EXPOSED: MIWs Prostituting Singapore. Must Read!!

[ahleebabasingaporethief]

This is too much.



<table id="msgUN" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="3" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td id="msgUNsubj" valign="top">PAP: Buy Sentosa Cove, get citizenship!</td><td id="msgunetc" align="right" nowrap="nowrap">

Subscribe </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="msgtable" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="96%"><tbody><tr><td class="msg" valign="top"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr class="msghead"><td class="msgbfr1" width="1%"> </td><td> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr class="msghead"> <td class="msgF" align="right" width="1%" nowrap="nowrap">From: </td><td class="msgFname" width="68%" nowrap="nowrap">Lola (Langusta) <nobr></nobr> </td><td class="msgDate" align="right" width="30%" nowrap="nowrap">7:23 am </td></tr> <tr class="msghead"><td class="msgT" align="right" width="1%" height="20" nowrap="nowrap">To: </td><td class="msgTname" width="68%" nowrap="nowrap">ALL <nobr></nobr></td> <td class="msgNum" align="right" nowrap="nowrap"> (1 of 1) </td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4" class="msgleft" width="1%"> </td><td class="wintiny" align="right" nowrap="nowrap">19224.1 </td></tr><tr><td height="8">
</td></tr> <tr><td class="msgtxt">PAP is selling Singapore away by the square feet. What ARE you defending? Serve NS to protect foreign trash PARASITES who come here to steal our jobs, and help protect wealthy foreigners' expensive houses? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/5994
Subscribe to Sg_Review yahoo group RSS feed: http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/rss

17 Aug 2009

To: PM Lee Hsien Loong
To: MAS Chairman - Attn: SM Goh Chok Tong
cc: various

A website purportedly claims that the government has a MAS immigration scheme where an investor may qualify for PR via an investment scheme which includes the purchase of a "Sentosa Cove bungalow on Sentosa Island" (see link below).

If true, why must these investors be restricted to these Sentosa Cove bungalows?

Who benefits from such "enforced" demand of these bungalows? Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe many owners and developers (eg Ho Bee?) of such bungalows will stand to benefit if such "hotly demanded" properties are highly sought after by the rich and famous seeking PRs in Singapore.

Who are these bungalow owners? Are there ministers and their spouses/relatives, top civil servants and their spouses/relatives, seniors executives of TLCs?GLCs/stat boards and their spouses/relatives, etc.. owning these bungalows?

If so, why should such a government policy (if true) enrich these government officials and developers?

Rgds

===========================================================

http://www.bignews.biz/?id=810201&keys=Migration-emmigration-immigration-Residence
The Singapore government and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), in their quest to boost Singapore’s status as a centre for private banking and wealth management, set up a new investment scheme to get Singapore Permanent Residence. This scheme, the Financial Investor Scheme (FIS), is our third route for Singapore migration.

There are two types of financial commitments under the FIS for Singapore Permanent Residence.

• Option A: requires the applicant to place in Singapore at least SGD 5 million of financial assets with a financial institution regulated by the MAS.
• Option B: requires the applicant to hold at least SGD 3 million of assets and a Sentosa Cove bungalow on Sentosa Island.


Who is eligible?

An applicant should place in Singapore at least S$5 million worth of assets which is to be booked and managed by a financial institution that is regulated by the MAS. The assets should comprise of a financial asset of not less than S$ 3 million and amount which is not more than S$2 million in properties.

A financial asset can be any of the following:

(a) bank deposits;
(b) capital market products;
(c) collective investment schemes;
(d) premiums paid in respect of life insurance policies; and
(e) other investment products.

The eligible Singapore property is subject to foreign ownership restrictions under the Residential Properties Act. Only newly acquired property purchased within 6 months from the formal submission of the application can be included.

Applicants may include their immediate family members (spouse and unmarried children below 21 years old).

After residing as a PR in Singapore for 2 years, you may be eligible to apply for citizenship.


For more information, please visit http://www.rikvin.com
</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

 

[Areopagus]

There were lapses in Sentosa Development Corporation’s (SDC) handling of land sales for the Sentosa Cove waterfront project, Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang acknowledged.

This issue was first raised last July by the Auditor-General – the Government’s financial watchdog – and revisited yesterday by opposition MP Low Thia Khiang (Hougang).

The lapses included SDC’s failure to follow government procedures, selling land to a sole bidder at prices below valuation and allowing a former director to bid on land sales 33 days after he had left the board.

Mr Lim explained that SDC set up a private firm, Sentosa Cove Private Limited (SCPL), which adopted more flexible land sales practices common in the private sector. But the Auditor-General found that these practices did not comply with government procedures – which SDC has to follow as a statutory board.

‘As far as they (SDC) were concerned, they had bought land lock, stock and barrel from the Government. They set up a private company to implement the sale of the land,’ Mr Lim said.

‘They did not realise as a statutory board, they still had to follow statutory board procedures…That was a lapse.’

The SDC has since obtained the Finance Ministry’s exemption from some provisions, he added.

He said the SCPL board had discussed the move to award a tender for 24 bungalow lots to the sole bidder – the Ho Bee Group – at below valuation.

This was in 2004 when the market was ‘very fragile’ after the 2003 Sars outbreak. ‘The board decided that if they did not award tender, it would send a signal to the market and cause the market to be more fragile.’

Another reason: The valuer had to decide on a discount, given that the land was being sold en bloc to an intermediary. Previously, each bungalow lot was sold individually to the highest bidder.

Mr Lim agreed with Mr Low that those who resign from the board should have to wait for a period before they can tender for land sales. The ministry will consider this.

He added that it was common for board directors to declare their interest and excuse themselves from participating in tenders. This was what happened in the SCPL case.

Most firms would stop at this legal position, said Associate Professor Mak Yuen Teen of the National University of Singapore Business School.

‘But from an ethical, best practice standpoint, a higher standard should be followed,’ he said, as a former board member may have the advantage of information on the tender.

Source: The Straits Times, 06 March 2007

 

[ahleebabasingaporethief]

Bro Aeeropagus, your article just brought out a big stench.....real foul smell!