ValueBuddies.com : Value Investing Forum - Singapore, Hong Kong, U.S. - Government determined to increase population to 7 mil in 2030.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

For those who have the means, can send their children to overseas , ask them to get PR there and become quiters. For those who don't have the means will have to be "patriotic" stayers.
(Same humans but different lives )

(09-02-2013, 09:10 AM)godjira1 Wrote: [ -> ]Unsubscribed. Thread going nowhere and i got called a sinkie again. Have fun venting boys.

you will really be going nowhere if you continue to vote for the PAP. Show them you mean something come 2016.

77 votes yes. Seems like all men in white are all "yes" man. Smile

(08-02-2013, 05:16 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]The free HDB suggestion is similar to the COE suggestion I had. Free COE for everyone who has 3 kids. It does not cost taxpayers real money and if they liquidate the COE they can't claim they couldn't get a car as COE was too expensive. Subsidising child care through the markets.

Housing however is more complicated because it is immovable properties, and it is a necessity. You cant just liquidate the house and sleep in the streets. Nonetheless policy can also be channeled through larger discount to new HDB flats. It is more difficult to channel through HDB grant scheme as it will inflate the HDB secondary market again. In fact the grant should have been terminated after HDB had excess supply last decade, which defeats the grant's purpose.

(08-02-2013, 11:31 AM)sgd Wrote: [ -> ]Ah .. 210 mil is the tender awarded by HDB, this amount includes percentage of profit for developer. But how much did it cost HDB to buy the land from URA before giving it to developers? Did they do a mark up?

And how much did URA got the state land for if they got it in the 50's and 60's era

Of course if we start getting into that again they will again say that is tantamount to raiding the national reserves

I think URA owns the land as sovereign. There is no book value per se. However the AG makes sure the price URA sells to even HDB is at market price. Herein lies the reason why HDB supposedly "loss making" because it subsidises the land. It is actually right pocket to left pocket for govt, but the accounting treatment is such that land sales are not part of Singapore budget but goes to reserves IIRC.

(08-02-2013, 12:25 PM)zhangwuji Wrote: [ -> ]Raising fertility is not a problem. Some European countries have successfully done it before. I don't think our multi-million dollar salaried ministers are not capable of solving the problem. The problem is that the PAP gov is only interested in raising their vote count. Do you think they really care about fertility rate?

Can you please quote some examples of European countries increasing TFR without immigration? Some TFR increased I think is because the immigrants were more "productive". This has created massive social problems from UK to France to Denmark.

If you got an elegant solution, I think a lot of developed countries would like to do it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/opinio....html?_r=0

(09-02-2013, 01:42 PM)kichialo Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-02-2013, 09:10 AM)godjira1 Wrote: [ -> ]Unsubscribed. Thread going nowhere and i got called a sinkie again. Have fun venting boys.

you will really be going nowhere if you continue to vote for the PAP. Show them you mean something come 2016.

Don't anyone agree, Singapore current country's situation (Aka Nation) is like a ship full of holes for the masses except the PAPYs? If we are called "Sinkies" by outsiders in and out of Singapore, do we have something much to say? Wait! Wait! Except we can show we are really a Nation in the year 2015 or 2016. Meanwhile the coming Hong Lim Park's rally of the masses on 16 FEB. 2013 will more or less foretell 2015/6 election results. And all those who call us "SINKIES" whether they are right or have the right to call us Sinkies. i will be there to see for myself whether i can or should rebuke those FTS who call us "SINKIES". If not for my sake, it's definitely for my future DNAs.
The more you are afraid of something, the more it will happen. So don't just stand there. We all have to do "something" Everyone on this blog & friends should attend 16 FEB. 4 P. M. rally by the people to show PAPYs what is really "Government of the people, By the people, For the people".(Borrowed Quote)

(09-02-2013, 09:10 AM)godjira1 Wrote: [ -> ]Unsubscribed. Thread going nowhere and i got called a sinkie again. Have fun venting boys.

This is sad. I have lost my job twice since 2000 and I am sure when when I was looking for employment that I have lost to foreigners in some cases. However I have never felt until recently so push aside, so dismissed. And it is not because of the foreigners in our midst. I cannot even voice my support for gahmen without receiving some kind of intimidation or vicious name-calling. Is this what an open society that Singaporeans have been asking for supposed to be?

(09-02-2013, 04:30 PM)touzi Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-02-2013, 09:10 AM)godjira1 Wrote: [ -> ]Unsubscribed. Thread going nowhere and i got called a sinkie again. Have fun venting boys.

This is sad. I have lost my job twice since 2000 and I am sure when when I was looking for employment that I have lost to foreigners in some cases. However I have never felt until recently so push aside, so dismissed. And it is not because of the foreigners in our midst. I cannot even voice my support for gahmen without receiving some kind of intimidation or vicious name-calling. Is this what an open society that Singaporeans have been asking for supposed to be?

Over the internet medium, the majority of the posts are anti-government.
Granted that we are a multi-racial, multi-religious society, and in fact, we do take pride in our cosomopolitian city, we also celebrate the diversity of views within our citizens.

Now lets look at the last GE 2011 election. 60.1% voted for the PAP, 40% didn't. That is 60/40 or may I take a near rounding, almost HALF the Singapore electorate do not vote for them.

Yet, we have 81 vs 7 MPs representation within the Parliament. Then we have the PAP party whip which withheld party members from voting to their conscious.

Does the 60/40 correlate in anyway near to 81/7 seating representation?

The vocal criticism within the internet medium shows truly the disgruntled voices of the Republic. That many could not get their voices heard, thus it is shown through forums, blogs and Facebook.

I will also agree that sometimes the extremisim posts posed by some other forums (not this one, we are very mild already!) are overwhelming that it creates another set of problems for our nation's future.

What if PAP fell from power, and the oppositions could not get themselves up in stride soon enough?
We would be falling from one unqiue set of problem (social division, rich vs poor, capitalist vs working class) to one of poor governance that the oppositions are not up to mark due to lack of opportunity.

It is already unhealthy that we are already a nation with minimal representation of the middle class and lower class within the parliament. (Rembr 60/40 with 81/7 MPs representation)
It is now getting worse with such shafting down the throat method (White Paper endorsement) by having 77 PAP aye vs 13 WP & NMP nay combined. 1 abstained.

Do we have to continue going down the path with ever increasing dividing social class? Do we want to leave our children with such a poltical system of only one dominant party with weak opposition parties? Can we say PAP will surivive for 10,000 years?
If not, then can PAP have differences in voices within? Look at the Party Whip effect yesterday.

While we celebrate the diversity of our views, regardless of social classes, regardless of our religions, regardless of gender, let us take a step back and think, what do we really want to leave our children behind? A highly social stratified nation with a single dominant party?
Or a nation with closer ties among ourselves, with strong sustainable economy, regardless whoever is the ruling party, because all parties are able to attract highly capable talents.

Remember ladies and gents, the political system in 2030, will be the choices you yourself choose in the next GE.

Have a rainy but cheerful Chinese New Year.
Happy holidays to all.

I subscribe to the policy of balance of power.....as long as the candidate of the weaker party is not too bad, in most cases, I would vote for that person. Absolute power corrupts.....that's why in economics, there are rules and regulation to prevent a monopoly. Monopoly due to economies of scale might lead to efficiency but in the long run, it might lead to stiffling of innovation, inefficiency and etc.......see what happen to NTUC Fairprice....founded to encourage competition but now 'overexpanding' in order to block competitors. Are NTUC products still cheap? Well I know nowadays I bought my Songhe rice somewhere else rather than in NTUC.....

The govt has done a good job up to now....look at the other govts around the world and I can said that PAP has done a good job BUT

I got this feeling that they are losing touch.....The govt loves to criticise other countries for having a high tax rate while in Singapore, the tax rate is low but the citizens must have a good income to tax in the first place....you can have a very low tax rate but it does not matter to the old granny without slippers or someone emptying the trash bins and looking for drink cans in the wee hours.

Sure we can build more flats to accomodate a higher population but at what price? blocks of flats building closer to one another? smaller flats or lower ceilings to build higher blocks......?

Ten years ago, people were complaining about foreigners (I would not name the country) flooding lucky plaza but now on weekends, we can see many of them in Toa Payoh HDB hub, holding picnics in Toa Payoh Garden and etc....personally I feel there are just too many of them......and we need time to digest and build up the infrastructure like what Inderjit Singh said......

But did the govt listen? The lower bracket of the population income grew 0.1% from 2002 to 2012 while property prices surge.....what does this tell you....due to.population increase...

We talked about not enough young people to support an ageing population but for most of us, when we started work, we contribute to the CPF. Tell that to a new citizen if he becomes one when he is 30s or 40s...how much CPF will he have? Would it be enough when he retires.....well all I can said is Singaporean born citizen's CPF contribution would be many years ahead of him.....

We are told we are in this together but did head rolls when someone was holidaying overseas less than 2mths in the job while the company where he works was having a strike.....I bet during LKY times, the person would be sacked......

I fear that there is something that Singaporeans does not know....A very 'rich' man who does not know how many accts he have, or how many houses or whatever investments he own is most likely to suffer financial losses on his assets. Tell that to the Govt who need 56 man years.......

That would be a very HARD TRUTH......

(09-02-2013, 04:30 PM)touzi Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-02-2013, 09:10 AM)godjira1 Wrote: [ -> ]Unsubscribed. Thread going nowhere and i got called a sinkie again. Have fun venting boys.

This is sad. I have lost my job twice since 2000 and I am sure when when I was looking for employment that I have lost to foreigners in some cases. However I have never felt until recently so push aside, so dismissed. And it is not because of the foreigners in our midst. I cannot even voice my support for gahmen without receiving some kind of intimidation or vicious name-calling. Is this what an open society that Singaporeans have been asking for supposed to be?

You get all that because the mainstream media swings too much in favour of the government. So, the internet medium swings the other way. No, most netizens do not find the mainstream media to be fair or balanced. While SPH may make a good financial investment, it does so for the wrong political reasons - monopoly and indirect soft control by the government.

Maybe you could explain why you support the gahment, even though the gahmen's current policy on foreigners had caused you so much difficulty regarding your employment.

It gives the perception of offering a shared vision of Singapore when it is not....
Would our live be better with such an increase?

The past 5 years of relentless increase of population does not improve our lives, but strained on our country resources and which impact us greatly.

The white paper lack references and substantiation on various claims and points made. For example, "Nurse is low skill worker", if this is an important paper on Singapore's future, how could they made such mistake (if you understand how the government's machinery work on creation/planning, rounds of checks before the paper could even landed on the minister or PM's desk) Small thing they can screwed out, what about big thing? What do you think?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

ValueBuddies.com : Value Investing Forum - Singapore, Hong Kong, U.S.

cfa

kichialo

pianist

zhangwuji

Temperament

touzi

arthur

Behappyalways

investor101

VIChris