u reduce the price of housing very very low, the gov have to tax from some other area to balance the budget ? Do u agree tat tax from people owning the most land, in the better location and do not make efficient in their land deserve to pay more tax ? Do u want the rich and poor divide to become wider ?
3) All land in the city is not free. Despite the things u say about land belonging to citizens etc, up till now u still cannot name me any city tat offer free land to most of the citizen. A large revenue of the gov come from land, especially in the city. And it is a fair way of taxing since land is the major limiting resources city faces
Tis time, however u suggest a different time frame, 20 years ago as a reference.
As said, the past 20 years is totally different. Everybody is coming to singapore to invest. Singapore ask high corporate tax. There r more land available and more cheaper, singapore is undeveloped, not much competition for investors, currency is bigger, china is closed etc. Now political environment is totally different. Now land is more expensive because land r more limited. Tat is why gov have to ask people to pay more for their housing. U say do not suck money from the people, then where do money come from ? U still cannot suggest any good alternative. U suck from anywhere u will feel pain. Might as well suck at places where it will narrow the rich and poor divide. Do u agree ?
Why don't u suggest 200 years ago ? Land is free and u can build your attap houses anyway because Raffles have not come here yet.
2) Gov making losses such as shin corp and suzhou
U r probably just cutting and pasting all your arguments from your book of quotes. I have already explicitly mention suzhou is making money. However u do not rebuked tis fact nor correct your mistakes by reproducing it. Shincorp is still too early to say anything yet. Furthermore, the buyout of other companies from singapore companies r good and overall they r earning a handsome profit from its investments. If u have doubt, u can read the annual report from Temasek. But gauging from your response so far, u do not admit singapore companies r earning money and fail to substantiate your claims. U say singapore is making losses more than profits overall. Prove it. I have shown from the interview of LHL tat the profit is coming in from suzhou and all the losses r offset. Wat is your evidence tat suzhou losses money ? Otherwise u r just cooking up stories using weasel words and outdated facts.
And the money earn is given back to the people in dividend. It goes back to the budget. It is going directly to the people
3) Gov making round of round of tax
Lets put it tis way. All cities give rounds after rounds of tax. We have to be realistic. Money must come from somewhere to feed the army and police. If gov don't tax, then how to buy missiles and radars ? I have shown singapore obtain the highest quality living on asia in a survey. Does it show your rounds and rounds of tax to be unbearable as u claim ?
4) Gov opening up of economy and allow foreigners to work
Up till now u do not comment on whether should the gov open or close the economy. But from the wording of the reply, I guess u r more toward the opening of economy. Since u agree the economy should be open, then u have to face the effect of open economy such as foreigners working here. U can't have a cake and eat it. U need to accept the cons of opening up of economy as well
Furthermore, the unemployment rate of singapore is very low. I do not see why u have an issue with tis. On stagnant income, can u give a suggestion ? So far I don't see any developed city or country tat can solve tis problem
5) Dealing with surplus and reserve
Tis is a very tricky issue. Do u think we should spend it out not because we r facing a problem but because we just wanted a more comfy life. In tis case every year by year, our reserves wil be dwindling. How long do u think we can survive ? Tis is a short term policy and an easy way out. It is not about "uncaring gov" or "arrogant gov". It is simply common sense tat it will not work in the long run.
Why do it keep accumulating the reserve ? Frankly I don't know. It is a security and safeguard against attacks. However it can be seen tat the money is not wasted but kept in the reserves. If it is wasted, then they wouldn't dare to state it is in the reserves. Even NKF is not lying they have a 300 million reserves.
For your rest of your reply, they r just mere repeating and rephrasing the same points and using flowery language to exaggerate the problem of singaporean. If u have other points, maybe u can just use a one line title followed by your points so people can understand it easier. It make the whole reply more concise. -
Ermmm.....Isn't it obvious I am hitting on controlling the rate of influx of foreign workers as well.Originally posted by stupidissmart:U mean the gov should restrict the number of PR to citizen just because they want the figure to look different ? I mean they r going to work either as a work permit or PR. The job is not going to com eto singaporean anyway.
Lower corporate taxes is not a major factor that influence investment decisions.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I think there r policies tat pull companies in and policies tat push companies away. If we need to retain them, we have to have policies tat pull them over. If u do not expect gov to cloe the economy, then u have to expect foreigners to come over
Land is finite, but you need to set up some land for housing right. Every fool knows that you need to pay for all those public services, but you we are paying too excessively for everything. From housing, utilities, transport, etc.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Nah, land is not limitless, especially in singapore. If u say tat singapore got too much land then u r right. As said before, the money r used to pay for army, policemen teachers etc. The money come from the left hand and pay these expenses. Everyone have a housing in singapore, so it may be a sense a sign tat show it is affordable.
Didn't I answer you that "Land is Free"!!! The difference in price is based on market valuation. How do you determine how much this piece of land is worth? It's based on the other factors, like ease of shopping, proximity of schools, etc. Who determines if this factor is to their convenience? Other than that, land is free to the government.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I think u have to refer to my 3 points on housing again. Sadly no one seems to answer these 3 questions
1) Do u agree tat the price for a good location like toa payoh should pay more than the house in jurong west (same size) ? If only building cost is consider, the houses build in toa payoh costs the same as jurong west. Is tat fair to the people living jurong ?
2) Do u agree tat even if u reduce the price of housing very very low, the gov have to tax from some other area to balance the budget ? Do u agree tat tax from people owning the most land, in the better location and do not make efficient in their land deserve to pay more tax ?
3) All land in the city is not free. Despite the things u say about land belonging to citizens etc, up till now u still cannot name me any city tat offer free land to most of the citizen. A large revenue of the gov come from land, especially in the city. And it is a fair way of taxing since land is the major limiting resources city faces
Are you refering to opportunity cost of land? Land is always free like the air. If you say land has a price, then maybe you should say air has a price too. Air has a price too, it's the price set by the market, otherwise it's free. What the government does is to use the market price, set a cost for them to inflate the price of flats, but the cost is an opportunity cost, not a real cost. To the government, land is always free. -
Dude!!! Oxford Moron!!!
Don't talk so much c0ck!!!
Go reply my other post first before you talk!!!
No point for me to post a rebuttal and you just shrug it off!!!
One of the most recent is "Biomedical Research", I am still waiting for a response from you. Are you conceding you are wrong by not posting a reply?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
The rapid rise in biomedical exports in the recent years has been well publicised. Surely you are aware that exports in the biomedical industry has grown by a startling 30%, contributing much revenue to the economy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of this 30% (for how many years?) which you claim; what is the percentage that is attributable to biomedical research? This expansion FYI in "medicinal products" could have taken place even without biomedical research, as companies set up factories to produce whatever patent drugs or traditional chinese medicine. There is no correlation between your expansion of medicinal products to biomedical research. Please cite references to prove me wrong. -
Which do you think is more ridiculous? 84 students from Raffles Institution debating amongst themselves on TV, or 45 students from Raffles Institution debating on TV, all with a single unifying motive.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I think it may be a bit funny to see only 45 people debating and 17 of them r ministers... other country have a larger number of land size and bigger population
Hehehe
I think both look ridiculously stupid, but I guess if given my choice, I would have chosen the lesser of the 2 evils.
If you don't know the history, parliament used to be around 50 MPs. I am sure you know the reason why they increase the number of MPs, to maintain a large base, so that they are not easily voted out of government by opposition.
Ermmm, like I said I don't want to compare China, because China has 3 gorges and nuclear energy, which is a cheaper source.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Maybe because china has coal as its natural resources and singapore buy the coal from them ? Although public transport ear a lot of money, a lot goes back to other investors and leave singapore gov to, lets say, 100 million. Is it enough to pay the 4 billion needed for the army ?
But take a look at Singapore Power's financial statement, every year it make consistent return on equity of 35%. Given the average Price to Earnings yield on the stock market of around 15-20 years. That would make companies listed on the stock market making a return of around 7%. Won't you call the price they sell electricity to us punitive, they are the only monopoly that provides such essential service. What fark company makes a return of 35% on the stock market? Companies with high risk (beta), but essential services like utilities is a low risk industry. Even high risk companies that consistently have a return of 35% every year is extremely rare.
Yes! I know my math! But can you justify that his storeroom cost $100,000 to construct? Isn't this cost severely inflated by HDB? The storeroom is so small, he can't even fit a bed in there, that gives you some kind of idea about it's size. whether he can sell it off at a higher price is not the issue. Stop diverting the argument to another area. You guys are good at digressing from the issue.Originally posted by stupidissmart:U need to see the figure properly. 10,000 is 5% of 200,000. I don't see it surprising to cost 100,000 for the storeroom and properly lift tat stop at every floor and changes to the environment etc. But he can sell the flat back at a higher price now isn't it ?
Your arguments are alot like the government, always digressing when you don't have facts to substantiate you points. -
Ermmm.....Isn't it obvious I am hitting on controlling the rate of influx of foreign workers as well.
During the period when there r unemployment, the rate of influx is controlledLower corporate taxes is not a major factor that influence investment decisions
It is an important factor if your profit is much more than your labourLand is finite, but you need to set up some land for housing right. Every fool knows that you need to pay for all those public services, but you we are paying too excessively for everything. From housing, utilities, transport, etc.
The land is set up mah. U just have to pay for the land. As said, u pay for all the utility etc but the expense is a lot as well. Generally speaking, the profit from other sources r not as ex as u believe...
If we make housing cheap, all the tax for other areas will increase drastically and gov still get back the money lost. But tis time the population where they get the money from differs and it is likely to increase the rich and poor divide. U have to answer tis question. Do u think taxing from the land is a good way of tax in the sense tat it tax the richer people more than the poorer one ?Didn't I answer you that "Land is Free"!!! The difference in price is based on market valuation. How do you determine how much this piece of land is worth? It's based on the other factors, like ease of shopping, proximity of schools, etc. Who determines if this factor is to their convenience? Other than that, land is free to the government.
Didn't I say the land is the most limited resources in singapore ? How much tis land costs depend on market evaluation like future plans, road linking to it and accessibility. If land is free, then no one will save on land. Bungalow become the cheapest housing since it is easier to build bungalow then flats. Everyone will live in one storey bungalows with big gardens which is bigger and cheaper. Then wat happened to singapore ?Are you refering to opportunity cost of land? Land is always free like the air. If you say land has a price, then maybe you should say air has a price too. Air has a price too, it's the price set by the market, otherwise it's free. What the government does is to use the market price, set a cost for them to inflate the price of flats, but the cost is an opportunity cost, not a real cost. To the government, land is always free.
As said, land is never free, especially in cities. Air can be considered limitless, u can breath 1 million times and u can breath more. But land is not limitless. It is a resources where we need to manage so tat the return from it is optimal. If we do not do management to it, and squadered it, then we will face severe headache in future.Which do you think is more ridiculous? 84 students from Raffles Institution debating amongst themselves on TV, or 45 students from Raffles Institution debating on TV, all with a single motive.
Well if u ask me, I think 45 students is too little liao. Wat is more 17 has important tasks and are presenting their report to others. We also need a mix group of people and some must be from muslims, some must be indian, some must be girls, some must be young, some old etc.
Hehehe
I think both look ridiculously stupid, but I guess if given my choice, I would have chosen the lesser of the 2 evils.
I don't think we should save tis money
Ermmm, like I said I don't want to compare China, because China has 3 gorges and nuclear energy, which is a cheaper source.But take a look at Singapore Power's financial statement, every year it make consistent return on equity of 35%. Given the average Price to Earnings yield on the stock market of around 15-20 years. That would make companies listed on the stock market making a return of around 7%. Won't you call the price they sell electricity to us punitive, they are the only monopoly that provides such essential service. What fark company makes a return of 35% on the stock market? Companies with high risk (beta), but essential services like utilities is a low risk industry. Even high risk companies that consistently have a return of 35% every year is extremely rare.
I think u need to see tat it is itself investing in other areas outside singapore. It is serving australia, taiwan and south korea, having joint ventures with siemen, daikin etc. U cannot rest the growth solely due to the fact tat it has monopoly but not to its growth and other business.
Wat is more, how much do u spend on power a month ? U think how much profit it can earn minus off its expenditure ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_PowerYes! I know my math! But can you justify that his storeroom cost $100,000 to construct? Isn't this cost severely inflated by HDB? The storeroom is so small, he can't even fit a bed in there, that gives you some kind of idea about it's size. whether he can sell it off at a higher price is not the issue. Stop diverting the argument to another area. You guys are good at digressing from the issue.
wat flats is your friend staying ? I check the website
Your arguments are alot like the government, always digressing when you don't have facts to substantiate you points.
http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10208p.nsf/WPDis/Main%20Upgrading%20ProgrammePolicies%20-%20Subsidies?OpenDocument
They don't show any flats tat is 90% subsidise yet u have to pay 10,000. Is your figures inflated ? -
1) Housing land should be free and not making any profit
Land is always free to the government. Initial inception, how much did the government pay for the whole of Singapore? Can you give me a figure?
The government sells the land for 99 years leasehold, 999 leasehold and freehold. Say 99 years lease, the government sells it for $1 million in 1965. Gets the $1 million, invest in a government bond which pays 5% per annum. At the end of 99 years in 2064, the government can sell the same piece of land again, but the initial $1 million in cash (with compound interest of 5% per annum) has grown to $125 million. The government can sell the land again for whatever the market commands. What is the cost of land to government? Zero, Zilch, Cero, Nol, Ling!
If you are talking about cost of the land in terms of "opportunity cost". Then it's another issue altogether, the land instead of building public housing, the government can sell it in the market to multinational corporation or property investors for a tidy sum. That is opportunity cost, the next best alternative forgone. But if you talk about opportunity cost, it's not relevant here.
Example: [Say]
You make $100 an hour doing legal work, at the same time you do social work like helping the handicapped and the under privilege people of society.
Would you charge $100 an hour doing social work to those handicapped and under privilege of society?
This is opportunity cost as mooted by you in the cost of land not being free. This is the kind of cost you are associating the cost of land in HDB to be. An opportunity cost is not a real cost in the perspective of the government.
If you are in such a circumstance, would you charge the handicapped for the money you would make by servicing them? -
Land is always free to the government. Initial inception, how much did the government pay for the whole of Singapore? Can you give me a figure?
Com'on lah... why do all cities charge for their land then ? It is nil, zero, zilch etc as well. Why do malaysia sell water to singapore ? How much it cost them ? Zero, nil, zilch. Why r we paying them for something they don't use a cent ? U have to see the economy lah !
The government sells the land for 99 years leasehold, 999 leasehold and freehold. Say 99 years lease, the government sells it for $1 million in 1965. Gets the $1 million, invest in a government bond which pays 5% per annum. At the end of 99 years in 2064, the government can sell the same piece of land again, but the initial $1 million in cash (with compound interest of 5% per annum) has grown to $125 million. The government can sell the land again for whatever the market commands. What is the cost of land to government? Zero, Zilch, Cero, Nol, Ling! Usng your theory, we don't need to pay policemen since he never waste a cent helping civilian. U never waste a cent when u work as well. So we all r paid nil, zero, zilch, cero, ling ?
And if u want to really know the cost process of land, singapore has been reclaiming land for many years. It is not zero, zilch, nol, ling. It is costly. If u strictly view cost price then singapore spend a few million to reclaim some square kilometers.
And singapore independent history up till not still have not gone through half of the 99 years. Raffles itself come only about 200 years ago.
Furthermore your maths exclude inflation. How much do your 1 million do to a yearly expenditure of 4 billion for the army ? And it also do a stupid thing to buy government bond. Gov is the one selling bond isn't it ?If you are talking about cost of the land in terms of "opportunity cost". Then it's another issue altogether, the land instead of building public housing, the government can sell it in the market to multinational corporation or property investors for a tidy sum. That is opportunity cost, the next best alternative forgone. But if you talk about opportunity cost, it's not relevant here.
I think u get it wrong. If u r handicapped or crippled or hopelessly poor, u get a major help from the gov who rent u a flat for $50 per month.
Example: [Say]
You make $100 an hour doing legal work, at the same time you do social work like helping the handicapped and the under privilege people of society.
Would you charge $100 an hour doing social work to those handicapped and under privilege of society?
This is opportunity cost as mooted by you in the cost of land not being free. This is the kind of cost you are associating the cost of land in HDB to be. An opportunity cost is not a real cost in the perspective of the government.
If you are in such a circumstance, would you charge the handicapped for the money you would make by servicing them?
But now u r talking about a large group of working capable people and u help them work. Do u think u should ask them to pay u ? Furthermore, they have to pay for security guards (army, police)and trainers (teachers) and building (transport, development) for their work. U gonna pay these security guards and trainer with your money or their money ? -
Huh???Originally posted by stupidissmart:Com'on lah... why do all cities charge for their land then ? It is nil, zero, zilch etc as well. Why do malaysia sell water to singapore ? How much it cost them ? Zero, nil, zilch. Why r we paying them for something they don't use a cent ? U have to see the economy lah ! Usng your theory, we don't need to pay policemen since he never waste a cent helping civilian. U never waste a cent when u work as well. So we all r paid nil, zero, zilch, cero, ling ?
And if u want to really know the cost process of land, singapore has been reclaiming land for many years. It is not zero, zilch, nol, ling. It is costly. If u strictly view cost price then singapore spend a few million to reclaim some square kilometers.
And singapore independent history up till not still have not gone through half of the 99 years. Raffles itself come only about 200 years ago.
Furthermore your maths exclude inflation. How mcuh do your 1 million do to a yearly expenditure of 4 billion for the army ?
I think u get it wrong. If u r handicapped or crippled or hopelessly poor, u get a major help from the gov who rent u a flat for $50 per month.
But now u r talking about a large group of working capable people and u help them work. Do u think u should ask them to pay u ? Furthermore, they have to pay for security guards (army, police)and trainers (teachers) and building (transport, development) for their work. U gonna pay these security guards and trainer with your money or their money ?
Was that your rebuttal of my points???
You are wasting my time.
Go read my facts carefully and come up with an appropriate rebuttal.
Stop digressing from the main point by stating unsubstantiated facts.
If you don't have anything worthy, then I won't waste my time with you.
Thank you.
Have a nice life.
-
Huh???
Yah right.....
Was that your rebuttal of my points???
You are wasting my time.
Go read my facts carefully and come up with an appropriate rebuttal.
Stop digressing from the main point by stating unsubstantiated facts.
If you don't have anything worthy, then I won't waste my time with you.
Thank you.
Have a nice life.
If u wanna save time, nobody is stopping u
Wat is unsubstantiated facts ? Cities charge for their land ?
Since u didn't elaborate, let the readers themselves gauge the response then -
"With stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."Originally posted by maurizio13:Huh???
Was that your rebuttal of my points???
You are wasting my time.
Go read my facts carefully and come up with an appropriate rebuttal.
Stop digressing from the main point by stating unsubstantiated facts.
If you don't have anything worthy, then I won't waste my time with you.
Thank you.
Have a nice life. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Herebelow was my points you have grossed over and not read. Just accept the facts and logics stated therein that a system of government which is based on taxing and people and recovering all possible costs through clever creative accounting method like corporatizing essential government services and charging highest market prices like HDB, Singapore Power, SLA, JTC, PSA are doing is immoral.
There is a lot of things u say, but the points again r repeated again and again and again. Lets put it into short concise sentence
[b]1) Housing land should be free and not making any profit
I have already mentioned upteen times tat is is not feasible, practical, and even desirable. LAND MUST BE CONSIDERED AS A COST PRICE. I HAVE SHOWN MANY TIMES, WHY. I have answered your question on all account but u refeuse to do it for my question. R u sincere with your discussion or u have something to hide ? I have posed 3 questions for several times but it is never answered. I will post them again and again until they r answered
1) Do u agree tat the price for a good location like toa payoh should pay more than the house in jurong west (same size) ? If only building cost is consider, the houses build in toa payoh costs the same as jurong west. Is tat fair to the people living jurong ?
2) Do u agree tat even if u reduce the price of housing very very low, the gov have to tax from some other area to balance the budget ? Do u agree tat tax from people owning the most land, in the better location and do not make efficient in their land deserve to pay more tax ? Do u want the rich and poor divide to become wider ?
3) All land in the city is not free. Despite the things u say about land belonging to citizens etc, up till now u still cannot name me any city tat offer free land to most of the citizen. A large revenue of the gov come from land, especially in the city. And it is a fair way of taxing since land is the major limiting resources city faces
Tis time, however u suggest a different time frame, 20 years ago as a reference.
As said, the past 20 years is totally different. Everybody is coming to singapore to invest. Singapore ask high corporate tax. There r more land available and more cheaper, singapore is undeveloped, not much competition for investors, currency is bigger, china is closed etc. Now political environment is totally different. Now land is more expensive because land r more limited. Tat is why gov have to ask people to pay more for their housing. U say do not suck money from the people, then where do money come from ? U still cannot suggest any good alternative. U suck from anywhere u will feel pain. Might as well suck at places where it will narrow the rich and poor divide. Do u agree ?
Why don't u suggest 200 years ago ? Land is free and u can build your attap houses anyway because Raffles have not come here yet.
2) Gov making losses such as shin corp and suzhou
U r probably just cutting and pasting all your arguments from your book of quotes. I have already explicitly mention suzhou is making money. However u do not rebuked tis fact nor correct your mistakes by reproducing it. Shincorp is still too early to say anything yet. Furthermore, the buyout of other companies from singapore companies r good and overall they r earning a handsome profit from its investments. If u have doubt, u can read the annual report from Temasek. But gauging from your response so far, u do not admit singapore companies r earning money and fail to substantiate your claims. U say singapore is making losses more than profits overall. Prove it. I have shown from the interview of LHL tat the profit is coming in from suzhou and all the losses r offset. Wat is your evidence tat suzhou losses money ? Otherwise u r just cooking up stories using weasel words and outdated facts.
And the money earn is given back to the people in dividend. It goes back to the budget. It is going directly to the people
3) Gov making round of round of tax
Lets put it tis way. All cities give rounds after rounds of tax. We have to be realistic. Money must come from somewhere to feed the army and police. If gov don't tax, then how to buy missiles and radars ? I have shown singapore obtain the highest quality living on asia in a survey. Does it show your rounds and rounds of tax to be unbearable as u claim ?
4) Gov opening up of economy and allow foreigners to work
Up till now u do not comment on whether should the gov open or close the economy. But from the wording of the reply, I guess u r more toward the opening of economy. Since u agree the economy should be open, then u have to face the effect of open economy such as foreigners working here. U can't have a cake and eat it. U need to accept the cons of opening up of economy as well
Furthermore, the unemployment rate of singapore is very low. I do not see why u have an issue with tis. On stagnant income, can u give a suggestion ? So far I don't see any developed city or country tat can solve tis problem
5) Dealing with surplus and reserve
Tis is a very tricky issue. Do u think we should spend it out not because we r facing a problem but because we just wanted a more comfy life. In tis case every year by year, our reserves wil be dwindling. How long do u think we can survive ? Tis is a short term policy and an easy way out. It is not about "uncaring gov" or "arrogant gov". It is simply common sense tat it will not work in the long run.
Why do it keep accumulating the reserve ? Frankly I don't know. It is a security and safeguard against attacks. However it can be seen tat the money is not wasted but kept in the reserves. If it is wasted, then they wouldn't dare to state it is in the reserves. Even NKF is not lying they have a 300 million reserves.
For your rest of your reply, they r just mere repeating and rephrasing the same points and using flowery language to exaggerate the problem of singaporean. If u have other points, maybe u can just use a one line title followed by your points so people can understand it easier. It make the whole reply more concise.
[/b]
Method of allocation by HDB for public housing has been first-come-first-served and needs and income ceilings so there is no issue with who get the housing at where. Whether one gets the flat at Toa Payoh or Queenstown, or Seng Kang are not issue at all.
What is immoral is sinful and will be rejected by the people especially no matter how clever is the propaganda and how flowery is the language used.
Read below:I am sure if you are to read my earlier posts again you will be able to see that I have been the one who has given many concrete examples and logics to back up my arguments.
I have been pointing out to you many times that the government has been wrong in pursuing all these years a wrongful system of taxing and recovering of fullest costs resulting in taxes being accumulated as continual surpluses for which the government has been quick to claim as its superficial success.
I am sure citizens do not expect the government to be idealistic and to deliver wonders like in an utopia. I am sure also people do not ask for welfarism or free lunch although the same cannot be said of ministers who went to the parliament to vote for their own nkf-type of salary inreases and other golden-tap self-rewards.
I am sure citizens will be very happy if the government could just simply owns up and realizes its fundamental policy error in over-taxing the people through all kinds of corporatisation schemes to rid themselves of responsibilty to the people and stop boasting regularly of such tax surpluses as its success.
The example of HDB changing its low-cost housing policy as practised up to 1970s to profiteering in the 1980s is a case in point of such over-taxing policy which does not bring about the greatest benefits to the greatest number which should be the main pillar of a practical and pragmatic government.
Uncaring sucking of monies from the people is not a sign of pragmatism or practicality.
I also did not disagree with all the government actions. I agree that it has certain duties to take unpopular measures for the greatest benefits of the greatest number.
The issue now is by exacting another and another round of taxes, is the government really serving the people or being practical in its governance.
Or is the government only treating people as the target for sucking more monies to build its surpluses and extravagant spending and even losses on self-centred investments like souzhou or shin corp.
Is the government being practical or oppressive in creating jobs for the foreigners even for mundane jobs under its pro-foreign S-pass foreign employment policy. What people want to know is whether by pro-foreign employment policy, indeed more jobs are being created to the citizens including the thousands who have been retrenched and become prolonged unemployed despite high education since the last three prolonged recessions from which Singapore has taken the longest to recover.
If the lower and middle income earners should end up with lower wages due to retrechments or globalization etc should not our leaders set personal examples by being subjected to the same foreign employment policy instead of constantly lecturing the people for the fault or lack of training even though the ministers have patently failed in their economic restructuring plans for ages without results.
Is such protectism of the elites and their own kind also done out of pragmatism. Is it not hoarding of people's taxes a sin as it leads to more constant increases of fees and charges including selling the low-cost housing to make obscene double-profits on lands and assets.
What happen to all the taxes people have been paying and all the surpluses hoarded by the government.
What is so impractical to use part of such surpluses created by over-taxing as people's relief-of-living-costs endowment schemes to offset the constantly increasing taxes and gst by all the ministies and GLCs which cause great burdens to the people.
What is so impractical to ask the ministers not to lose people's surpluses by billions nowadays in overseas projects like souzhou and shin corp which do not benefit the people.
I have given you many examples to substantiate my argument to discontinue the taxing and recovering system of government but you now claim without basis that I am being idealistic or repetitive in posing of these views or queries. See who is the one who refuses to listen to logic and arguments.
You are not willing to reason with reasons or accept the fact going to the other extreme of over-taxing to recover all possible costs could produce the worse consequences than welfarism.
A system of government's profiteering from its corporatization schemes to free itself from practically any provisions of essential government services is one where the government is working for its own sake and no longer serving the people.
I have also shown you that it is wrong to abuse the so-called meritocracy to favor the elites and the rich but you have been too engrossed in selective comparisons with worse-off countries to listen to such plain truth.
The issue facing our society today is whether when the leaders are being confronted with logics and rationality are they prepared to accept robust arguments and make amends or are they merely interested in regurgitating all the past policies and propagandas which have been largely shamefully exposed in the NKF saga.
It appears that to you the government always acts for its own interests forgetting the principle of governing for the greatest benefits of the greatest number. If the leaders are not listening and always seeking to blame the people for the slightest failures of their duties, how can the people be made to listen.
So it appears that the system has produced the serious problem where the high costs are not only affecting the lower income families but also large number of middle income families so much so that government is being forced to rethink its many past policies.
Yet the government has not been willing or candid or truthful to admit there is any major policy error and would rather like the people to keep quiet or insist that they are unfailing in whatever their judgments.
If we must avoid welfarism by pointing to western societies which suffer from welfarism, is it also practical to over-charge the citizens for low-cost housing?
So it is more important for the government to change rather than the people who have not done any wrong as they are the ones who contributed to the nation building through their blood and toil in building up the surpluses.
So people do not want to see government being too clever by using the nkf creative accounting as to enrich the state coffers forever and claim superficial success.
Thus it is my humble view that even if government has to take certain unpopular action out of practicality or pragmatism, it still has the duty to substantiate its actions with well argued easons and logics so as to produce the greatest benefits to the greatest number.
If the government loses cannot do so for any reason or refuses to admit its many past errors then it cannot expect to have the moral authority to ask people to give more births or pay more taxes or tackle any daunting challenges ahead in upgrading the economic competitiveness.
The large number of citizens' migration to other countries is a case in point to show you what an uncaring and arrogant government can do to a country progress and prosperity. -
Is this how the PAP "counters" criticism? By simply distracting everyone from the original topic? They fear a fruitful discussion *that* much, eh... one wonders what they're so afraid of......