Inside story:the lady in the video invaded a taxi ride refuses to pay money,started bragging abt how rich she is and wanted to throw money at the cab driver.
At that moment my bro Tay Dong Han step in to help solve the problem by assisting the police with help from some good fellow singaporeans
Pls help share thank you
Source: Cyrus Goh
Water is a vital resource and a basic human right. Yet, the Government of Singapore sees it fit to use utilitarian or volume based pricing model for the provision of water.
Such a model affects both the rich and poor and some say, the poor are more adversely affected than the rich.
A 30% price hike will be a stretch for the poorer families while the rich has the means the ride the price hike.
If it was the intention of the government to elicit any kind if behavioural change in the consumption of water, we’ll probably see the poor conserve a lot more.
One spokesperson from IPS said that the 30% price hike is to create awareness. It’s a poor choice of words even for a PAP apologist on the IPS payroll. What’s he smoking?
Call a spade a spade a price hike is not a water conservation campaign or an awareness programme.
In an article written by Leong Hze Hian, he said that the water price in Hong Kong is priced 14 times lower. Perhaps they have better technology but whatever the reasons are, it’s definitely merits a discussion in parliament.
The budget seems to benefit the middle class more than the underclass. The 20% tax relief capped at S$500 benefits the middle class for sure.
Perhaps a tax on manual car wash and a closer watch on how water is used is F&B outlets when dishes are washed is much needed.
With the advancement in smart metering technologies, it is possible to have different pricing structures for industrial versus residential users by districts, flat-types and household income.
A different pricing structure definitely adds complexity to the pricing regime but it will definitely have the intended effect of changes in consumption patterns.
Source: www.theindependent.sg
Singaporeans have been hiring agencies in China to get their husbands’ mistresses to back off, according to a foreign report on these “mistress-ditching” firms.
But what if the spouse’s lover is in Singapore?
To save their marriages from falling apart, Singaporeans have been paying five-figure sums to hire honey trappers to seduce their own misbehaving husbands or wives, reveal private investigators here.
The honey trapper will attempt to seduce the third party or the cheating spouse to destroy the extramarital relationship, they say.
Yes, agents have been engaged by distraught husbands, too.
“It is not an advertised service. The request must come from the client,” says Mr David Ng from DP Quest Private Investigation Consultancy.
“They usually know what they want. They would request a particular profile of a honey trapper that they want, specific to the preference of their cheating spouses.”
Source: www.tnp.sg
Dear All Singapore Stuff,
I would like to share my reflections on what the upcoming SG50 anniversary means to me, based on my personal experiences as an average Singaporean.
I have come to realize that the poor and lower-middle class represent an entirely different Singapore from the rich and upper-middle class. We are like two different nations.
Kids from the rich and upper-middle class are different from birth. They are equipped with skills an average Singaporean will never get. They are taught to play various musical instruments, taught a variety of sports and even go for supplementary classes from a young age. Not surprisingly these kids end up doing well academically and also excel in other activities. Even if they do not succeed academically,they have the financial support and necessary connections to set up their own businesses to establish themselves. These kids dominate the better schools and will inevitably become the next generation of elites. As an end result, we have the elite producing more elites.
What happens to the kids from the poor and lower middle class? The vast majority ends up in the neighbourhood schools. Less conducive environment, no guarantee of good teachers (I was once scolded by a MOE teacher for bothering her with too many questions about a humanities subject) and limited enrichment programmes. There are less opportunities for students to participate in competitions to boost their own confidence. Many cannot afford tuition. Quite a number are from broken families (myself included), and they are troubled by family problems even as they study. They also have to deal with exposure to kids who smoke, gangsters, bullies and other delinquents. These kids even have to work part-time during school holidays to increase their monthly allowance. Most end up in polytechnics or neighbourhood jcs and very few enter the local universities.
Being one of the few neighbourhood school kids who entered a good jc and then a local university, I experienced a culture shock. I could not relate to the majority of my classmates in my jc. Almost everyone in my jc class stayed in a condo or landed house.
I could not effectively communicate with them because I lacked relevant experiences like overseas trips as well as musical and sports talents. I couldn’t understand why every outing had to involve eating at a restaurant in the city area and why there was so much spending. Most of the girls stayed in condos and frequently called others to come over for tennis games, swimming, barbecues and other frivolous celebrations. I actually felt embarrassed to be staying in a hdb flat with so few fun facilities as I could not engage my classmates in a similar manner. They had perfect families with supportive parents and they went on overseas trips every holiday in contrast to neighbourhood school people who usually worked part-time during holidays.
They were seasoned travelers who had no qualms about staying overseas for weeks without their families! Same thing in university. I found that there were fewer and fewer of the neighbourhood school kids with whom I could better identify. Those I know who went on exchange programmes and overseas CIP trips were mostly scholars and wealthy people. Those with greater purchasing power also enriched their university experience with participation in marathons, camps and clubbing events whereas those who were poorer were stuck with memories of lectures and tutorials, school activities and the inevitable bank loan.
Most of the rich people tend to think and behave similarly. For instance, during jc, they were taking their Grade 8 piano examinations at the same time, they took SATs while preparing for ‘A’ levels and later on in university, they took up driving lessons simultaneously. I could not even afford to take up driving and I didn’t see the point of it because I have no car.
I think the poor and lower middle class appreciate simple pastimes better. A stroll in the park, running at the stadium, playing board games or card games at a void deck or playing basketball at a public basketball court is simply too boring for the wealthier people. Window-shopping without any purchase is ridiculous to them. They will never be seen doing any of these activities and will sneer at you or look bewildered if you even suggest any of these activities. If you say that $13 is too expensive for a movie or that $70 is too much for Universal Studios, they will just scold you for complaining so much. Gradually,they will abandon you for being such a boring and negative person.
I have seen enough to believe that the non-elite can never truly be part of one Singapore with the elites. We have different upbringings, different values, different lifestyles, different educational experiences and a different sense of identity. Our life goals are also different. While the elites love to say that what we see as elite is what they see as meritocracy, the hard truth is that there’s such a thing as inherited meritocracy, and the non-elite lack the necessary resources and upbringing to properly compete with them. This leaves the majority of the non-elite with limited social mobility.
Equality is a lie. Rather than deceive myself into thinking that there can be a true, lasting friendship with an elite person, I choose to believe that elites can never understand or appreciate simplicity while living within the comforts of their condos and landed houses. Of course, I will work hard. But I also accept the reality that I am disadvantaged relative to the wealthier segments of society. Fraternization with them will only be counter-productive to my life goals.
As far as the non-elite like myself are concerned, it is best to leave the elites to their extravagant lifestyles. I strongly believe that the poor should not provide any entertainment to the rich. If we are invited to their parties, we should decline. Leave them to celebrate with their ilk. As we prepare to celebrate Singapore’s golden jubilee, let’s not deceive ourselves into thinking that we are all one. We certainly are not.
Fred
A.S.S. Contributor
Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com
It’s difficult for a heartland born-and-bred Singaporean like me to imagine, but there are apparently people in Singapore who have never lived in, or even stepped into, a Housing Board flat.
When I was discussing property purchases with a group of friends, one of my girlfriends confessed she would not buy a HDB flat because she wouldn’t feel safe in one. She grew up in private property and her first purchase was a condominium.
I got to thinking about this issue, following reports that National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan wants to make it easier for all couples, including high-earning ones, to own and live in a HDB built-to-order (BTO) flat.
In a live radio talk show on Chinese-language station Capital 95.8FM, he is reported to have said: “If you ask for my personal opinion … I generally prefer to give every Singaporean couple a chance of living in HDB.
“You may come from, say, an upper-income group. You do not need an HDB flat. But I feel that it’s good for … almost all Singaporeans to have a chance of living in HDB for five years, and interact with the community.”
He added: “It’s part and parcel of the Singaporean way of life. It’s just like males go for National Service … If we can give them this opportunity of staying in HDB towns, I think there are more positives than negatives.”
His remarks were made in the context of raising the income ceiling for HDB flats, which he said could happen by Sept.
Now, a married couple with a joint monthly income of up to $10,000 can buy a subsidised, new HDB flat. It was raised from $8,000 in 2011.
This isn’t the first time Mr Khaw made such a comment. In an exclusive interview with The Straits Times in April 2013, he had broached the idea of scrapping the income ceiling to allow even couples with very high incomes to own HDB flats, as living in HDB flats would give people more chances to interact with others of different races and incomes. But the lower-income households ones would still get bigger housing grants.
Mr Khaw said then: “If a rich man’s kid wants to apply for a BTO flat, provided he stays the five-year minimum occupation period, there’s nothing wrong with that to me”.
My reaction both times was bemusement.
For most Singaporeans, HDB living is part and parcel of being Singaporean. Most live in HDB estates. Those of us who grew up in one, and moved on to private property, will probably always hanker after the bustle of HDB life.
You see all the BMW-driving businessmen in long-sleeved shirts wiping away beads of sweat as they wolf down their bak chor mee or mee goreng at their favourite HDB coffeeshop and hawker centre, and you see the looks of blissful content on the well-dressed women as they buy their cheap laundry baskets or pick up kitchen utensils at the household sundry shop, and you know you can take the boy or girl out of the HDB estate, but you can’t take the HDB out of the boy or girl.
So the idea that a special policy is needed to encourage people to live in and interact with HDB residents will appear slightly surreal to some. On my Facebook, a friend commented that she felt insulted, as though HDB residents were creatures in a zoo that the rich are being encouraged to visit to see.
I empathise with that comment. It’s like having a special policy to encourage those who live with a permanent bubble around their heads to take their heads out of the bubble and breathe normal air like the rest of us.
Breathing normal air is the default, and should be so. But I can see that if segments of our population have become so used to living in that bubble of air, it would take concerted policy action to persuade them to try normal air for a change.
The truth is that Singapore society is stratifying. Whereas many of today’s middle-aged professionals grew up in HDB flats, it’s probably the case that more of today’s 20-something year old professionals and managers grew up in private housing. So the idea of having them live in and experience HDB life, isn’t a bad one. From the point of view of social cohesion, it makes sense.
In Singapore, public housing caters to the majority of the population – 80 per cent of Singapore resident households live in HDB flats. The idea is precisely that we would all grow up in mixed neighbourhoods that jumble up people of different races, different income groups, and different socioeconomic status.
So it makes sense to encourage the small minority who never had a chance to do that when they were growing up, and encourage them to do so in their young adulthood.
I often wonder how many of today’s young Administrative Service civil servants, and the smart youngsters who enter the banks, the legal profession, and even the media, have lived in HDB flats, and if they have empathy for the average Singaporean who does. These people are future leaders and decision-makers.
If too many of them come from privileged families, they would never have experienced poverty, or suffered from want or anxiety over money problems. But if they had a friend in school or in their neighbourhood who did, and were close enough a confidant to share vicariously in the friend’s struggles, their worldview will be more rounded than the wealthy child who lives with, plays with and goes to school with only other wealthy children.
If raising the income ceiling to allow more young couples to live in HDB flats can help reduce the social gap that can exist between the privileged and the masses, then there are reasons to do so.
I know some readers will argue that HDB flats should be reserved for the lower-income. Let the high-income earners who want to live in HDB estates buy flats on the resale market.
But the fact is that, with 80 per cent living in HDB estates, HDB flat owners already include the high-income. Increasingly, the subsidised HDB flat is being viewed as the birthright of every Singaporean couple. The HDB gravy train gives them a ticket to an affordable first home – and a firm step up the ladder of financial success, if they are lucky enough enough to make hundreds of thousands of dollars subsequently by selling it on the open market.
But opening up the floodgates this way will inevitably lead to demands from other groups to be given the same access to HDB subsidised flats. Mature couples who missed out on buying HDB flats earlier will also want to be allowed to buy subsidised flats. And singles will demand more leeway to benefit from housing subsidies too.
The arguments about the social benefits of having every Singaporean experience HDB living applies equally to them.
Source: http://business.asiaone.com