Tag: Singaporeans

  • SDP: Here’s How You Resolve The HDB 99-Year Lease Problem

    SDP: Here’s How You Resolve The HDB 99-Year Lease Problem

    Singaporeans have been concerned about the recent announcement by Minister for National Development Lawrence Wong that the value of older HDB flats will decline and, eventually, be worth nothing at the end of their 99-year lease.

    HDB owners go into heavy debt and spend their retirement savings paying off this debt only to find that their flats decrease in value and have to be returned to the government at the end of the lease.

    This doesn’t make sense.

    To overcome this problem, the SDP has proposed the Non-Open Market (NOM) scheme for flats. Under this scheme, HDB will base flat prices solely on labour, materials and administrative costs. They will not contain a land cost component as State land does not cost the government any money.

    Currently, the HDB factors in the cost of land which jacks up the prices of the flats making them unaffordable for Singaporeans.

    Excluding the cost of State land will substantially reduce prices for HDB flats. We estimate that the prices for NOM flats will be effectively halved or more, ranging from $70,000 for 2-room flats to $240,000 for 5-room ones.

    But as the name suggests, NOM flats may not be sold on the open market. Owners wanting to sell their flats will have to sell them back to the HDB at a price that will be the original purchase price less the consumed lease.

    Current HDB owners will have the option of converting their flats to NOM ones. When they do this, the government will refund the amount of money based on the original purchase price from the HDB and the price of the same type of NOM flat, subject to a cap.

    The difference between the current system and the SDP’s NOM scheme is that Singaporeans won’t have to spend so much of their CPF savings and income to buy their homes. This will leave them enough funds for retirement and other pursuits.

    Buyers who choose to stay with the current system can continue to buy and sell their flats on the open market. They are, however, subject to the vagaries of the market and face the prospect of depleting their retirement funds by buying hugely over-priced flats.

    Experts have reacted positively to the SDP’s proposal (see here, here, and here).

    The current system ties up the people’s wealth in government property which, ultimately, becomes zero in value. It increases debt while reducing consumer spending and investment. This is not good for the overall economy.

    The SDP believes that housing, in particular public housing, should not be a tradeable commodity. Our flats are our homes where our loved ones live in security and comfort, not profit-making ventures. The NOM scheme is consistent with this principle.

    More important, it frees Singaporeans from the crushing debt burden and overcomes the unthinkable problem that our expensive flats for which we spend a lifetime paying become worthless at the end of 99 years.

    For more information on this subject, please read our alternative housing policy Housing A Nation: Holistic Policies for Affordable Homes here.

     

    Source: http://yoursdp.org

  • Epigram Books Illustrated Handbooks On Singapore’s Main Races Received Mixed Responses Online

    Epigram Books Illustrated Handbooks On Singapore’s Main Races Received Mixed Responses Online

    Epigram Books came under the spotlight earlier this month for a series of illustrated handbooks released by the independent local publisher.

    Authored by Edmund Wee, the founder of Epigram Books, ‘The Understanding Singaporeans’ series consists of four illustrated handbooks. Each handbook contains 20 questions, with answers as well as useful tips, to some of the most asked questions young Singaporeans have revolving around the country’s four main races.

    According to Epigram, the four-book bundle, each representing one ethnic community within the country, was produced with one thought in mind – “How do we respond to the most awkward questions children ask?”

    Readers on the publisher’s Facebook page however, pointed out the misrepresentation between the races and its customs.

    One netizen, Sharifah Husin, said, “The titles should be “Why do Hindus dot their foreheads?” and “Why do Muslims avoid Pork?”. However, since the series is meant to focus on practices unique to each of the four races, a clear understanding of the difference between race and religion must be ensured before publishing the books. Incorrect information transmitted will mislead readers, especially children, who would like to learn more. For example, Non-Hindu Indians do not dot their foreheads, while Non-Muslim Malays do not don the Hijab.”

    While others appreciated the efforts put forth by Epigram Books on “opening a dialogue between races”, some also echoed Sharifah’s sentiments, pointing out that not all Indians are Hindus, and only Hindu women wear ‘bindis’ on their forehead.

    Epigram Books was quick to issue a response, clearing the air and explaining their choice of words for the titles and questions asked from the four-series book.

    Since the beginning of their promotions for the book series, Epigram has been receiving queries about their choice of titles, the publisher explained.

    “To be honest, we had very much the same concerns while debating the merits of these titles. To alleviate those concerns, we made sure to run through the books’ content through various focus groups sourced from representative ethnic communities and associations to ensure that any sensitivities are adequately addressed,” Epigram said, in a post.

    They had picked the titles that best represented “what our children can best relate to and most likely ask, not to mention that they would also grab the attention of adults enough to spark a much-needed conversation on race and religion”.

    Epigram agreed that the book, meant for children between 5- to 8-year-old, can only “scratch the surface of an otherwise complex topic” but they hope that it would be an opportunity for adults to address these “awkward” questions with more confidence.

    “We’d like to ask that you see the Understanding Singaporeans series with the eyes, mind and innocence of a child, so that you can understand how children might come up with these questions in the first place,” Epigram added.

    The series of illustrated books can be purchased from Epigram Books website.

     

    Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

  • Malaysians Getting EP And PR Below Salary Criteria

    Malaysians Getting EP And PR Below Salary Criteria

    I am not sure how long this scene of Malaysians getting special benefits from MOM (to get EP below the salary criteria) has been going on, but it has definitely been around for at least 3 years.

    I know this because my Malaysian ex-colleague in my previous company, has been holding onto her EP (renewed before too) for 3 years despite drawing lesser than the required salary, as stated on MOM’s website.

    When I first got into my previous company, the boss was certainly very confident that he would be able to get me the EP with just paying me $2400. Initially I doubted him, as that was not to my knowledge and it was not openly stated anywhere on MOM’s website about this. However, when the EP came, I checked the application form which my ex-boss has filed to MOM for my work visa, and he did not lie to MOM about the salary that he would pay me monthly. It was indeed reported to MOM as 2,400, and it was approved. It came as a surprise for me, but according to my ex-colleagues, who happen to be mostly Malaysians, it was the same for them.

    I believe that this may not be applicable to other nationalities.. as the Indonesians in the very same company I have mentioned above had to be under S-Pass instead. I even tried checking the self assessment tool just like the user who opened this thread, and my qualifications warrants an EP and S-Pass, whereas an Indonesian with exact same qualifications would only be able to get a S-Pass only.

    Hope that this helps to give a clearer insight… Sorry if I’m reviving an inactive thread, but thought I would just like to share this information. Anyway, peace out.

    https://forum.singaporeexpats.com/viewtopic.php?f=78&t=113024&p=761006#p761006

     

    Source: www.transitioning.org

  • Mat Jailed For Having Sex With Underage Girlfriend Even When She Was 7 Months Pregnant

    Mat Jailed For Having Sex With Underage Girlfriend Even When She Was 7 Months Pregnant

    Despite being told by his 15-year-old girlfriend that she was pregnant, Muhammad Nur Shafiq Mohamed Noor, 22, dismissed her fears and continued to have sex with her, a district court heard.

    This went on even when she was about seven months pregnant.

    On Thursday (May 11), Nur Shafiq was jailed for 18 months after he pleaded guilty to three of 13 charges of sexual penetration of a minor between November 2015 and May last year.

    Deputy Public Prosecutor Kavita Uthrapathy said the victim and Nur Shafiq became acquainted through mutual friends towards the end of October 2015. They subsequently became a couple.

    On Nov 4 and 5 that year, he said he wanted to have sex with her but she rejected him. She had told him she was 15.

    But he persisted and she gave in when they met again on Nov 10. He took her to an HDB block in New Upper Changi Road where he had unprotected sex with her at a staircase landing. They had sex again the next day at the same place.

    Sometime during end-January 2016, she missed her period and suspected she was pregnant. She told Nur Shafiq but he said she was just “late”, and continued to have unprotected sex with her.

    Feeling unsettled, she did a urine test in early February which confirmed her pregnancy.

    Nur Shafiq did not believe she was pregnant even when she showed him the pregnancy test stick.

    Although she did another test with the same result, he still refused to believe her and continued to have sex with her.

    On March 28, the teen met him and his mother at a clinic where her pregnancy was confirmed. Although she agreed with Nur Shafiq’s mother to have an abortion, the doctor at the clinic said she had to go to KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital (KKH) as she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy.

    She was admitted to KKH on April 8 where it was confirmed that she was about 24 weeks pregnant.

    About a month later, Nur Shafiq again asked to have sex with the girl while walking around Novena Square. She was then about seven months pregnant.

    He took her to the basement carpark of the nearby Mount Elizabeth Hospital and had unprotected sex with her.

    Two months later, the victim gave birth to a girl, who has been placed on foster care as the teen is unable to care for her child.

    DPP Kavita had sought 10 months’ jail on each of the charges in view of the aggravating factors.

    District Judge Wong Li Tein sentenced him to nine months’ jail on each charge, and ordered two sentences to run consecutively. She said the only mitigating factor was that he was young.

    The maximum penalty for sexual penetration of a person under 16 years old is 10 years’ jail and a fine.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Local Football Fan: FAS Please Save Our S-League,  Stop Farcical Banner-Size Limitation

    Local Football Fan: FAS Please Save Our S-League, Stop Farcical Banner-Size Limitation

    Warning: Long and sad post ahead, read at own peril

    Glad I made the impromptu decision to go down to Choa Chu Kang Stadium to watch Warriors FC take on Hougang United this evening. I have always been very envious of the unwavering and fervent support shown by the Hougang United fans (Hougang United FC Supporters’ Club, affectionately known as the “Hougang Hools”) towards their players, and even ex-players.

    Tonight was no different – from start to end, the singing, the chanting, the beating of the drums never stopped. “Satu hati, satu Hougang” was the cry – “One heart, One Hougang”, in Bahasa Melayu. “COME ON HOUGANG, COME ON HOUGANG!”

    I didn’t join in. After all, I am a Home United fan, and it would be weird to cheer Hougang on so enthusiastically and chant with the Hools.

    Look at the picture featured in this post. You will see a bunch of banners belonging to the Hougang Hools, who had made their way to the game a couple of hours before kick-off, and painstakingly hung them up by one by one. You will also notice that none of the posters are obstructing the view of the fans, given that they were hung over a ledge.

    So there the Hools were, chanting their lungs out, having a good time, especially after Fumiya Kogure had scrambled the ball home from a few metres out for a precious 1-0 lead against the much-fancied Warriors, who had ex-Dutch and Greek League player Joel Tshibamba in attack.

    Enter CCK Stadium security personnel. Two men came down and spoke to one of the Hougang Hools, telling him to remove the banners. They cited stadium rules and FAS regulations, and said that the maximum size of flags and banners allowed to be brought in was 1m x 1m. To say the Hougang supporters were annoyed is an understatement.

    They felt that there was no reasonable basis for such a rule, given that these banners had been brought all over Singapore to other S-League grounds, without incident. In fact, stadium personnel at Jalan Besar Stadium, right where the FAS Headquarters are located, had no similar objections to such banners. They also repeatedly asked security personnel whose view they were obstructing. The security personnel had no response to this rather valid question.

    Things were getting heated, so I decided to step in and break up what I perceived as increasing hostility between parties. I immediately told the security personnel that I was not a Hougang supporter, and that I was only trying to help. I asked them to show me where they got the rule of 1m x 1m from – they could not answer. So there was this farcical moment where all of us whipped out our mobile phones and tried to verify if this was indeed an FAS regulation.

    “You see the FAS website, it’s there.” It wasn’t. The FAS website is by no means a great source of current information, but that’s another complaint for another day.

    I told the security personnel I understood that their hands were tied, but asked if they could “close one eye” just for today, and then both parties could write in to clarify if the rule applied to banners from supporters’ clubs that did not obstruct anyone’s view. They said they would have to escalate it, but they understood the point I was trying to make.

    I returned to my seat and thought that was the end of it. 10 minutes later, a club official by the name of Eugene, came down and asked to talk to me. Eugene was exceedingly polite, and I think this situation could have been so much worse if Eugene had been more abrasive in his interactions with the Hougang supporters. Eugene explained to me and some of the Hougang Hools that rules are rules, and that this came from an FAS directive at the start of the season, which FAS came up with in consultation with the Singapore Police Force.

    After much debate and some angst, a compromise was reached – Eugene promised he would raise this issue in the post-match report, and seek clarification. For this match, since it was coming to an end, he wouldn’t ask for the banners to be removed. A happy ending of sorts.

    Given that I took on the role of a pseudo-mediator in this dispute, I had to try to maintain some neutrality when I was there. While I pushed for proof that such a rule existed, and asked for its rationale, I also ensured that I re-directed some of the angst away from the security personnel, because at the end of the day, they were just doing their jobs. In my mind, I felt they could have been more flexible, but they were not doing anything wrong. I didn’t want things to get ugly.

    Now that I am at home though, I would just like to say that I think this is farcical, and puts our league in a terrible light.

    1m x 1m. The maximum size of a flag or banner printed to support your team.

    To offer some perspective, that means if you were at a stadium to watch an international game between Singapore and say, Japan, in a crucial World Cup / Asian Cup qualifier, you would not be allowed to bring your Singapore flag along.

    Let that sink in for a bit.

    Now, look at the picture again. The banners were draped over a ledge. The supporters would be seated in the blue area you see in the picture. Exactly who is being blocked by the banners / flags? With respect, I cannot think of a reason for limiting the size of such banners. Perhaps, the original intention of the rule was to prevent fans from making huge banners and then lifting them up while in the stands, obstructing the view of others. If so, then perhaps some clarification from FAS, or some flexibility from security personnel, or club officials is necessary.

    This has been a very long post, so let me just end by saying this: I think it is sad, that in a dying domestic league suffering from a dwindling number of supporters, supporters (who are not paid for this, mind you) are not allowed to express themselves fully, and add to the colour of the league.

    I think it is sad, that in a dying domestic league suffering from a complete lack of atmosphere in certain games, you have a band of fans who are easily the most committed and the loudest in the league, and officials try to dampen their spirits.

    And I think it is incredibly sad, that when I assured the Hools that I would write in to FAS to seek clarification, and also to ask that such banners be allowed, some of them told me not to waste my time. Is that borne out of a lack of faith that even after the elections, nothing is going to change, and our league is gonna die a gradual death?

    I hope not, and I will do everything in my power to ensure it doesn’t happen. But I am only one man, so I urge everyone reading this (if you’re still reading this, haha) to come down and watch an S-League game sometime. Noone to go with? Just give me a shout and I’ll gladly accompany you if I have the time. Eddy not free? Just go down and make new friends!

    So, Football Association of Singapore, please do something. I have faith in the new administration. Come together with the supporters. Let’s save our S-League.

     

    Source: Eddy Hirono

deneme bonusu