Latest Forum Topics / User Research/Opinions | Post Reply |
&&&&&&&& PROFITS & PHILANTHROPHY &&&&&&&&
|
|||||||
AK_Francis
Supreme |
15-Sep-2010 12:32
Yells: "Happy go lucky, cheers." |
||||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Ha ha, not surprising if more to come. Cheers.
|
||||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
15-Sep-2010 12:25
|
||||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Another knee jerk response? Singaporeans can decide if they want to use the shuttle bus services to the integrated resorts Conrad Raj conrad@mediacorp.com.sg If the service was in violation of the casino rules, why did it take some three months for the CRA to act? Is this also another case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing, given that the LTA had given the go ahead? |
||||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||||
|
|||||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
12-Sep-2010 14:06
|
||||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Sep 11, 2010Offer 'same doc' option to allI APPLAUD the polyclinics for introducing the Family Physician (FP) scheme. Under the scheme, a patient pays between two and 2.5 times more than general queue patients to enjoy the following benefits: - Being treated by a senior doctor - Being treated by the same doctor by appointment only - Longer consultation time - Nurse consultation before seeing the doctor - Access to a physiotherapist or dietitian when the need arises - Subsidised rates for medication and lab test - Shorter waiting time Doctors also benefit from the scheme. They have less stress due to the longer consultation time allotted. They have an increased sense of responsibility and better patient-doctor rapport. They also project a more positive professional image to patients. I would like to appeal to polyclinics to look into the possibility of extending the idea of "consultation by the same doctor" for general queue patients as well. Follow-up consultation by the same doctor would be by appointment only. This way, both patients and doctors will benefit. Tan Teck Kwong |
||||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
12-Sep-2010 14:01
|
||||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Based On FOUR PILLARS Of GOOD GOVERNANCE: OPEN * FAIR * JUST * TRANSPARENT ANNUAL gamIng LEVIES shOUld bE revIsed accOrdIngly: RWS S$2,000 MBS S$4,000 PRIVATE JACKPOT CLUBS S$6,000
|
||||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
12-Sep-2010 13:55
|
||||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Sep 11, 2010Will telcos neglect exIstIng customers on older networks?I REFER to the report ('Faster, cheaper high-end broadband'; Sept 1) regarding Singapore's next-generation broadband network. With the arrival of the new network, using fibre-optic technology, will customers who are still on older networks be neglected in view of the telcos' desire to focus on customers signing up for the high-tech network? The two biggest Internet service providers - SingTel and StarHub - are channelling resources into marketing and supporting the fibre-optic network and they could very well end up neglecting customers who are still on the older networks based on ADSL and cable technology. A case in point is my ongoing broadband connection problems with SingTel, which is one of the joint venture partners building the new network, OpenNet. I am currently on an older ADSL contract and my home will not be wired up for the fibre-optic network until late next year. Despite having had the connection issue for more than two weeks, SingTel has yet to fix my problems. Could this be a sign that service providers like SingTel are treating customers on older networks as less important than those who sign up for the fibre-optic network? Chan Kah Fatt |
||||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||||
|
|||||||
niuyear
Supreme |
12-Sep-2010 13:35
|
||||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
If they impose $200 levy entrance per visit, many will pay $2000 !
|
||||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
12-Sep-2010 13:09
|
||||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
FAIR dIstance-based + travel tIme-based gamIng LEVIES SENTOSA is OFFSHORE - gamIng LEVY S$100 MBS is ONSHORE - gamIng LEVEY shOUld be DOUBLED at S$200 [tOO accessIble] PRIVATE JACKPOT CLUBS RIGHT IN CITY CENTRE - tOO cOnvenIent ? ? ? ? tOO temptIng ? ? ? ? PRIVATE JACKPOT CLUBS - gamIng LEVY shOUld be hIgher than pUblIc at S$200 x 1.5 times = S$300 [tOO prIvIlege] nOte: Private TranspOrt prIces mUst be 1.5 tImes Of pUblIc transpOrt prIces |
||||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
12-Sep-2010 12:42
|
||||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Sep 12, 2010Queues form despite stoppageMany say they take free rides to Sentosa, not to visit the casinoMr Joseph Yap being informed by a Resorts World Sentosa staff member in Bishan yesterday that the shuttle services to the integrated resort had ceased. -- ST PHOTO: TERENCE TANDESPITE widespread media coverage that the Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) shuttle services had stopped running, Singaporeans still turned up at pick-up points yesterday in the hope of getting a free ride to the integrated resort. Queues were seen in Ang Mo Kio and Bedok, despite signs that said the service had been terminated. Up to 20 people were waiting at a bus stop in Ang Mo Kio Avenue 8 yesterday at 3pm. When told the shuttle bus was no longer in operation, they reacted with surprise. Said mechanic T.M. Tan, 47, in Mandarin: 'How are we supposed to get there now? So troublesome.' He just wanted to go SENTOSA ? The shuttle service had been in operation since June, serving 19 locations across the island 15 to 33 times a day. It had been ferrying an average of 2,500 passengers daily and was expected to take a crowd of up to 4,000 over the Hari Raya weekend. The shuttle service ceased operations immediately on Friday afternoon after a directive from the Casino Regulatory Authority. Read the full story in The Sunday Times. |
||||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||||
|
|||||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
11-Sep-2010 20:19
|
||||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Citizenship criteria: How much to disclose? — The assurance is that those given the red passport will be assessed on their allegiance to Singapore. Some are wondering, though, as the Government plans to approach a number of permanent residents to sink roots here, if the citizenship criteria can be clearer. Esther Ng estherng@mediacorp.com.sg SINGAPORE PRs know only that they are eligible to apply, if they are at least 21 and have been a PR for at least “two to six years prior to the date of application”, through two citizenship routes: Economic merits and family ties, according to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority’s (ICA) website. Last year, the criteria was tightened, with the only detail given that the ability to integrate was an important consideration. Some countries such as Australia have a clear points system and Institute of Policy Studies research fellow Leong Chan Hoong is one for a more transparent criteria and process, so that applicants know what they are “getting into rather than just filling in forms”. Said Dr Leong: “The system has to be one that Singaporeans feel is legitimate and assures them about who is being admitted to Singapore and the skills they bring.” While the ICA has said before that it does not disclose publicly the exact criteria to prevent abuse of information, the National Population Secretariat has said previously that language, culture and contributions to society are broad citizenship considerations. Those whom MediaCorp spoke to suggested clear indicators in the areas such as education, number of years as a PR, special skills or contribution to Singapore, a salary not less than the median wage and children who have served National Service or have become Singaporeans. Said Sembawang GRC MP Lim Wee Kiak: “We want to attract bright talent, so the criteria could be a diploma or degree without going into which class or where it’s from.” But limiting citizenship to diploma and degree holders could mean missing out on talented people without academic qualifications, for instance, hairdresser David Gan or a three-star Michelin chef, said Marine Parade GRC MP Lim Biow Chuan. More than just defining the criteria, the challenge is to disclose criteria that is both broad and informative for the public, said observers. Listing such details could subject the Government to “litigation through a judiciary review”, said Singapore Management University law lecturer Eugene Tan. “If you give A citizenship but not B, and B finds out, B could challenge the Government in court, demand an explanation,” Assistant Professor Tan said. While ICA may have a set of indicators, “the authorities would want to have the discretion on who they give citizenship and this is the same with other countries”, he added. IT consultant Manikandan Renganathan, 38, who has lived here for 14 years before becoming a citizen this year, agreed. “Once you reveal it, more people will try to meet what’s required of them. Do you take all these people in?” he said. The flipside is that “those who are rejected won’t know how to improve their chances in a couple of years’ time and they could relocate to other countries pre-emptively”, said Asst Prof Tan. Dr Lim Wee Kiak told MediaCorp, though, that from his experience in dealing with rejected applicants who turn up during his Meet-the-People sessions, the ICA does give “hints”. “If the written reply says the applicant is advised to re-apply in six months’ time, it means the applicant is not ready yet, or if further upgrading is advised, the applicant needs to improve his skill or education level.” |
||||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
11-Sep-2010 19:34
|
||||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Whither the S’pore Spirit? Tang Li When my girlfriend told me she was thinking of taking her three year-old out of childcare because he was hitting people, my first reaction was:www.openlaw.com, a gathering of small law firms who have decided to pool their resources. “Don’t! If he’s acting like a playground bully, the other kids will find a way of sorting him out — he’s going to run into someone who hits back.” Her reply was an emphatic “no”. I love her little boy dearly and I am troubled by his behaviour. However, I am even more troubled by the fact that none of the other children have hit back. The only way to put a bully in his place is to stand up to him and, much as I don’t want to advocate violence on the playground, I am troubled by this because it seems to me that our children have lost that instinct to stand up for themselves. This instinct to stand up for oneself is part of the Singapore Spirit that the Prime Minister mentioned in his National Day Rally Speech on Aug 29. When we were ejected from the Malaysian Federation, we were a tiny defenceless island and a tempting target for potential bullies. The government led by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew decided we should show the world that we were no pushovers. Today, Singapore is a thriving economic hub with enough military muscle to make potential aggressors think twice about taking us on. We are a nation that has done so much by sticking up for ourselves, yet we have children who do not have the instinct to defend themselves. This past year, I’ve read about parents calling in the police to investigate a scuffle on the rugby pitch, and calls for an investigation into university orientation practices when three students got a few scratches. Have we reached the stage that the late Dr Goh Keng Swee once warned us against — asking the Government to “provide soul and to think for us”? Singapore has been blessed with decent leadership. However, we have to realise that we are now living in a more complicated world where the Government cannot provide all the answers. As such, we need to encourage people who stand up for themselves. Small enterprises need to cooperate to take on larger ones, like in the case of Being open to such experimentation allows us to get better solutions to tomorrow’s problems. The Singapore Spirit built our society and will build it for the future. It’s time we let it flow again. |
||||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
11-Sep-2010 18:58
|
||||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Raise levy, nOt stOp FREE buses
Why deprive non-gambling patrons? Letter from Quek Soo Beng ONE of the Government’s rationales for granting licences to the two gaming operators was that they would build integrated resorts where the majority of amenities and services would be non-gaming in nature.
For example, Resorts World Sentosa has the Universal Studios theme park, numerous shops and food outlets.
Aren’t the IRs multiple-service destinations?
So why the hang-up about Singaporeans enjoying the free shuttle bus services?
It was reported that the majority of bus passengers surveyed were heading not to the casinos but the other amenities within, and even without, the IRs.
The shuttle bus is an excellent customer service.
It seems illogical to contend that the prospect of saving a couple of dollars in bus fare would induce a significant number of people to patronise the casinos considering that a hefty $100 entry fee is still payable. If more gamblers do use the bus service, the pertinent question then is whether the entry levy is high enough.
Gamblers intent on getting to the casino will do so, free shuttle bus or not.
Why then deprive the non-gambling majority of the transport privileges just because some think it is politically correct to “appease” public opinion?
But who exactly is the prohibition of shuttle bus services appeasing?
Surely not the IR customers or people enjoying the free rides to and from the city.
The authorities should not interfere with FREE enterprise efforts to enhance customer service. It is good news if more shopping malls, cinemas, clubs and restaurants start to provide similar complimentary services.
This wOn’t stOp gamblers Letter from Raymund Koh Joo Guan I REFER to “RWS withdraws heartland shuttle buses” (Sept 10). There are those who claim the free shuttle service will lure gamblers to the gaming tables. How naive.
The fact that Singaporeans are already paying $100 for a return trip to Genting Highlands is an example of how far gamblers will go.
Do the authorities think that gamblers will not go to the casinos without the shuttle service?
If I were one, I would just take a taxi there. There would be no need to wait for the bus or to look for parking space.
The free shuttle not only brings business to the integrated resorts, it also caters to poorer families [SMRT bus fare UNaffOrdable] and reduces congestion at the Sentosa Gateway. |
||||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
11-Sep-2010 16:58
|
||||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Aussie churches ban Sinatra’s My Way — MELBOURNE Sports anthems and popular songs such as Frank Sinatra’s My Way have been banned from funerals at more than 200 Australian churches after new orders from Melbourne’s archbishop. The edict follows a study that found the signature song for Australian Rules Football team Collingwood was one of the top requests at Melbourne funerals, along with My Way and the Bette Midler version of The Wind Beneath My Wings . Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart said sports songs were not appropriate for a service which emphasises the solemn nature of death and is not designed as a celebration of the deceased’s life. “Secular items are never to be sung or played at a Catholic funeral, such as romantic ballads, pop or rock music, political songs, football club songs,” Archbishop Hart wrote in the new guidelines. “At the funerals of children ... nursery rhymes and sentimental secular songs are inappropriate because these may intensify grief.” The move in Melbourne has received a mixed reaction, a spokesman for the church said. One parish priest, Father Bob Maguire from South Melbourne, said the move would make it harder to balance the needs of mourners with those of the church. He told Melbourne’s Herald Sun newspaper he preferred to see funerals as “family affairs attended by clergy, not a clergymen’s affair attended by family”. AFP |
||||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||||
|
|||||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
11-Sep-2010 16:07
|
||||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Aussie ‘kingmaker’ MP declines ministerial post
SYDNEY Country lawmaker Rob Oakeshott, one of the three independents dubbed “kingmakers” after polls gave neither Ms Gillard or the opposition enough seats to govern, said he had turned down an offer to become Regional Affairs Minister. Mr Oakeshott said his decision to back Ms Gillard had angered some parliamentary colleagues and he knew this would make it difficult to deliver the US$9 billion ($12 billion) package for rural Australia the independents had negotiated with her. — An independent Australian politician whose support was crucial to keeping Prime Minister Julia Gillard in power on Friday knocked back an offer to become a minister in her minority government.AFP |
||||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
10-Sep-2010 16:13
|
||||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
mOst UnethIcal gamIng scheme ? ? ? ? allOws IrrespOnsIble gamIng by bIddIng at S$1 mIllIOn ? ? ? ? wIth gamIng chance tO pay fOr Only S$2 ? ? ? ? BAN It ethIcally as It Is a fOrm Of gamIng ? ? ? ? an IncentIvIsed gamIng scheme [IGS] ? ? ? ?
|
||||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
10-Sep-2010 16:07
|
||||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Let’s do our bid for a $2 COE
Sunday: 5th September 2010
Someone asked me: Will you bid for a certificate of entitlement (COE) if you see your dream car beckoning from the showroom? Then I had a dream. I dreamt of snagging a $2 COE and dashing over to get my metallic object of desire. Why a $2 COE? It has happened before - on a day in November 2008. True, it happened amid a banking crisis-sparked recession. The COE price for Category A cars (up to 1600cc) crashed to $2.
As my colleague Christopher Tan wryly pointed out: 'On the afternoon of the freak $2 result, those monitoring the tender noticed that a crash might be imminent. Hence they went in with ultra-low bids.
'It was a confluence of many aligned stars: the world economy was tanking, people were losing their jobs, salaries were being cut, and last but not least, COE supply was near its highest. 'Plus, the car 'population' had become very young after years of abundant COEs. Plus, many people were stuck with cars bought at high loans, and were not able to trade them in for new ones.'
In other words, car showrooms were empty and it was mostly individuals, not the dealers bidding on behalf of buyers, who put in bids that fateful November 2008 day.
Maybe it was because I had recently seen the movie Inception, but in my dream, people bought into the idea that they should do their own COE bidding, skipping the car dealers' package deal. Hence, the $2 COE for Category A was replicable, without most of those underlying factors my colleague cited. In my dream, I first 'entered' the mind of the person who devised the scheme, to grasp the fuel-injected mechanics of the COE system. He or she must have had a devilish sense of humour and understood Fallen Man. This person created a bidding set-up that tantalised would-be car buyers with a minimum $1 bid price yet set the actual bid price at the sum Bidder X will pay. Simply put, Bidder X is the price setter. He epitomises you and me, who desire a 'low' COE but will pay up for a 'high' COE simply because you and I have already made up our minds to buy a car, and we see others rushing to the showrooms (the best shorthand here is 'kiasuism', or fear of losing out). In my dream, this kiasuism was expunged from our human nature. Instead, a number of bidders were prepared to become what I shall call 'suckers'. But that is not a fair label, because these people did want a new car but were prepared to wait many months for it. They were 'public-spirited'. Remember, it was a dream. You can go to the Land Transport Authority's website on how COE bidding works, or you can Google 'how COE works' for simple yet accurate examples. I'll use a simplified illustration myself. Supposing there are 10 Category A COEs for the current bidding round. Technically, everyone - say, 20 bidders - can bid at $1. But there is no price setter to enable 10 bidders to secure the 10 COEs. All 20 have 'lost' and the 10 COEs go into the next bidding round. Bidder X comes into being, in this example, if 10 people had bid only $1 and the 11th bidder had put down $2. He is the price setter. The 12th to 20th bidders, together with Bidder X, secure all 10 COEs. These others (apart from Bidder X) had all bid more than $2. Bidder No. 20 can even bid $1 million or more and still get his COE at $2. In fact, this kiasuism was understood by the devilish creator of the scheme, since a high bid ensures the bidder's success! It also, typically and across the board, ensures in the real world that COE prices are not freak $2 ones. But should many be like the 20th bidder, and bid outrageously? The ancient Chinese said, 'You may get what you wish for.' The $1 million sum may well become the price setter if bidders 1 to 10 bid from $1 to $999,999 and bidders 12 to 20 bid above $1 million. If you have now truly grasped this Nobel Prize-worthy scheme, enter my dream world, and bid with me to get that $2 COE. Indeed, and this is real, not from the dream, the LTA has been on our side, helping out by allowing real-time transparency. You can actually monitor the bids. To repeat my dream scenario, individuals - not car dealers - did the bidding. Also, there were enough 'suckers' who bid $1 to enable Bidder X to set the price at $2. But who wants to be a sucker? Think of it this way: Even with the current annual COE quotas, how many genuine car buyers will be thwarted from getting their new cars within a reasonable time? Even if the wait is a year, remember, that COE will cost only $2! * It is defInItely wOrth it ! * Assuming there are 600 Category A COEs up for bidding (I use only one category to simplify my model), 599 people must bid more than $2, and only one must bid $2. The rest (just one person if there are only 601 bidders) must bid $1. As an alternative, only 601 people need to bid in this round, and plus or minus 600 in the next round, based on the actual available COEs each time. In this case, only one person puts in the $1 bid and the other 600 can put in $2. Come on, we can do it. Just hold back on your need for a car this round. It's worth it, for a $2 COE. Haha. The writer is The Sunday Times' copyeditor.
Pasted from <http://www.cpf.gov.sg/imsavvy/infohub_article.asp?readid={533534806-6311-3618128299}> |
||||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
08-Sep-2010 18:40
|
||||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Citizenship can’t be forced on someone Letter from Eunice Goh I AM shocked that Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong has suggested that we will force 50,000 permanent residents (PRs) to become Singapore citizens (“A ‘better’ way to manage PRs: SM Goh”, Sept 7). This is not fair. I am sure we would not want Singaporeans who are PRs in other countries to be subjected to the same treatment. PRs who earn more than $150,000 a year contribute to the economy, so why not let them remain as PRs and we benefit from their tax contributions? If we force them to choose, they will probably move to Hong Kong or Taiwan and commute to Singapore. Singapore would then lose out. There is nothing wrong with PRs remaining PRs as long as they pay their taxes and do not get to vote or enjoy the benefits of citizens. Citizenship should be awarded to those who want to be citizens — not forced to take it up. |
||||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
08-Sep-2010 18:33
|
||||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
The market is at its most exciting mainly between 9am and 10.30am and from 4.30pm till its close. So, does doing away with the lunch break help to increase volume? Remisiers should know BEST as this affects their ricebowl directly. Perhaps a poll would shed more light on this. |
||||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
08-Sep-2010 18:21
|
||||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
$31 parking fee for less than 5 hours in Geylang Serai We went to Geylang Serai to do our Hari Raya shopping last week. We saw empty parking lots opposite the loading/unloading area on the ground floor of the multi-storey car park and parked our car there. We were charged more than $31 for less than five hours’ parking. According to the car park staff on duty, charges for that row of lots are $8 for the first hour and $6 per subsequent hour. There is a sign indicating the charges near the entrance but due to the dim lighting and long queue of cars behind us, we overlooked it. Anyway, who would expect such high charges in an HDB estate? I suggest the car park management put up a sign on the barrier that can be easily seen. The staff told us other angry drivers have complained about the charges — one was especially worked up after being charged more than $60!
|
||||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
06-Sep-2010 15:20
|
||||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Rules tightening to return sanity to HDB resale market
Colin Tan Before Monday [6 Sep 2010], if HDB resale flats were tradeable investment products on the screen of international ratings agencies, they would have attained a triple-A rating; so highly regarded were they by property investors.
The writer is head of research and consultancy at Chesterton Suntec International. However, all that changed when the Government announced measures to effectively close them to new investors and speculators. The new rules disallow concurrent ownership of HDB flats and private residential properties if the owner has not stayed in his public housing flat for five years.
Private property owners who buy an HDB flat now have to dispose of their private homes within six months.
When the ownership rules for HDB resale flats were relaxed just a few years ago — when prices were still depressed — no one could have foreseen how they would go on to outperform the private housing market in terms of rental yields and capital appreciation within just a few quarters.
In terms of risk, they were probably the safest investment property to spend your savings on. Almost as good as Singapore Government bonds, HDB flats were a safe haven compared to the surrounding financial turbulence.
Many had expected the opening of the two integrated resorts to strongly drive up the demand for private housing.
As a result, values were chased up to unrealistic levels, only to disappoint when the widely anticipated boom did not materialise. Instead, the unrealistic price levels for private properties drove demand towards the public housing sector and kept them there.
Rental demand from both foreign workers and expatriates for public housing flats grew. Rental yields rose and soon caught the eyes of investors. Soon, more people began to buy them as investment properties — a trend noticeable as far back as 12 to 18 months ago.
At the same time, more and more would-be HDB upgraders could not cross the widening gap between the private and public housing sectors. Upgrading became restricted to a bigger flat type or a newer flat in a better location.
In the meantime, newly-formed households were moving into the housing market. Unlike in the private housing market, where a premium is paid for properties under construction, the premium in the public housing market is for completed flats or those nearing completion.
This is because demand for the former is driven by investors who pay more for the opportunity to speculate, while demand for the latter is driven by the need for immediate occupation.
Without the release of flats from upgraders, additional supply could only come from newly-maturing flats whose owners had occupied their properties for five years. New annual supply from this source is fixed as it is tied to events which happened seven to eight years ago.
Before long, a shortage developed and was made more acute by investors who were crowding out genuine households and raising overall sentiment and prices with their record-price buys. It did not help that new flat prices were linked to prices for resale flats which were fast becoming a full-fledged investment product and a safe haven from the excessive liquidity in the market.
New flats, with their myriad ownership rules, are definitely not investment products. They can never be truly comparable to resale flats. They are poles apart, as different as night and day.
To make price adjustments from one to the other is to compare Singapore apartments in Woodlands to apartments just across the Causeway in Johor Baru. They may look the same and distance-wise, not far from each other but one commands a value significantly higher than the other.
The new rules announced on Monday bring them back a lot closer — in terms of minimum occupation period and ownership restrictions. This can only be good for the market. It makes the job of those who decide on the prices of new flats a lot easier.
To those who complain, these are not really new rules. We are just falling back on old ones which worked well in the past.
To investors, if you cannot afford to live in a private property and invest in another in the first place but want to live in an HDB flat and invest in one, you are probably the most vulnerable to a sudden and sharp downward price correction.
It may not be immediately obvious to you, but like a gambling addict, you need protection from yourself. |
||||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||||
pharoah88
Supreme |
05-Sep-2010 16:03
|
||||||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
In vIew Of rIsk Of near tOtal lOss and dIre Of near zerO Interest rate bEttEr and safEr tO depOsIt In GENTING TWINS ?
|
||||||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me |