-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
China way of doing business is like gangster. No wonder people say 中共土匪
- Thread starter ChinaCommunistSG
- Start date
Mr Chen Zhi Xiong had founded his own advertising and events planning company in 2019, and was approached by Evergrande for a business collaboration just a year later.
The 35-year-old worked with the real estate giant on four projects for three months from October to December 2020, providing billboards, publicity materials, and running promotional events for the firm.
The 35-year-old worked with the real estate giant on four projects for three months from October to December 2020, providing billboards, publicity materials, and running promotional events for the firm.
“When I asked for payment, the company gave various excuses, saying it takes time to go through the due process (or) that they had no money,” Mr Chen told CNA, adding that payment was delayed for about a year.
He later filed a lawsuit, sending the company contract breach letters, notifications and payment reminders, according to court documents seen by CNA.
He later filed a lawsuit, sending the company contract breach letters, notifications and payment reminders, according to court documents seen by CNA.
When he went down to the Evergrande office physically to demand payment, he ended up being arrested by the police.
Debtor went to creditor office to collect legitimate debt but police arrested debtor
It's hardly a surprise if you know the origins of the CCP regime. It was initially a band of subversive outlaws in the China countryside, an outpost of the Soviet Union. They kidnapped people in exchange for ransom money, then used that money to recruit members, buy weapons etc.
Gongkias believe the sordid past is history with China joining the WTO, hosting the Olympics etc. LOL.
Gongkias believe the sordid past is history with China joining the WTO, hosting the Olympics etc. LOL.
Calling for @blackmondy
Calling for @Devil Within
No worry, with strong influx of rich tiong, I forecast COE will enjoy 100% growth in next 24mth De woh.... Heng ong huat for All
Do business in China? U guys should have learnt from how LKY got screwed in Suzhou.
After rounds of discussions and site surveys, both governments decided to join hands in developing a modern industrial park in the east of Suzhou.[2][page needed] Suzhou was chosen as the site due to its proximity to the financial hub of Shanghai, as well as its educated and skilled labor pool.[3] The China–Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park (CS-SIP) was thus born on February 26, 1994, when Chinese Vice Premier Li Lanqing and Singaporean Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yewsigned the Agreement on the Joint Development of Suzhou Industrial Park in Suzhou.[2][page needed][3]
Upon its inception, the Singaporean government held a 65% stake in the Suzhou Industrial Park, while the Chinese government held a 35% stake.[3]
The park ran into trouble when local officials began building Suzhou New District (SND) industrial park, which many news outlets have seen as a direct competition to the SIP.[4][5][6][7] As the Suzhou city government had only a minority 35 percent stake in the SIP, while they had a major stake in SND, the city government largely ignored SIP and concentrated on promoting the SND instead.[citation needed]
Singaporean officials publicly complained in 1997 that Suzhou's city government was promoting the Suzhou New District more than the Suzhou Industrial Park, noting that more billboards in the city advertised the SND than the SIP.[4]
Singaporean officials tried to get the Suzhou government to suspend advertising for the SND for five years, but Suzhou city officials refused.[5] As part of their complaint, Lee Kuan Yew threatened that Singapore may "bow out" of the project.[4] The Singaporean government would later reduce its stake to just 35% in 1999, in an effort to incentivize the local government to support the SIP.[3][4][5] As part of their partial pullout, Singapore recalled all but three of its civil servants involved in the project,[4] and sold power and water treatment plants to their Chinese partners.[6] It also downsized its development commitments, announcing it would lead the development of 8 square kilometres (3.1 sq mi), as opposed to the 70 square kilometres (27 sq mi) initially planned.[6] By 1999, the New York Times reported that the project "is heavily in debt", and had been losing an average of 23.5 million United States dollars annually, according to Singaporean partners.[5] Singaporean investors had poured 147 million into the project by 1999.[7] Singaporean officials reported that the cumulative projected losses from the project would total 90 million dollars by the end of 2000.[5][7] However, the Chinese side of the project reported that it was indeed profitable, claiming that it was projected to make a 72 million dollar profit in 1999.[5]
The New York Times also suggested that "the project was supposed to transfer Singapore's management skills to Chinese bureaucrats and to teach China how to build and run "business-friendly" commercial parks. But it ended up straining the close relations between Singapore and China and bringing home to Singaporeans the often unpredictable, and sometimes underhand, business culture of the Communist mainland".[5]
Singapore's senior minister, Lee Kuan Yewconceded that the project had not turned out as planned and had made him more cautious about investments in China, claiming that difficulties arose in signing agreements with the central government, but were then implemented by local officials who "have their own imperatives".[5] Lee said that Chinese officials were "using us to get investors in, and when investors came in, they said: 'You come to my park, it's cheaper'".[5]
HistoryEdit
In 1992, the idea of developing a modern industrial area with Singaporean experience was broached.[citation needed] During his tour of southern China that year, China's late paramount leader Deng Xiaoping said: "Singapore enjoys good social order and is well managed. We should tap on their experience, and learn how to manage better than them".[citation needed]After rounds of discussions and site surveys, both governments decided to join hands in developing a modern industrial park in the east of Suzhou.[2][page needed] Suzhou was chosen as the site due to its proximity to the financial hub of Shanghai, as well as its educated and skilled labor pool.[3] The China–Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park (CS-SIP) was thus born on February 26, 1994, when Chinese Vice Premier Li Lanqing and Singaporean Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yewsigned the Agreement on the Joint Development of Suzhou Industrial Park in Suzhou.[2][page needed][3]
Upon its inception, the Singaporean government held a 65% stake in the Suzhou Industrial Park, while the Chinese government held a 35% stake.[3]
Initial troublesEdit
The Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP) charged high rents in its early days, in part to pay off the expensive new facilities it built for investors.[4] This created a contradiction, according to one writer of the now-defunct Far Eastern Economic Review, who suggested that "investors were looking to Suzhou for costs lower than Shanghai's, and the SIP was charging Shanghai-style prices".[4]The park ran into trouble when local officials began building Suzhou New District (SND) industrial park, which many news outlets have seen as a direct competition to the SIP.[4][5][6][7] As the Suzhou city government had only a minority 35 percent stake in the SIP, while they had a major stake in SND, the city government largely ignored SIP and concentrated on promoting the SND instead.[citation needed]
Singaporean officials publicly complained in 1997 that Suzhou's city government was promoting the Suzhou New District more than the Suzhou Industrial Park, noting that more billboards in the city advertised the SND than the SIP.[4]
Singaporean officials tried to get the Suzhou government to suspend advertising for the SND for five years, but Suzhou city officials refused.[5] As part of their complaint, Lee Kuan Yew threatened that Singapore may "bow out" of the project.[4] The Singaporean government would later reduce its stake to just 35% in 1999, in an effort to incentivize the local government to support the SIP.[3][4][5] As part of their partial pullout, Singapore recalled all but three of its civil servants involved in the project,[4] and sold power and water treatment plants to their Chinese partners.[6] It also downsized its development commitments, announcing it would lead the development of 8 square kilometres (3.1 sq mi), as opposed to the 70 square kilometres (27 sq mi) initially planned.[6] By 1999, the New York Times reported that the project "is heavily in debt", and had been losing an average of 23.5 million United States dollars annually, according to Singaporean partners.[5] Singaporean investors had poured 147 million into the project by 1999.[7] Singaporean officials reported that the cumulative projected losses from the project would total 90 million dollars by the end of 2000.[5][7] However, the Chinese side of the project reported that it was indeed profitable, claiming that it was projected to make a 72 million dollar profit in 1999.[5]
The New York Times also suggested that "the project was supposed to transfer Singapore's management skills to Chinese bureaucrats and to teach China how to build and run "business-friendly" commercial parks. But it ended up straining the close relations between Singapore and China and bringing home to Singaporeans the often unpredictable, and sometimes underhand, business culture of the Communist mainland".[5]
Singapore's senior minister, Lee Kuan Yewconceded that the project had not turned out as planned and had made him more cautious about investments in China, claiming that difficulties arose in signing agreements with the central government, but were then implemented by local officials who "have their own imperatives".[5] Lee said that Chinese officials were "using us to get investors in, and when investors came in, they said: 'You come to my park, it's cheaper'".[5]
@ChinaCommunistSG See I told u ,this cb kia k19 sure come in and disturb your thread. spouting all nonsense talking shit
CHINA POWER
Lee Kuan Yew: The Father of Modern China?
Lee Kuan Yew’s influence helped shape the China we know today.
By Shannon Tiezzi
March 24, 2015
ADVERTISEMENT
With the passing of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s first prime minister and one of the most influential Asian politicians, leaders and media outlets all over the world have put in their two cents on his legacy. In the Western world, analysis of his influence is generally mixed; the Washington Post, for example, led off its piece by calling Lee “the democratic world’s favorite dictator.” But in China, where Lee’s mix of authoritarian governance and economic reform proved hugely influential, reflections are far more glowing.
China’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement on March 23 saying that “the Chinese side deeply mourns the loss of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew.” The statement praised Lee as “a uniquely influential statesman in Asia and a strategist embodying oriental values and international vision.”
For China, that high praise might actually be underestimating Lee’s importance. After the death of Mao Zedong, Beijing’s leaders knew that Maoist philosophy was not the way forward for China – but they were loath to adopt Western alternatives such as democracy and a free market economy. In Lee’s Singapore, Chinese leaders found an alternative path, a path they could sell as being uniquely suited for Asian (or “oriental,” as China’s FM put it) values. That choice, to combine economic reforms with authoritarianism, shaped China as we know it today.
Jin Canrong of Renmin University told China Daily that Lee’s greatest contribution to China was “sharing Singapore’s successful experience in governance.” In his biography of Deng Xiaoping, Ezra Vogel wrote that China’s great reformed was inspired by the example of Lee’s Singapore. Xi Jinping himself has said that China’s modernization process has been undeniably shaped by the “tens of thousands of Chinese officials” who went to Singapore to study Lee’s model. Lee himself visited China over 30 times and met with Chinese leaders from Mao to Xi Jinping, offering advice.
not just china, foreign property companies like our local listed CDL, Capitaland, HongFok, WingTai, etc all got affected
Evergrand dua hosay this week, up 70% yesterday due to short covering.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/06/chi...urge-after-country-garden-avoids-default.html
Arrested by police still not so bad, SOS got kidnapped in China when young, during work trip. He thought that just he suay, but even in recent years, he came across two other singaporeans with similar experience.
Similar threads
