TR writer farked Chua Mui Hoong bitch

[makapaaa]

<TABLE id=msgUN border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>

Coffeeshop Chit Chat - TR writer farked Chua Mui Hoong bitch</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>kojakbt_89 <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>1:15 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 1) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>33854.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Property: Do something drastic or do nothing?

May 30th, 2010 |

Author: Your Correspondent

http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/05/30/property-do-something-drastic-or-do-nothing/

Dear Ms Chua,

I refer to your article dated 20 Apr 2010.

You said it is disingenuous to either ‘do something drastic’ or ‘do nothing’ because either action would cause the majority of Singaporeans who are neither first-time home owners nor super rich to be worse off. It is indeed disingenuous of you to think that the majority of Singaporeans aren’t first-time home owners. There are 3.2 million Singaporeans in 900,000 households. That means there are 2.3 million Singaporeans who do not as yet own homes and would thus be first-time home owners sooner or later. In other words, first-time home owners (sooner or later) outnumber existing home owners by more than 2 to 1. Thus, if the ingenuous thing to do is to make the majority better off, it follows that we should ‘do something drastic’ for current and future first-time home owners since they are in the majority.

You said the government’s handling of the property market has been a lot more right than wrong. There is not a lot of truth to what you say unless you can back it up with a lot more fact. HDB prices shot through the roof in 1997 and are shooting through the roof again. Two sudden spikes in a short span of twelve years and you call that a lot more right than wrong? How much more wrong can we get? One spike every other year?

‘Short-term glitch’ is a poor excuse for something that could essentially have been avoided had the government had better foresight.

A lot is not going right in housing, no thanks to the government’s insistence that the resale market be treated as a ‘free’ and peggin of new flat prices to resale flat prices which essentially exposes new flat prices to ‘free’ market price fluctuations.

Yes, the government has turned housing into a social policy that has successfully enslaved the populace into ceaseless working for ever more expensive housing throughout their lives. Home ownership is not just a national objective but also a burden to be borne by all nationals.

It is not necessarily true that pandering to those who have been priced out of the market would be a great disservice to existing home owners. Many existing home owners have children who would someday become first-time home owners. Ensuring that buyers today are not priced out of the market will help ensure that the children of home owners today will also not be priced out of the market in the future. Because if prices keep increasing out of hand, the unaffordability issues of today will become exacerbated and compounded tomorrow. By arresting the unaffordability issues today, we are in fact helping to alleviate future unaffordability issues.

You said we should not disgruntle the majority who are the 900,000 home owners even if it means vexing the 30,000 young couples who set up homes each year. But majority refers not to the 900,000 home owners but to the 2.3 million children of the 900,000 home owners who would eventually set up homes. It is they whom we should not disgruntle, it is they whom we should not vex.

Sudden spikes in HDB prices show that Singapore hasn’t got the big picture right. The socialist provision of mass housing at capitalist prices is a double whammy for Singaporeans. We are forced into ceaseless queuing much like queuing for basic essentials such as bread and butter in previously socialist economies. At least, our socialist comrades paid socialist prices for socialist goods. Here, we are paying capitalist prices for socialist goods instead.

It is not correct to say that 90% of households can afford homes since a significant number of them will have no money left for retirement after having poured all their hard earned money into their homes. These people will be forced to sell their homes back to the government and will be left with no homes in the end. How can you call the home affordable when it gobbles up all your hard earned money leaving you with nothing for retirement? How can a house be affordable if buying it means having to pay for it with money meant for feeding you in old age?

You said new flats are not allowed to soar freely in tandem with a bullish market. That’s bullshit. New flats are pegged to resale flats and soar as freely as resale flats do.

You said market forces allow home owners to realise the value of their assets. But when the price of your asset shoots up by $100,000 overnight without you doing anything to enhance your asset, has your asset changed in anyway? No, your asset hasn’t changed in any way and is still the same asset as before albeit not as new and less pristine. So its value hasn’t increased yet its price has shot up by $100,000. This is no different from the price of rice shooting up overnight due to shortage in supply even though it is still the same rice. This is not realising the value of assets, this is hyper inflation.


Thank you


Ng Kok Lim

</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[scroobal]

Ng Kok Lim is brilliant . He has been the best writer thus far. Always to the point, good grasp of the issue and is not critical for the sake of being critical. Who the hell is he? Where did he come from?

 

[elephanto]

Always the channel is TR.

Ng Kok Lim, a 'relative' of Ng E Jay ?

 

[Einfield]

If you already own a house or several houses, then property price boom is god news.

If you are a young couple with a few K income and trying to set up a family and want to buy a HDB and a car, then you are screwed.

So depending on which side you are, you can't please everyone.

So both writer is basically looking at the issue and took position on both extreme sides.

A smart way out is to tax any FT for the capital gains and use that to offset some of the cost for local first time home buyers.

 

[jw5]

If you already own a house or several houses, then property price boom is god news.

If you are a young couple with a few K income and trying to set up a family and want to buy a HDB and a car, then you are screwed.

So depending on which side you are, you can't please everyone.

So both writer is basically looking at the issue and took position on both extreme sides.

A smart way out is to tax any FT for the capital gains and use that to offset some of the cost for local first time home buyers.

If you own one property that you are living in and don't plan to sell or upgrade, a perpetual rise in property prices is really not good news at all. In fact, it's not even news. But you are absolutely right to say that rising property prices is only good news for rich people with more than one investment properties and really bad news for young working adults trying to start a family.

The government will never impose tax on FTs to benefit the locals. They have already made their position clear.
FTs are needed to "do the jobs that Singaporeans don't want to do", FTs are needed to "supplement the dwindling local population", FTs are needed to "provide talent and expertise that locals don't have", FTs are needed so that the "foreign companies they work for will continue to stay here or come here". None of which has been proven by hard evidence.

 

[Einfield]

Yes, I forget to add the the present gov is pro FT, I see FT family investing in local property and PR in HDB resale market, some already cash in and left.

Do the gov know about the situation? Sure they do.
Are they doing anything? Not likely as this is revenue to them
Are there no political price to pay? Not in SG, majority here not very bright, don't really care or plain ignorant.

If you own one property that you are living in and don't plan to sell or upgrade, a perpetual rise in property prices is really not good news at all. In fact, it's not even news. But you are absolutely right to say that rising property prices is only good news for rich people with more than one investment properties and really bad news for young working adults trying to start a family.

The government will never impose tax on FTs to benefit the locals. They have already made their position clear.
FTs are needed to "do the jobs that Singaporeans don't want to do", FTs are needed to "supplement the dwindling local population", FTs are needed to "provide talent and expertise that locals don't have", FTs are needed so that the "foreign companies they work for will continue to stay here or come here". None of which has been proven by hard evidence.

 

[ashjaw]

Ng Kok Lim is brilliant . He has been the best writer thus far. Always to the point, good grasp of the issue and is not critical for the sake of being critical. Who the hell is he? Where did he come from?

guess he must be this guy from the science and maths dept:
Ng Kok Lim
P: 31001305
E: [email protected]

http://www.rp.sg/staffdirectory/staffinformation.aspx

 

[jw5]

Yes, I forget to add the the present gov is pro FT, I see FT family investing in local property and PR in HDB resale market, some already cash in and left.

Do the gov know about the situation? Sure they do.
Are they doing anything? Not likely as this is revenue to them
Are there no political price to pay? Not in SG, majority here not very bright, don't really care or plain ignorant.

Another reason why they don't see the need to do anything is because since they are so rich, it doesn't affect them very much.

 

[ahleebabasingaporethief]

<table id="msgUN" width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="3"><tbody><tr><td id="msgUNsubj" valign="top">

Coffeeshop Chit Chat - TR writer farked Chua Mui Hoong bitch</td><td id="msgunetc" align="right" nowrap="nowrap"> </td></tr></tbody></table><table class="msgtable" width="96%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="msg" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr class="msghead"><td class="msgbfr1" width="1%"> </td><td><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr class="msghead" valign="top"><td class="msgF" width="1%" align="right" nowrap="nowrap">From: </td><td class="msgFname" width="68%" nowrap="nowrap">kojakbt_89 <nobr></nobr> </td><td class="msgDate" width="30%" align="right" nowrap="nowrap">1:15 am </td></tr><tr class="msghead"><td class="msgT" width="1%" align="right" 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 class="msgleft" rowspan="4" width="1%"> </td><td class="wintiny" align="right" nowrap="nowrap">33854.1 </td></tr><tr><td height="8"></td></tr><tr><td class="msgtxt">Property: Do something drastic or do nothing?

May 30th, 2010 |

Author: Your Correspondent

http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/05/30/property-do-something-drastic-or-do-nothing/

Dear Ms Chua,

I refer to your article dated 20 Apr 2010.

You said it is disingenuous to either ‘do something drastic’ or ‘do nothing’ because either action would cause the majority of Singaporeans who are neither first-time home owners nor super rich to be worse off. It is indeed disingenuous of you to think that the majority of Singaporeans aren’t first-time home owners. There are 3.2 million Singaporeans in 900,000 households. That means there are 2.3 million Singaporeans who do not as yet own homes and would thus be first-time home owners sooner or later. In other words, first-time home owners (sooner or later) outnumber existing home owners by more than 2 to 1. Thus, if the ingenuous thing to do is to make the majority better off, it follows that we should ‘do something drastic’ for current and future first-time home owners since they are in the majority.

You said the government’s handling of the property market has been a lot more right than wrong. There is not a lot of truth to what you say unless you can back it up with a lot more fact. HDB prices shot through the roof in 1997 and are shooting through the roof again. Two sudden spikes in a short span of twelve years and you call that a lot more right than wrong? How much more wrong can we get? One spike every other year?

‘Short-term glitch’ is a poor excuse for something that could essentially have been avoided had the government had better foresight.

A lot is not going right in housing, no thanks to the government’s insistence that the resale market be treated as a ‘free’ and peggin of new flat prices to resale flat prices which essentially exposes new flat prices to ‘free’ market price fluctuations.

Yes, the government has turned housing into a social policy that has successfully enslaved the populace into ceaseless working for ever more expensive housing throughout their lives. Home ownership is not just a national objective but also a burden to be borne by all nationals.

It is not necessarily true that pandering to those who have been priced out of the market would be a great disservice to existing home owners. Many existing home owners have children who would someday become first-time home owners. Ensuring that buyers today are not priced out of the market will help ensure that the children of home owners today will also not be priced out of the market in the future. Because if prices keep increasing out of hand, the unaffordability issues of today will become exacerbated and compounded tomorrow. By arresting the unaffordability issues today, we are in fact helping to alleviate future unaffordability issues.

You said we should not disgruntle the majority who are the 900,000 home owners even if it means vexing the 30,000 young couples who set up homes each year. But majority refers not to the 900,000 home owners but to the 2.3 million children of the 900,000 home owners who would eventually set up homes. It is they whom we should not disgruntle, it is they whom we should not vex.

Sudden spikes in HDB prices show that Singapore hasn’t got the big picture right. The socialist provision of mass housing at capitalist prices is a double whammy for Singaporeans. We are forced into ceaseless queuing much like queuing for basic essentials such as bread and butter in previously socialist economies. At least, our socialist comrades paid socialist prices for socialist goods. Here, we are paying capitalist prices for socialist goods instead.

It is not correct to say that 90% of households can afford homes since a significant number of them will have no money left for retirement after having poured all their hard earned money into their homes. These people will be forced to sell their homes back to the government and will be left with no homes in the end. How can you call the home affordable when it gobbles up all your hard earned money leaving you with nothing for retirement? How can a house be affordable if buying it means having to pay for it with money meant for feeding you in old age?

You said new flats are not allowed to soar freely in tandem with a bullish market. That’s bullshit. New flats are pegged to resale flats and soar as freely as resale flats do.

You said market forces allow home owners to realise the value of their assets. But when the price of your asset shoots up by $100,000 overnight without you doing anything to enhance your asset, has your asset changed in anyway? No, your asset hasn’t changed in any way and is still the same asset as before albeit not as new and less pristine. So its value hasn’t increased yet its price has shot up by $100,000. This is no different from the price of rice shooting up overnight due to shortage in supply even though it is still the same rice. This is not realising the value of assets, this is hyper inflation.


Thank you


Ng Kok Lim

</td></tr><tr><td> </td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

Excellent! 5 STARS!!!!!!!!

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[longbow]

I disagree. If your property is increasing at say twice the rate of inflation, why is that bad??? You could always do a reverse mortgage or downgrade at retirement to tap on the equity gains.

I would rather that than a property is appreciates below that of inflation. Not only do you have less equity to tap on, a depreciating asset mean that owners are less willing to maintain it and tha might lead to slums.

If you own one property that you are living in and don't plan to sell or upgrade, a perpetual rise in property prices is really not good news at all.

 

[kingrant]

The real culprit is not asset appreciation or the rise in property prices. The real culprit is the widening disparity between private sector income growth and asset inflation. The fault falls squarely on the govt. who has done nothing at all to create jobs that could have promised higher pay for the past 2 decades since China sucked away all manufacturing jobs and FDIs. Remember all that talk abt higher value added jobs? Private sector income growth was further stagnated by the advent of the financial crisis, then the recession, and then depressed further by the govt's liberal immigration policy that flooded the mkt with cheap labour. Public service pay was not affected so much by this govt's pampering of the civil and elite service with exorbitant pay. But property prices didnt fall much but remained steady during the crisis or the recession as it was just coming out of a 10 year property cycle, and now is continuing its northwards creep after a slew of govt initiatives to cool the mkt. So the guy to bash is still the govt but different Ministry. Anyway the fish rot starts in the head, so it is the incompetent son and his Merrymen.

Asset appreciation is always a good thing; but assets must be affordable and accessible to all who want to get it.

 

[kingrant]

The civil service and public sector are pretty much insulated from the wage fluctuations in the private sector. Reflect on these:

When economy is booming, public servants take credit led by the Cabinet Minisiters because their pay are pegged to the GDP. Private sector bosses are slower to pay out more - naturally.

When economy tanks, govt tries its darndest to keep the GDP numbers up because their pay are pegged to it. So they import loads of cheap foreign labour to keep the GDP numbers up. Private sector employers who have been grumbling about Singaporeans' high pay expectations are only too glad to see this cheap labour coming and wantonly soak it up. More Sinkies get fired in favour of cheaper sources which means lowering of household purchasing power from meals to rents to HDB flats. The rest of the private sector sees wage level dropping and Sinkies have to bite the bullet or hit the dust.

While this is going on, govt pay remains static but not dropping. There are no major announcement of massive job cuts. If any, they are likely to have been in the outsourceable services. So depts like IT, HR, Admin, got outsurced to private sector e.g. virtual.org which now handles all of travel matters, recruitment, trg, admin matters previously in MOE, MOF etc. These providers are probably corporatised from the parent Ministries or stat boards and for a while the Sinkies inside will still be insulated until these service providers struggle to keep their costs down, so they can bid the lowest for the next term. And who do you think they will hire? You guess it - again cheap PRCs, Ah Nehs etc. Again slowly the sinkies inside will be displaced, and there's no prize for guessing where all our jobless sinkies come from. Previously the Ah Soh who used to clean yr HDB staircase landings is now replaced by 4 banglas who can do the job cheaper and more , 2x a day, because the EMS has been outsourced to third paty long ago. So yr Ah Soh is now rummaging the rubbish for waste paper, selling tissues, or just sitting there plain dumbed.

All this, after 50 years of glorious PAP rule!

 

[oli9]

The government will never impose tax on FTs to benefit the locals. They have already made their position clear.

Then the onus is on the FTs to take up PR or citizenships.I totally agree that some form of tax must be levied on the FTs.
For those who owned more than 1 properties (there's quite of number of them in Sinkyland) the property tax should be increased substantially on the next property owned. Its absurb that one can owned 10 porperties but can only get to stay in 1 at any 1 time. But the rest are for rental income (which theyre already taxed individually or maybe not) which more or less covered the property taxes. Home rental is in demand now so owners can dictate prices but property tax policies has not changed at all, not esp for those who owned more than 2 properties.

 

[kingrant]

Prop tax for residential props are already set lower deliberately than for leased props.

For those who owned more than 1 properties (there's quite of number of them in Sinkyland) the property tax should be increased substantially on the next property owned.

 

[cass888]

Yes, I forget to add the the present gov is pro FT, I see FT family investing in local property and PR in HDB resale market, some already cash in and left.

Do the gov know about the situation? Sure they do.
Are they doing anything? Not likely as this is revenue to them
Are there no political price to pay? Not in SG, majority here not very bright, don't really care or plain ignorant.

Again depends on which side you are on. If you are a Singaporean about-to-upgrade HDB owner, you would be happy that foreigners are allowed to buy the HDB flats.

 

[bryanlim1972]

Previously the Ah Soh who used to clean yr HDB staircase landings is now replaced by 4 banglas who can do the job cheaper and more , 2x a day, because the EMS has been outsourced to third paty long ago. So yr Ah Soh is now rummaging the rubbish for waste paper, selling tissues, or just sitting there plain dumbed.

All this, after 50 years of glorious PAP rule!

when the government cuts costs, generally its the citizens who benefit.

the problem is many-fold -

a. give the ah soh back her job, but means the estate has to make do with one Sg cleaner instead of 4 foreigner cleaners.kpkb singaporeans want cheap and fast and good, would they accept the ah soh cleaner?

b. hire the 4 foreign cleaners, and give the ah soh welfare payouts, resulting in higher taxes/fees for all.

c. or ideally, hire the 4 foreigner cleaners, and channel the cost savings to all the displaced ah sohs. but old man lee doesn't advocate welfare, so it will never come to pass in his lifetime.

every capitalist country needs a lower class in society - the rich(er) feeds off the labours of the poor(er). if you don't agree, it makes you a communist.

 

[kingrant]

It is because this PAP govt runs everything like a corporation, which public service shld not be about. Not everything can or shld be run like a corporation. Some elements of socialism shld exist. We scoffed and sniffed at western democracies for their failed welfare plans. But they are not first world OECD countries for nothing. These countries are already talking about a happiness index not GDP or per capita income.

when the government cuts costs, generally its the citizens who benefit.

the problem is many-fold -

a. give the ah soh back her job, but means the estate has to make do with one Sg cleaner instead of 4 foreigner cleaners.kpkb singaporeans want cheap and fast and good, would they accept the ah soh cleaner?

b. hire the 4 foreign cleaners, and give the ah soh welfare payouts, resulting in higher taxes/fees for all.

c. or ideally, hire the 4 foreigner cleaners, and channel the cost savings to all the displaced ah sohs. but old man lee doesn't advocate welfare, so it will never come to pass in his lifetime.

every capitalist country needs a lower class in society - the rich(er) feeds off the labours of the poor(er). if you don't agree, it makes you a communist.

 

[scroobal]

The economy is structurally wrong and they don't have the smart minds to turn it around so for the time being the objective is to keep wages low and the economy buzzing. And you have just identified exactly that.

when the government cuts costs, generally its the citizens who benefit.

the problem is many-fold -

a. give the ah soh back her job, but means the estate has to make do with one Sg cleaner instead of 4 foreigner cleaners.kpkb singaporeans want cheap and fast and good, would they accept the ah soh cleaner?

b. hire the 4 foreign cleaners, and give the ah soh welfare payouts, resulting in higher taxes/fees for all.

c. or ideally, hire the 4 foreigner cleaners, and channel the cost savings to all the displaced ah sohs. but old man lee doesn't advocate welfare, so it will never come to pass in his lifetime.

every capitalist country needs a lower class in society - the rich(er) feeds off the labours of the poor(er). if you don't agree, it makes you a communist.

 

[cass888]

Its absurb that one can owned 10 porperties but can only get to stay in 1 at any 1 time.

Nothing absurd about it.