A review of government performance under PM Lee Hsien Loong
-
The difference is that Govt officials here are not accountable for policy failures and don't bother apologizing it but instead sweep it under the carpet. They go on and claim that Singapore will be Silicon valley of the East, but their implementation method was so retardedly poor the blame for the failure fell on them. The reason why Singapore isn't the IT hub it ought to be is because the Govt stifled competition by offering contracts to MNCs and GLCs and effectively none of the local startups could even grow. In countries like the US, Govt contracts are an important part of business since the Govt is biggest bloated bureaucracy in any country.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Well there r some policies mistakes, same as all gov in the world and even america itself claim itis making a mistake in fighting iraq war. Do u expect a perfect gov tat never make any mistakes at all or a gov tat don't take any risk at all ? Well if the politician made outrageous claim, then they should apologise and try to make amends. So wat is the outrageous claim ?Simple way is u do not see such drama in other companies. U only see NKF. U name me another company with such problems I list u 10 other tat don't. Is tat fair ? About bureacracy, everybody complains of bureacracy, even in their own companies. If u want to deny tat I do not know wat to say
Just because the drama wasn't in the papers doesn't mean the drama doesn't exist. All companies are beset with politics one way or another. Not to mention, this is probably more prevalent in the SMEs which are fairly shady when it comes to transparency. Family companies are probably the best example of how bad things can get with politics.U r reading the reply correctly. I am not suggesting the GST is used for anything. I am asking the mass public if they r willing to be taxed more to supplement the poor people. In the example I used GST. I repeat the line again in bold for u
The frakking GST will rise to 10% whether we like it or not. Give it the end of this decade or the start of the next. The Govt has been raising the GST 3-4 years ever since it implemented the whole thing. The problem is that it does not address the root of the problem. The lower income people are hurt by the stagnant wages which have been stagnant since the last decade. A street cleaner is still paid the same amount of money as the last decade. Otherwise, he/she will get replaced by some foreign labourer which will cost the company in question far less. The point of the matter is that the Govt merely papers over the multitude of problem and refuses to address the problem. Rather, it simply tries to be as business friendly as possible but forgets that people need to have enough money to enjoy life. The domestic economy is dead largely because of stagnant wages. There is a convulated loop of problems here that have yet to be addressed. Raising the GST merely prolongs the existence of the loop of problems.
Remember the money given to the poor have to come off from somewhere. R u willing to pay anther 3% GST so we can be sure they r helped substantially ?U need to read the reply again. They have made enough profit to repay back all past deficit and start earning a profit. In short, it manage to made more than 110 million of profit by 2003. Otherwise why do u think singapore is still involved in the project ?
And just who pockets 65% of the profits? China. We pocket only the remainder in hope of recouping the losses, which will take a bloody eternity.About the cost of land, do u really think tat the limited land of singapore should be cheap ?
Limited land? Did you not read what I wrote? The Govt INFLATED the price of land. It was never this expensive. With the wages we are getting, which are hardly first world on average, do you think any damn fool can easily afford any of these flats? These days, a person would spend decades just to pay it off. It is little wonder anybody would want to migrate elsewhere where the wages more or less fit the prices of housing one would get. The costs of living here is incredibly high and with the stagnant wages, it doesn't help a bit.The profit made goes into the budget Rolling Eyes I think u can read the budget of the last year below. So does your fines, tax, erp, bet etc
Check the Appendix 7.1. The so-called contribution is based on taxes. Then look at this:
http://internet-stg.mof.gov.sg/budget_2006/budget_speech/downloads/FY2006_Budget_Highlights.pdf
Stat board contribution in Y2005 r expected to be 1.2 billion
http://www.temasekholdings.com.sg/2006review/files/05%20Group%20Financial%20Summary.pdf
Just why is Temasek's profit far greater that the purported contribution?I don't know how true your personal opinion of him is but is he your role model ? Do u want to behave like him ?
Look, you asked for why we should be confident in stating our claims, and then I return and point out the treatment a very prominent Govt official gives to anyone who questions his claims. And then you ask me whether he is my role model?!?! -
The difference is that Govt officials here are not accountable for policy failures and don't bother apologizing it but instead sweep it under the carpet. They go on and claim that Singapore will be Silicon valley of the East, but their implementation method was so retardedly poor the blame for the failure fell on them. The reason why Singapore isn't the IT hub it ought to be is because the Govt stifled competition by offering contracts to MNCs and GLCs and effectively none of the local startups could even grow. In countries like the US, Govt contracts are an important part of business since the Govt is biggest bloated bureaucracy in any country.
Did they claim they r going to be silicon valley of the east ? Is it possible to show tis ? And really wat contracts r u talking about ? My impression is simply, the gov choose meritocracy such as awarding contracts to the highest bidders...Just because the drama wasn't in the papers doesn't mean the drama doesn't exist. All companies are beset with politics one way or another. Not to mention, this is probably more prevalent in the SMEs which are fairly shady when it comes to transparency. Family companies are probably the best example of how bad things can get with politics.
If u want to pull in small companies, then maybe u r right, maybe all their people form 1 group but these people is effective few, like 10, and they r probably not listed and have sole ownership of the company. Theoretically, there is nothing wrong with them since they do not have to account to any other shareholders. Cronism etc only become relevant if they have to answer shareholders, and there will be strict regulation if it want to be listed.The frakking GST will rise to 10% whether we like it or not. Give it the end of this decade or the start of the next. The Govt has been raising the GST 3-4 years ever since it implemented the whole thing. The problem is that it does not address the root of the problem. The lower income people are hurt by the stagnant wages which have been stagnant since the last decade. A street cleaner is still paid the same amount of money as the last decade. Otherwise, he/she will get replaced by some foreign labourer which will cost the company in question far less. The point of the matter is that the Govt merely papers over the multitude of problem and refuses to address the problem. Rather, it simply tries to be as business friendly as possible but forgets that people need to have enough money to enjoy life. The domestic economy is dead largely because of stagnant wages. There is a convulated loop of problems here that have yet to be addressed. Raising the GST merely prolongs the existence of the loop of problems.
Actually the developed world face the problem of stagnant wage increase. Tis is because companies r very mobile now and workforce r very mobile. How can the gov force companies to give high wage
EVen if gov succeed, the companies will move out and jobless problem arises. So wat do u suggest ? It is easy to complaint but wat is the solution ?
To me personally, I actually think the best solution is for more fund to pump into GLC companies. It is just ike companies but the profit is for singapore which is goodAnd just who pockets 65% of the profits? China. We pocket only the remainder in hope of recouping the losses, which will take a bloody eternity.
U need to know the company itself is an entity, and if it says it clear off all deficit, it means all the losses incur have been cleared and profit is coming in. Yes your 100 million etc loss have been clear and billions of dollars of invesment r flowing into the park. I don't know why tis is a surprise since singapore seems to be asking for more land for the suzhou park recently.Limited land? Did you not read what I wrote? The Govt INFLATED the price of land. It was never this expensive. With the wages we are getting, which are hardly first world on average, do you think any damn fool can easily afford any of these flats? These days, a person would spend decades just to pay it off. It is little wonder anybody would want to migrate elsewhere where the wages more or less fit the prices of housing one would get. The costs of living here is incredibly high and with the stagnant wages, it doesn't help a bit.
Lets put it tis way, if u look at the housing of other cities, u will be more shocked. Singapore is considered to be very successful in their housing policy. If gov don't get money from housing, they have to get from some other places too And IMO, the land is fast dwindling in singapore during the period of your so called "land inflation". If there is no control, then there effectively has no landCheck the Appendix 7.1. The so-called contribution is based on taxes. Then look at this:
I think u need to know wat is the difference between company profit and company dividend. Company profit not necessary all give back to shareholders but they keep it as liquitity or reinvest in other areas. Dividend is the amount they pay back to shareholders for their contribution. U should search for dividend, not profit. Furthermore u should look at the year 2005 review since the dividend is given for last year budget.
http://www.temasekholdings.com.sg/2006review/files/05%20Group%20Financial%20Summary.pdf
Just why is Temasek's profit far greater that the purported contribution?
http://www.temasekholdings.com.sg/2005review/tr2005_5.pdf
At page 2 bottoms, it states the cash dividend to the shareholders average 1.3 billion, which is correct.Look, you asked for why we should be confident in stating our claims, and then I return and point out the treatment a very prominent Govt official gives to anyone who questions his claims. And then you ask me whether he is my role model?!?!
You know, LKY is not unknown to call a person stupid and then denigrate the person's intelligence or laugh off a remark... going by some transcripts of Student group meetings with him....
Your previous reply goes like the one shown in italic... it is to reply
It depend on how u view a voice of gov as. U can say they r like lawyers always must win, but they can be seen as experts on a field which show an insight on the real difficulty of reality. As said if your point is valid, why do u fear "lawyers" ? Have u no confident in your points and certain they can't stand scrutiny ? Their work is even being scrutinise by u now, but u don't want them to scrutinise u. Is it fair ?
Can u tell me where in your reply is answering my response and where in your reply states "we should be confident in our claims"... u mean "denigrate the person's intelligence or laugh off with a remark" = "we should be confident in our claims" ? -
>>migration seems an easy thing to say.. however, which countries will take you?
If you are educated and hard-working; many.
>>will you have to be successful? or go learn a new skill? upgrade your skills?
Many ambitious SGns have moved abroad over the past decades.
>>or be an elite here first?
You mean a PAP croney?
>>ultimately, will another country want you if you are bugging out because you couldn't be bothered with your original country? you didn't want the hassle of trying to make it a better place?
What employer abroad will care why you left? They probably will already know that SG is a stifling family run autocracy. No one will be surprised that the skilled and ambitious have left.
>>with that in their minds, will their citizens treat you the same way you rail against those FTs who come to Singapore? hmmm, let me introduce you.. pot.. kettle... kettle.. pot.. because isn't that the same thing?
Hello world, outside of my little box, and get over it.
Millions of immigrants the world over, emigrate each year, for a better life.
>>those who clamour for rights and all that, without shouldering the responsibility.. i dunno.. rings empty..
No, sounds like I'll just leave, and have. Sick of one family telling me how every aspect of my life should be really. And there being no democracy, and checks and balances, and no way... I could stay
>>but ultimately, i guess it is the choice of the person wishing to do the hard thing and make their own country a better place, or the easy thing and go somewhere else..
Ultimately I guess you are PAP or youth-PAP activist, and have a wealthy family (right?), so you are OK (right?), because you have a rich daddy who says the right things to the right people.
Shouldering the responsibility, to me, would be, 'The Firm' giving up and going into exile, and there being democracy in Singapore. When that happens (lol), then expect some noble intent from the citizens. Until then... well they might as well just keep on making out the cheques and sending them to Geneva eh?
>>whatever it is, i wish everyone finds the happiness they search for
Yeah, but it won't be in singapore.... lol -
My review of PM Lee:
He was a Prime Ministar?
Always hiding in the shadows of Senile Ministar and Mental Ministar. -
everyone seeks a better life, whether they have to move to another city, to another state or another country. as long as you prove that you are here for the long term, that you are willing to be a part of your new home, you will be accepted.Originally posted by the Bear:looks like no one has read fudgy's post...
migration seems an easy thing to say.. however, which countries will take you?
will you have to be successful? or go learn a new skill? upgrade your skills?
or be an elite here first?
ultimately, will another country want you if you are bugging out because you couldn't be bothered with your original country? you didn't want the hassle of trying to make it a better place?
with that in their minds, will their citizens treat you the same way you rail against those FTs who come to Singapore? hmmm, let me introduce you.. pot.. kettle... kettle.. pot.. because isn't that the same thing?
it is different from the huge amount of FTs brought in to SG simply to depress wages. most of them have no intention of staying for the long term, the same rules do not apply. free-loaders are not welcomed anywhere in the world. -
Look, meritocracy should never be a fix all for problems. Fairness it may be, it is the GOvt's obligation to develop the local economy but so far they only paid attention to the GLCs and not really bothered with the SMEs. A company like Youtube will never emerge in Singapore chiefly because the company will likely get slaughtered by the GLCs before it even emerges, never mind the fact that getting cash for starting up will be near impossible. The contracts the Govt doled out were IT contracts for providing e-Government. If you are going to talk about size and resources, Israel with population of 6billion, though it receives generous aid from the US, is constantly involved in armed conflict which constantly saps their economy has a very very vibrant tech industry compared to us. Here in Singapore, money is plenty but startups are few. Has anybody wondered why?
Did they claim they r going to be silicon valley of the east ? Is it possible to show tis ? And really wat contracts r u talking about ? My impression is simply, the gov choose meritocracy such as awarding contracts to the highest bidders...I think u need to know wat is the difference between company profit and company dividend. Company profit not necessary all give back to shareholders but they keep it as liquitity or reinvest in other areas. Dividend is the amount they pay back to shareholders for their contribution. U should search for dividend, not profit. Furthermore u should look at the year 2005 review since the dividend is given for last year budget.
Wait. That 1.4 billion on the budget was tax. It wasn't listed as cash dividend. If you read the budget one more time, it was listed as tax. Tax <> shareholder's dividend. It is totally different. Also, Temasek isn't the only Govt company that manages the Govt's cash. There is also GIC, which is a pitch black source of information.
http://www.temasekholdings.com.sg/2005review/tr2005_5.pdf
At page 2 bottoms, it states the cash dividend to the shareholders average 1.3 billion, which is correct.Actually the developed world face the problem of stagnant wage increase. Tis is because companies r very mobile now and workforce r very mobile. How can the gov force companies to give high wage Rolling Eyes EVen if gov succeed, the companies will move out and jobless problem arises. So wat do u suggest ? It is easy to complaint but wat is the solution ?
And just why not? They set a minimum wage in the US, UK and most developed countries. Most of the developed world has a minimum wage. You certainly can't force companies to give higher wages but the fault of the stagnant wages lies in the fact that we heavily rely on foreign investment and the MNCs don't offer wages that are competitve as there is no incentive to do so.
To me personally, I actually think the best solution is for more fund to pump into GLC companies. It is just ike companies but the profit is for singapore which is good
Pumping more money into GLCs? You are kidding right? How would pumping in cash increase wages? Likely it will end up in the Govt's pockets again. Why not set up a more vibrant local economy and reduce dependence on foreign companies? That way, even if they pull out we can fall back on the local economy. This grotesque dependency on MNCs has to stop. They will eventually pull out anyway, just as the electronics industry has since been hollowed out years ago, which is why the Govt is trying to replace it with biotech factories.
The issue of stagnant wages in Singapore is more acute as the housing itself is incredibly expensive. The minimum price of housing is way higher than the developed world. Bah, I'm going to stay here anyhow.U need to know the company itself is an entity, and if it says it clear off all deficit, it means all the losses incur have been cleared and profit is coming in. Yes your 100 million etc loss have been clear and billions of dollars of invesment r flowing into the park. I don't know why tis is a surprise since singapore seems to be asking for more land for the suzhou park recently.
Look, by your own admission, the park's profits doesn't all end up in the shareholders. The profits of the park aren't exactly stellar and likely it will take decades to recoup the loss. Billions of dollars of investment doesn't mean the the investment ends up in the hands of the park owners. Most of it goes into setting up the factory and not rental space. Not to mention, I wonder what sort of incentives were given to the investors to set up shop.Lets put it tis way, if u look at the housing of other cities, u will be more shocked. Singapore is considered to be very successful in their housing policy. If gov don't get money from housing, they have to get from some other places too Rolling Eyes And IMO, the land is fast dwindling in singapore during the period of your so called "land inflation". If there is no control, then there effectively has no land
Look, you can't compare cities to cities. Most people don't live in the city. They live in the suburban areas where the price of land is way cheaper. The cost of a HDB flat is in fact good enough to buy a house in a rich area. They just drive to work in cars that are way cheaper than what you get here. Those who live in the city itself often do not have a choice in it. I know of people who work in the banks on Wall Street but they are given fat salaries of 300K a year which is way more than any Singapore could earn on a starting pay.
Look, quit coming up with excuses for the land inflation. LKY said it himself in his memoirs about the policy which he admitted to be an utter failure. The originator of the policy himself said so. You wish to offer a silly reason for a policy whose purpose wasn't even that? COntrol of land? The Govt controls all the levers of land already. It owns all the land in Singapore and doles out time limits on the use of the land. How much more control do you want to get? This is not a matter of control at all. The whole bloody point of the affair was fatten the checks of the rich who benefited greatly from the inflation. Ngiam Tong Dow himself wrote that this entire fiasco hurt our competitiveness and our Govt had to dole out larger subsidies to attract investment. There is a cyclical nature in all these price controls, and they all point towards increased costs of living.
Now, if you say that the Govt must earn profits from HDB, won't that conflict with the original mission of the HDB of providing cheap affordable housing? The price of a HDB flat fast approaches some of the cheapest condos around. What is the point of HDB then? Another Govt Cash cow?Can u tell me where in your reply is answering my response and where in your reply states "we should be confident in our claims"... u mean "denigrate the person's intelligence or laugh off with a remark" = "we should be confident in our claims" ?
Your own words: "Have u no confident in your points and certain they can't stand scrutiny ?" Aside from the bad English, "Confidence" was there. What confidence is there when a former PM tosses aside whatever you say and even call you stupid instead of calmly delivering a reply? -
In the Uni,we r taught to be critical n write 2 a point!!!!
But all these Gods -
The difference is that Govt officials here are not accountable for policy failures and don't bother apologizing it but instead sweep it under the carpet. They go on and claim that Singapore will be Silicon valley of the East, but their implementation method was so retardedly poor the blame for the failure fell on them. The reason why Singapore isn't the IT hub it ought to be is because the Govt stifled competition by offering contracts to MNCs and GLCs and effectively none of the local startups could even grow. In countries like the US, Govt contracts are an important part of business since the Govt is biggest bloated bureaucracy in any country.
Some years ago, I attended a seminar on entrepreneurship a fashionable topic for hot-air during recessions chaired by Feedback Unit chairman Dr. Wang Kai Yuen and asked why if the government continues to award contract only to big players like the GLCs and those with big names and all the established players, how it is going to promote entrepreneurship as the smaller players will have no opportunities whatever their new ideas and talents.
The answer was a typical bureaucratic one : government has no other ways except to tender out its works and services to those with track records..period.
So I fully agree with you that they can say what they like about their ability to create hubs and even promote entrepreneurship when one actually bring an idea to them like the Spring one will be truly disappointed.
Spring has been set up in such a way that it will not hear the non-descript smaller guys or SMEs as it will protect itself first not to be involved with the smaller players with no track records.
So if one is a potential Bill Gate, he is better off selling the ideas somewhere else so Spring will work towards protecting itself instead of promoting entrepreneurship or helping its own people to go into business and there will be no silicon valley. Don't bang your head on the walls.
A government which is so legalistic and protective of its own interest can never support good ideas or entrepreneurship and it will have many reasons to turn one down.
Just look at budget 2007, it is mainly a budget to serve GLC-MNC but goodies will be thrown in to justify their protection of vested interest and no one else will be able to offer any services unless is is connected to the elites.
How do you progress under a system of protectionism protected by the mighty legalistic wrangling to serve political self-righteousness. -
It is after all in the Govt's interest that no single business lobby become so powerful that they can lobby collectively for their interests and have significant hold on the Govt. So the Govt does it the usual way of inclusiveness; they get involved directly and buy people over with money and then are in a position of keeping taps on people. It should not be a surprise that many of the MPs come from GLCs.Originally posted by robertteh:Some years ago, I attended a seminar on entrepreneurship a fashionable topic for hot-air during recessions chaired by Feedback Unit chairman Dr. Wang Kai Yuen and asked why if the government continues to award contract only to big players like the GLCs and those with big names and all the established players, how it is going to promote entrepreneurship as the smaller players will have no opportunities whatever their new ideas and talents.
The answer was a typical bureaucratic one : government has no other ways except to tender out its works and services to those with track records..period.
So I fully agree with you that they can say what they like about their ability to create hubs and even promote entrepreneurship when one actually bring an idea to them like the Spring one will be truly disappointed.
Spring has been set up in such a way that it will not hear the non-descript smaller guys or SMEs as it will protect itself first not to be involved with the smaller players with no track records.
So if one is a potential Bill Gate, he is better off selling the ideas somewhere else so Spring will work towards protecting itself instead of promoting entrepreneurship or helping its own people to go into business and there will be no silicon valley. Don't bang your head on the walls.
A government which is so legalistic and protective of its own interest can never support good ideas or entrepreneurship and it will have many reasons to turn one down.
Just look at budget 2007, it is mainly a budget to serve GLC-MNC but goodies will be thrown in to justify their protection of vested interest and no one else will be able to offer any services unless is is connected to the elites.
How do you progress under a system of protectionism protected by the mighty legalistic wrangling to serve political self-righteousness.
Entrepreneurship and freedom of speech often are quite synonymous with each other as people in such environments value individuality and not collective stupidity. China is slowly heading that way, are we even? Heck, we don't even have the hunger to pursue our ambitions and are instead tame people happy with what the Govt provides. -
value individuality and not collective stupidity.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:It is after all in the Govt's interest that no single business lobby become so powerful that they can lobby collectively for their interests and have significant hold on the Govt. So the Govt does it the usual way of inclusiveness; they get involved directly and buy people over with money and then are in a position of keeping taps on people. It should not be a surprise that many of the MPs come from GLCs.
Entrepreneurship and freedom of speech often are quite synonymous with each other as people in such environments value individuality and not collective stupidity. China is slowly heading that way, are we even? Heck, we don't even have the hunger to pursue our ambitions and are instead tame people happy with what the Govt provides.
Very Good! -
Look, meritocracy should never be a fix all for problems. Fairness it may be, it is the GOvt's obligation to develop the local economy but so far they only paid attention to the GLCs and not really bothered with the SMEs. A company like Youtube will never emerge in Singapore chiefly because the company will likely get slaughtered by the GLCs before it even emerges, never mind the fact that getting cash for starting up will be near impossible. The contracts the Govt doled out were IT contracts for providing e-Government. If you are going to talk about size and resources, Israel with population of 6billion, though it receives generous aid from the US, is constantly involved in armed conflict which constantly saps their economy has a very very vibrant tech industry compared to us. Here in Singapore, money is plenty but startups are few. Has anybody wondered why?
If u ask me, the gov do help out local business to step out with a series of possible assistance
http://www.business.gov.sg/EN/Government/GovernmentAssistance/
Need funds to expand overseas? Get a loan of up to S$15 million to buy fixed assets and finance your overseas projects or orders.
Get a grant to develop new design events that involve cross-disciplinary innovation e.g. design collaborations between architects and fashion designers.
Start-ups that meet certain qualifying conditions do not need to pay tax on the first S$100,000 of chargeable income (excluding Singapore franked dividends) for any of the first 3 years of tax assessment falling within Year of Assessment 2005 to 2009.
Then come the point of giving contracts to companies with no track record but it is alocal company. On the other thread there r people who ask why does the gov give money to keep people for not performing. Now if we give contracts to company with no track record, and they r more likely to fail since they got the contract without merit, strength or reduction in cost, r u going to point your fingers at the gov for wasting taxpayer money when it fails ?Wait. That 1.4 billion on the budget was tax. It wasn't listed as cash dividend. If you read the budget one more time, it was listed as tax. Tax <> shareholder's dividend. It is totally different. Also, Temasek isn't the only Govt company that manages the Govt's cash. There is also GIC, which is a pitch black source of information.
U read it wrongly. It is stat board contribution. And most, if not all, GLC r Temasek linked. SIA, DBS, Singtel, Sembcorp, Keppel etc r all owned partially by TemasekAnd just why not? They set a minimum wage in the US, UK and most developed countries. Most of the developed world has a minimum wage. You certainly can't force companies to give higher wages but the fault of the stagnant wages lies in the fact that we heavily rely on foreign investment and the MNCs don't offer wages that are competitve as there is no incentive to do so.
There is a minimum wage for singaporean if u wanna know. And if we force the company to give high wages, they will leave the country. They leave their own country to come to singapore to invest, wat makes u think they will not leave singapore if they found a better place ? Then how ? Where should the money come from ?Pumping more money into GLCs? You are kidding right? How would pumping in cash increase wages? Likely it will end up in the Govt's pockets again. Why not set up a more vibrant local economy and reduce dependence on foreign companies? That way, even if they pull out we can fall back on the local economy. This grotesque dependency on MNCs has to stop. They will eventually pull out anyway, just as the electronics industry has since been hollowed out years ago, which is why the Govt is trying to replace it with biotech factories.
Because GLC r definitely loyal to singapore since they r owned by singapore gov. The profit it made went to the gov coffer which effectively means it go to the citizen. And put it tis way. U set up a local company and chances r it will leave to other cheaper countries in tis globalised age. Wat makes u think they will be different from MNC ? We still face the probem of hollowing. IMO GLC is a good idea because instead of the profit going to individuals, it go to the country.The issue of stagnant wages in Singapore is more acute as the housing itself is incredibly expensive. The minimum price of housing is way higher than the developed world. Bah, I'm going to stay here anyhow.
U will be surprise tat public housing in singapore is relatively cheaper compared with other developed citiesLook, by your own admission, the park's profits doesn't all end up in the shareholders. The profits of the park aren't exactly stellar and likely it will take decades to recoup the loss. Billions of dollars of investment doesn't mean the the investment ends up in the hands of the park owners. Most of it goes into setting up the factory and not rental space. Not to mention, I wonder what sort of incentives were given to the investors to set up shop.
I need to repeat a point. ALL LOSSES R RECUPERATED SINCE 2003. THEY WENT PAST THE BREAKING POINT AND REGISTER PROFIT. TECHNICALLY SUZHOU IS A COMMERCIAL SUCCESS. THERE IS NO LOSS. I REPEAT. NO LOSS. -
Look, you can't compare cities to cities. Most people don't live in the city. They live in the suburban areas where the price of land is way cheaper. The cost of a HDB flat is in fact good enough to buy a house in a rich area. They just drive to work in cars that are way cheaper than what you get here. Those who live in the city itself often do not have a choice in it. I know of people who work in the banks on Wall Street but they are given fat salaries of 300K a year which is way more than any Singapore could earn on a starting pay.
Cities r big, and on many instances many times bigger than singapore. It takes hours to travel to from the suburban and the road r jammed. To get from the suburb to the city is as difficult as people buying a house in johor and travelling to singapore to work. I know of people in singapore drawing fat salary as well. And there r poorer people working on wall streets tat draw a salary similar to singapore here. Is the sameLook, quit coming up with excuses for the land inflation. LKY said it himself in his memoirs about the policy which he admitted to be an utter failure. The originator of the policy himself said so. You wish to offer a silly reason for a policy whose purpose wasn't even that? COntrol of land? The Govt controls all the levers of land already. It owns all the land in Singapore and doles out time limits on the use of the land. How much more control do you want to get? This is not a matter of control at all. The whole bloody point of the affair was fatten the checks of the rich who benefited greatly from the inflation. Ngiam Tong Dow himself wrote that this entire fiasco hurt our competitiveness and our Govt had to dole out larger subsidies to attract investment. There is a cyclical nature in all these price controls, and they all point towards increased costs of living.
The gov lose control of the land when it was leased to developers. ANd there is not much land in singapore. U say lee admit he made an utter failure policy ? Which page of the memoirs say tat ?Now, if you say that the Govt must earn profits from HDB, won't that conflict with the original mission of the HDB of providing cheap affordable housing? The price of a HDB flat fast approaches some of the cheapest condos around. What is the point of HDB then? Another Govt Cash cow?
The objective is to provide affordable housing. They never state it is going to make housing for a loss or they nto going to make profit. IF no profit is made, how is it going to be substain ? If gov do not gain tax from it, then how to balance the budget ? If u talk about condo and hdb is is fair to compare the square meters and location instead of comparing the most expensive executive hdb to the lousiest smallest condo in ulu sembawang.Your own words: "Have u no confident in your points and certain they can't stand scrutiny ?" Aside from the bad English, "Confidence" was there. What confidence is there when a former PM tosses aside whatever you say and even call you stupid instead of calmly delivering a reply?
Ok I finally get wat u r trying to say. Well the people here also called PAP as devils, pigs, stupid, greedy, Durai, another NKF etc as well. These exchange goes both ways and if u have confidence your points r right, u do not have to fear questioning.It is after all in the Govt's interest that no single business lobby become so powerful that they can lobby collectively for their interests and have significant hold on the Govt. So the Govt does it the usual way of inclusiveness; they get involved directly and buy people over with money and then are in a position of keeping taps on people. It should not be a surprise that many of the MPs come from GLCs.
An interesting conspiracy theory... I have heard another story from another person claiming "singapore have no real enterprise in the past because the people find jobs tat pay well so easily tat it makes no sense to start a business which take a lot of hardwork and can make u bankrupt"