Category: Singapuraku

  • HDB Tells Irate DBSS Owner To Fix Own Problem As Defects Liability Period Over

    HDB Tells Irate DBSS Owner To Fix Own Problem As Defects Liability Period Over

    Ms Wee, one of the residents at the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS), The Peak at Toa Payoh filed a complaint with the Housing Development Board (HDB) after having a huge long crack appearing on her balcony door.

    Ms Wee wrote to the HDB, “My balcony door has a huge long crack that suddenly appeared without any impact of any sort. I am worried that it will break further and hurt my toddler and preschooler.”

    cracked screen

    The reply by HDB is as followed,

    “Our inspection on 11 Aug 2015 revealed that there is a crack on the bottom left area of 2nd panel master bedroom glass sliding door towards the master bedroom balcony area. We wish to explain that the flat purchasers have entered into a Sale and Purchase (S&P) agreement directly with the developer.

    We wish to inform that the defects liability period under Clause 17 of the Sale and Purchase Agreement is 12 months from the date you receive the Notice of Vacant Possession. The defects liability period for your flat has since expired on 4 Jun 2013.

    We understand that the developer has replied to you pertaining to your feedback on the master bedroom sliding door. To address your safety concerns, you may engage own contractor to proceed with the replacement accordingly.”

    Frustration due to multiple defects

    In Ms Wee’s reply to HDB, she claimed that the developer has yet replied to her query. She also exclaimed that despite living in her former flat at Toa Payoh Lorong 2 for more than 2 decades prior to moving, she never had a sliding door glass or any of her windows for that matter, crack in this manner for no rhyme or reason.

    She therefore thinks it is probobly either there was a hairline crack in the window, not visible to the human eye (just like the MBR toilet’s ceiling’s waterproofing was broken by their worker whilst installing the brackets) or the material is not good.

    “These are things I cannot figure out before the DLP is up right? But the built of it definitely has issues IMHO. It’s been less than three years since we moved in. Call me baffled.” said Ms Wee.

    She added that she thinks it is terribly unfair that residents have been charged an arm and a leg for the DBSS flats, and then realize that lousy materials were used and then have to further pay to fix the issue.

    “I frankly cannot afford to fix it with three kids on a single income. We never imagined this sort of incident could happen neither did could we possible imagine that the DBSS flats are of such inferior make and quality. HDB must not assume if people live in DBSS flats, they must be rich and be able to afford such repairs. Financial circumstances can change.” said Ms Wee.

    She asked HDB to advice me on how she can request for further assistance in this matter as she is not willing to have to take on the burden of replacing this glass door.

    Referring to the existing defects in her HDB flat, Ms Wee lamented, “We already have so many things to replace in less than two years – cabinet doors have warped, bathroom fixtures were not working slightly after a year, kitchen tap is rusting after the 1.5 years mark. The cost to replace all that is already phenomenal for a single income family.”

    The recent cases of DBSS’s defects have been a hot topic among citizens in the past few months.

    For example, Pasir Ris ONE, drew national attention for its narrow corridor, badly designed ceiling of the corridor, and for its poor workmanship within the units.

    In June, and in response to these complaints, the HDB said most of the flaws were “surface imperfections”.

    Minister of National Development, Mr Khaw Boon Wan has so far not said much about the complaints, except that homeowners can send their feedback to MND and the HDB, and they would see if they could assist homeowners after looking into the cases.

     

    Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

  • Myanmar FT Looks For Own Countrymen To Fill HIgh-Paying Job At Yishun EC

    Myanmar FT Looks For Own Countrymen To Fill HIgh-Paying Job At Yishun EC

    Dear ASS,

    I really hope that you can share this with our fellow Singaporeans and show our Ministers this is the problem happening in Singapore. It is real, it is happening, whenever we bring in foreigners to this country, they will bring in more of their own countryman in.

    This is the reason why we Singaporean find it hard to find jobs even though we have the skills for it. This Myanmar FT is looking out for his own countryman and looking to hire a Residential Technical Officer (RTO) for $4,000 salary. That is good money and shouldn’t such better jobs be given to Singaporeans before being farmed to foreigners?

    Are you saying that no Singaporean is willing to do the job for such good money? Impossible lah! Sigh… now its all FTs helping FTs and Singaporeans are losing out. Govt if you see this, can you do something? This is for an Yishun Executive Condominium project.

    A Frustrated Singaporean
    A.S.S. Contributor

     

    Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

  • Has Lee Hsien Loong Changed Our National Pledge?

    Has Lee Hsien Loong Changed Our National Pledge?

    In August 2009, Lee Kuan Yew suggested that the pledge was just an aspiration to the dismay of NMP Viswa Sadasivan who had sought to move a motion to reaffirm the tenets enshrined in our National Pledge.

    Now 6 years on, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, not to be outdone by his father, has gone one step further. He concluded his recent National Day message with a chilling desecration of the pledge.

    50 years on, on our Golden Jubilee, we will gather again at the Padang. We will sing “Majulah Singapura” proudly, and recite the National Pledge. We will rejoice in the success of our last five decades, and commit ourselves anew to work together as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build Singapore, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity, and progress for our nation.

    (See http://www.pmo.gov.sg/mediacentre/prime-minister-lee-hsien-loongs-national-day-message-2015-english for the full transcript.)

    In case we have forgotten, here is what every Singaporean child pledges daily in school:-

    We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language, or religion to build a democratic society based on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

    Were the substitution of “democratic society” with “Singapore” and the eradication of “based on justice and equality” a cunning sleight of hand or a mere careless omission?

    When a leader changes the pledge in a manner which diminishes the importance of “democracy”, “justice” and “equality”, it spells trouble and augurs badly for us all and requires some deep soul searching on our part

    Will we ever know or forever be left wondering?  How does one form a reasonable judgment as to the intentions of the Prime Minister? Short of a clear and unambiguous statement from the PM’s office, are we left only to speculate or can we form a legitimate opinion based on his actions in recent months and years?

    The omission of “democracy” and “justice” appear to be consistent with the acts of an individual who has proceeded with the defamation charges brought against Roy Ngerng or the treatment of Amos Yee by the state for calling his father a “horrible person”.

    As for the notion of equality, speaking in 2013 at an inaugural DBS Asia Leadership dialogue, the Prime Minister had this to say:

    In fact, if I can get another 10 billionaires to move to Singapore and set up their base here, my Gini coefficient will get worse but I think Singaporeans will be better off...

    (http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/pm-getting-politics-right-critical-spore)

    Perhaps for the Prime Minister, equality is no longer a consideration given the focus on getting “billionaires to move to Singapore”. Could the elimination of “equality” in his message also shed light on his recent comments on the need for a “certain natural aristocracy in the system”? Should we the citizens of Singapore therefore resign ourselves to the sight of large number of our old folks carrying cardboard, cleaning toilets and wiping tables with their hunched backs and trembling hands whilst being shouted at by patrons, stall-owners and managers of food courts?

    Is it truly possible for our nation’s leader to forget the pledge? Could it justifiably be argued that the speech was merely a paraphrase of the pledge which would be a difficult argument to accept given that the pledge was inserted almost word-for-word into the speech except for the elimination of the most critical phrase which anchors it and gives it impetus – “to build a democratic society based on justice and equality”.

    Then again, perhaps, we need to take a hard look at the last 50 years and wonder if the Prime Minister was like his father merely stating a reality which we the citizens of Singapore have chosen to ignore – that ultimately this is what the last 50 years of nation building by the PAP has been about – a Faustian bargain between the Party and the People – one in which democracy, justice and equality has been sacrificed for happiness, prosperity and progress.

    It is time for a drastic change and for us to inform the Prime Minister that we, the citizens of Singapore, intend to cash in the promissory note enshrined in our pledge of a “democratic society based on justice and equality” at GE2015 regardless of what he or his father thinks of our National Pledge.

    JN

    * Submitted by TRE reader.

     

    Source: www.tremeritus.com

  • Democratic Progressive Party Introduces Harvard Graduate As Candidate In Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC

    Democratic Progressive Party Introduces Harvard Graduate As Candidate In Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC

    The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has pitched a Harvard graduate to be among the slate of candidates it and the Singapore People’s Party (SPP) will be jointly fielding in Bishan-Toa Payoh Group Representation Constituency.

    Ms Nadine Yap, 46, graduated with a sociology degree from Harvard College in 1992 and went on to complete a Master of Arts from Harvard University three years later.

    In an interview with TODAY, the Eurasian of Chinese-German mix said she wants to contest in the coming elections because she believes there needs to be more diverse types in Parliament.

    Referring to the People’s Action Party’s team for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, the mother-of-two described them as “people who walked a very narrow path to success”.

    “The current set of PAP candidates, they look like very good … capable people. But they are two civil servants, a doctor, a banker, and CEO of a REIT company,” said Ms Yap. “Although I think one might look at my credentials and say ‘you look like one of them’ … I am an entrepreneur; a technologist. I am trained to think outside of the box. I am not averse to failure. So I think Bishan-Toa Payoh, and Singapore in general, needs more voices like this.”

    Ms Yap spent years in the United States working for three technology start-ups as well as e-commerce giant Amazon, as a technical product manager. In 2006, returned to Singapore and joined technology company Yahoo!, also in the area of products.

    She now works as a vice-president of product at Temasys, which develops platforms for next generation real-time communications applications.

    Ms Yap, who joined DPP as a member in December last year, added that she is not “virulently anti-PAP”. Rather, she believes the greater Opposition presence in Parliament has brought about good change.

    “The PAP is making changes, and part of it is because of an increasingly credible opposition. If the PAP ends up improving because of this, then sure, why not be part of it?” she said.

    As for issues that she is looking to champion, Ms Yap pointed to education. One of her two daughters, both in primary school, is dyslexic, and she believes greater support is needed.

    She believes that she would appeal to the many families who have moved to the constituency for the many reputable schools there, as well as Professionals, Managers, Executives, and Technicians — a group that her party chief Benjamin Pwee has identified form a big proportion of swing voters.

    Meanwhile, Mr Pwee said he has presented 10 potential candidates — including Ms Yap and himself — for the SPP to consider to field in the five-member Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC. The DPP’s list includes architect Juliana Juwahir, party chairman Hamim Aliyas, and businessman Chia Ser Lin.

    “We are still waiting for (SPP chairman) Lina Chiam to decide how many candidates from her side and how many from our side … then we will sit down and both sides will talk. All five must be able to work as a team for the long haul,” he said.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Tharman: Social Upliftment Is Real Success Story

    Tharman: Social Upliftment Is Real Success Story

    At the heart of the Singapore story in the past 50 years is its broad-based social upliftment, not its multi-fold increase in gross domestic product per capita, said Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam yesterday as he stressed that the Government’s more decisive shift towards mitigating inequality began close to a decade ago.

    “It’s not just the innovation of the last five years. And I recognise, of course, that there’s some political cunning in saying that this all came about because of GE2011,” he said, referring to the General Election four years ago.

    “I’m sorry, it didn’t. The world didn’t start in 2011. We made very clear our intentions and our motivations in 2007, stated that it was going to be a multi-year strategy and, step by step, starting from the kids when they’re young, through working life, and into the senior years, we’ve been moving towards a more inclusive society.”

    Mr Tharman, who is also Finance Minister, added: “We intend to continue on this journey, learning from experience and improving where we can. But this is not the result of 2011.”

    The broad-based social upliftment came about through a combination of economic and social policies, and Singapore’s economy could not have succeeded without social strategies, he said at the Economic Society of Singapore’s SG50 Special Distinguished Lecture last night. “Social strategies were critical all along the way,” he said. “Economic and social strategies have gone hand in hand and that is the Singapore story.”

    From the 1960s to 1980s, the focus was very much on economic survival with very little support for the poor in the “explicit sense”, he said. Social well-being went up through focusing on the fundamental basics such as jobs and housing.

    Mr Tharman noted that in the 1965 Budget speech by Mr Lim Kim San, there was only one mention of social intervention — the provision of 40 more places at Mount Emily Girls’ Home to cater to a total of 85 girls.

    From the 1990s, social policies started coming to the fore, with Edusave grants for students, Medifund to assist the poor with medical expenses and housing grants for the resale market announced, he said.

    From around 2006, a more decisive rebalancing to ensure Singapore remains an inclusive society began, he added.

    Rebutting sceptics who said the shift came about after the 2011 General Election, Mr Tharman flashed charts to show the amount of government transfers lower-income households received, after paying taxes.

    In 2005, the bottom 20 per cent of households in terms of income received S$103 in net government transfers for every S$100 earned. In 2010, the quantum of net transfers increased to S$136. By 2015, the figure was S$163.

    Government transfers include Workfare income supplements, housing grants, healthcare and education subsidies.

    In the next phase of development, the Government wants to make sure Singapore becomes a more inclusive and innovative society, said Mr Tharman, who noted that “the two things go hand in hand”.

    Singapore must keep creating value and earn its place in the world by being original to keep incomes growing. It must also keep working to ensure “birth is never destiny”, he said. The low- and middle-income will also need more assurance as they get older.

    The Silver Support Scheme, which will provide payouts to needy elderly, will temper inequality in one’s golden years. The Central Provident Fund scheme is also a key pillar as it is not only an individual savings scheme, but also one that features government transfers to the lower-income through Workfare, housing grants and extra interest earned.

    Based on the latest policies in these areas, a 25-year-old at the 10th percentile of the income ladder today would have received about S$200,000 from the Government — or about 40 per cent of his total CPF savings — by the time he turns 65, Mr Tharman said.

    All countries would like to sustain income growth, mitigate inequality and keep social mobility, but few have succeeded or maintained success on all three fronts, he said. But Singapore has not done badly on these fronts.

    Singapore’s Gini coefficient was relatively high even back in 1980 and its level of inequality now is “not particularly high” before taxes and transfers, when compared with countries such as Finland and the United States, using the OECD method that adjusts for family size.

    Countries like Denmark and Finland achieve large reductions in their Gini coefficients after taxes and transfers, but this is through heavy taxation on the middle-income, said Mr Tharman.

    Singapore’s approach is to provide targeted help to temper inequality, while keeping relatively low overall tax revenues and helping everyone to move up, he said.

    The Republic needs to work hard at it, experiment where possible and learn from mistakes, “but not think there’s only one model that we need to follow”, said Mr Tharman.

    “We can’t take a hands-off policy, it can’t be all about self-reliance because the natural workings of the market will lead to inequality. Excessive inequality and it will just sap the morale of our society,” he said. “Neither do we want a strategy of handouts all the way because that just takes the pride out of people and it saps the energy of our society.”

    Mr Tharman added: “We’ve got to have a system … of hand-ups starting from young, helping everyone discover their strengths, helping them to have a real chance of succeeding in what they’re doing and having the pride of contributing, so that everyone feels they’re contributing even as they get a fair deal.”

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

deneme bonusu