Disputing Mr Shanmugam’s claims that Singapore’s approach to the law has worked
I refer to the report dated 29 Oct 2009.
Mr Shanmugam starts by saying that women and children feel safe to travel any time, anywhere in Singapore which he then attributes to our strict laws and law enforcement.
However, there are many first world cities and countries like Hong Kong and Japan where women too can walk safely at night.
Yet these places do not have laws as strict as ours. These places show that it is not necessarily strict laws that explain why our country is so safe.
Mr Shnmugam’s statement that 90% of our population owns homes may not necessarily be true either.
Of the more than 900,000 HDB homes in existence, more than 400,000 have yet to repay their loans. For these 400,000 homes, the title deed is kept by the HDB so technically, the HDB owns these homes. So the real home ownership rate in Singapore is probably closer to 50%.
The speech given by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong has also served to confuse participants like Mr Jeffrey Tanenbaum who concedes, based on his observation of the commercial realm, that the law here merely reflects our culture rather than executive interference. But why would the executive interfere with commercial affairs when it is highly dependent on multinationals for our continued economic prosperity?
Executive interference only makes sense in the political realm where the battering of political opponents and the control of the media can only bring good and nothing but the good for the executive. So making reference to the wrong field has led Mr Tanenbaum to make the wrong conclusions.
To continue with Mr Shanmugam’s metaphor, the pig has no need for lip stick because he rules over the animal farm.
If there is such a thing as the Singapore exceptionalism, it is no more exceptional than those of the other East Asian dragons of Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea.
With the rapid rise of China, the whole of East Asia, will collectively be exceptional. So what is really so exceptional when each of the democracies of Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea achieves as much as authoritarian Singapore?
So perhaps, the exceptionalism lies not with Singapore per say but with the fact that Singapore is East Asian.
Thank you
Ng Kok Lim
Loading ...
Get Real on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 9:05 am
China and Russia, law also ‘WORKED” very well by OPPRESSION albeit of varying subtle refinement – just like Singapore. Does it not, Mr.Shanmugam?
Is it NOT true that the core method employed is the same – thoughts police fermenting petty laws with bureaucracy to cause grevious harm by accepting allegations as truth of fact?.
Which autocracy is different?
SG mutant on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 2:04 pm
People can march in the streets of HK, Japan or Taiwan to protest about anything; but the question is: what makes them do that in the first place? What makes them choose marching in the streets over doing things that are more enjoyable? Instead, I’d like to study the political systems of Scandinavian countries since they seem relatively free and have some of the world’s safest cities with excellent quality of life.
SG mutant on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 2:11 pm
People can march in the streets of HK, Taiwan and Japan to protest about anything; but what makes them do that in the first place?
I would prefer to study the culture and political systems of Scandinavian countries as they seem relatively free and enjoy excellent quality of life as well as having some of the safest cities in the world.
Truthisagreatoffender on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 3:18 pm
Yes! Singapore’s approach to law has worked. But it does so not out of liberating the people. It suppresses them. Japan is a safe country but it does not suppress its people as much as Singapore. I agree with the account on home ownerships. It is definitely not 90%. And it is no surprise why the he would play up on the figures. He is a politician. That’s what they do. Play politics.
From economic standpoint on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 4:04 pm
From an econonomic point of view, i see that robust Democracies like Hong Kong , S.Korea or Taiwan also enjoy good economy and living standards compared to singapore’s so-called 1 party system.
Even China, a communist country enjoys economic progress.
in this regard, i think economic and politics are mutually exclusive.
So, maybe singapore can consider a more liberal democracy like that found in Hong Kong.
Debora Songalitis on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 4:07 pm
don’t forget that singapore is very small. much easier to control. no mountains to hide crooks. no canyons to hide in. Just a pitty that salamat able to escape that time.
Jim on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 4:57 pm
Ng Kok Lim
I have to correct you on the part regarding HDB ownership.
Owners of HDB flats do not have title of ownership (of the land). This is a misnormer. Let me explain :
In private development (non-landed properties) owners (purchasers) would be granted Subsidiary Strata Title – subsidiary meaning each owner would have representative ownership of say, e.g. 1/20 share of title to the land (depending on how many units there are in the development). So, technically everyone has an equal share in the land on which their unit stands.
In the case of HDB there is no such title. The title ownership of land belongs to the HDB who in turn provides a Lease Agreement to HDB purchasers. This “title” allows HDB owners free access to the units they purchased during the course of the lease (99 years) subject to conditions laid down by the landowner (HDB). And that is why any sub-sale of HDB flats in the open market requires the landlord’s approval. If HDB flatowners have real title to their units (as in the case of private ones) then the sanctity of property would have prevailed and they would have been allowed to sell to them without any impediment.
In short, owners of HDB flats only have the right of occupation of their relevant units for a period of 99 years but they do not have any rights regarding the land on which the building sits. Which means, technically ,the landlord can deny them access (trespass of property). And that is why, under certain conditions, HDB can exercise its right in evicting them (many precedent cases already). In essence HDB buyers are actually paying rental for 99 years collected in advance.
exposer on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 5:15 pm
“don’t forget that singapore is very small. much easier to control. no mountains to hide crooks. no canyons to hide in.”
Most importantly, no natural disaster, only PAP-made disaster !
bob on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 6:18 pm
have to agree totally with jim, that’s a very good comment on the reality of the so-called HDB home ownership. so why are so many flat owners paying for the multi storey carparks, covered walkways, landscaping, lift upgradings etc. which are all part of HDB main upgrading when they don’t own anything outside their front door or gate?
looks like everyone who has been thru MUP has been “conned”. its about time we stood up to the HDB and tell them to stop giving us this crap of heavily subsidised upgrading programms and 75% voter approval. they should just do the upgrading, shut their mouth and move on.
MNC on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 6:45 pm
@exposer on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 5:15 pm
what about the earthquake from indonesia that managed to shake singapore buildings recently?
the worst kind of disasters are those that people are unprepared for … i have withdrawn all my investments from singapore and would suggest to everyone that they do the same
if its not earthquake, then rising sea levels are going to sink the island soon … if not, then REVOLUTION because the PAP is growing increasingly unpopular
exposer on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 6:57 pm
MNC,
another major disaster is sent through heaven as warning sign. The disaster of striking the Merlion’s head with lightning. No wonder old fart become senilely retarded and can only spout nothing but nonsense.
Kang Ah Loo on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 10:12 pm
Why are you people using the term HDB Owners?
Is the term leaseholder more appropriate?
I mean, i so confused liao, HDB flat is owned by the gov and the so called HDB owners own a lease agreement is it not and not the flat per se right?
correction the me if i the wrong, pls.
peace
taoist monk on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 10:41 pm
@exposer on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 6:57 pm
mmm yes, lightning represents PAP and merlion represents singapore … lightning striking the merlion is a sign that PAP has governed singapore badly and thus lost the mandate of heaven
all righteous man and woman must rise up at the next GE to VOTE FOR CHANGE, VOTE OPPOSITION
exposer on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 11:27 pm
“all righteous man and woman must rise up at the next GE to VOTE FOR CHANGE, VOTE OPPOSITION”
We are the tools of heaven so we must do what heaven tell us to do otherwise we too be strike by lightning and endup retarded and stupid like old fart !
fpc on Sat, 14th Nov 2009 1:12 am
LHL said that consumption of electricity by aircon should be reduced by households.
He said that even poor people owns air con.
The fact is household consumption of electricity subsidises industrial consumption of electricity.
If household reduces consumption of electricity, where is he going to getting more subsidy to subsidise industrial electricity consumption?
He should be asking the industry to stop wasting electricity in aircon and other hanki panki things they do and be more efficient.
If you work (together with your husband) how much time do you spend in the home to consume that electrictiy.
LHL loves to sprout rubbish.
I couldn’t believe he is PM.
janetnt on Sat, 14th Nov 2009 1:55 am
Kang Ah Loo
IN another view, HDB owner own the flat, but government continue to own the land it is build on.
Jim on Sat, 14th Nov 2009 2:02 am
fpc
I thnik you are mistaken. The PUB maintains 2 sets of rates at which it charges consumption of utilities, i.e. electricity and water. The 2 sets or rates are determined seperately based on whether they are consumed to satisfy basic human needs or to generate income for the consumer. In this respect, the rates that is being charged for households are relatively low as compared to those for commercial and industrial users (they pay a higher rate at about 4 or 5 times more). However, to deter misuse and abuses by households (unneccessary wastage of these precious commodities) the rate(s) pertaining to them are charged on an ad valorem basis, i.e. they will pay more progressively once their consumption exceed a certain pre-determined threshold relative to the size of their homes.
What households and the industries are enjoying currently during this difficult perod are rebates (and not discounts or subsidy in the manner as we know it). By giving rebates the PUB can continue to maintain these rates and, therefore, show consistency in their pricing policy. Giving discounts or subsidies involves regular adjustment of rates now and then which is not only disruptive but counters the government’s social policy which is against the practice of state welfare.
Jim on Sat, 14th Nov 2009 2:25 am
Kang Ah Loo
The word “owner” as in “HDB owner” is being used loosely to for general discussion only in the manner that it is understood by the general public (and not to be taken literally as legal owner). But you are right to say that it should have been substituted with the word “lessee” (as the instrument is a Lease). But to use the word “lessee” as such in the context here will confuse a lot of readers as firstly, the government has been, all this while, misinforming Singaporeans that they are HDB owners, and secondly, most Singaporeans consider themselves to be HDB owners through the inundation of this term, and lastly, it will also be confused with another group of “lessees” of HDB flats (these are people who rent flats from the HDB through operating leases). Now, does that make it clearer to you or maybe, the conundrum is getting more confusing !
fair and square on Sat, 14th Nov 2009 2:30 am
@Jim
hi Jim,i am amazed at your wide coverage… you are on every
street corner,here ,there,everywhere.
you are a one-man crusade..i mean it in a good light.
i would have dropped dead…you are full of energy!!!
what’s the secret?…”RED BULL” or tongkat ali?
regards.
VOTEWISE on Sat, 14th Nov 2009 2:56 am
@ALL
HOW COME EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU SO MODEST,LEH.
SOMETIME,MUST AC-XION(SHOW OFF) A BIT LAH.
WE,SINGAPOREANS,NOT LIKE DURIANS.WE WEN POK PEOPLE LEH.
NO THORNS,MAH…BERRY GLACIOUS(GRACIOUS) YOU KNOW!
HOW CAN THAT SHAM-NO-GUM ANYHOW SAY LAW,LAW,LAW.
YOU MEAN MALAYSIA NO LAW,NO POLICE MEH?
ALSO GOT LAW BUT SINGAPORE PEOPLE MORE GLACIOUS.
GAHMEN PEOPLE ALWAYS PRAISE THEMSELVES,SELDOM BLAME
EVEN WHEN THEY MAKE MISTAKES;THEY ALSO BLAME LOCALS
NOT GLACIOUS TO FT BUT ACTUALLY WE SO GLACIOUS,MOST
TUA-KONG,JOBS ALSO DON’T WANT ALL GIVE TO FOREIGNERS.
WHAT GOT LIKE THIS ONE,OTHER COUNTRIES,ONLY SINGAPORE HAVE.
STILL DON’T ADMIT ROAD SAFE,ORCHARD ROAD NO POLICE CARS
RUNNING HERE,RUNNING THERE BECOS WE ARE BERRY BERRY GLACIOUS
NOT BECOS OF STRICT LAW POWDERFUL(EFFECTIVE) LEH?
BETTER LET ME BE MINISTER…I SO CLEVER ONE COS I KNOW
SINGAPOREANS ACTUALLY BERRY “HOR-SIM”(GOOD-HEARTED).
NEXT ELECTION,VOTE FOR ME AH,MY NAME,HOR,IS VOTEWISEly!!!
qussl3 on Sat, 14th Nov 2009 3:33 am
Jim is a one man fount of information.
Working hard to debunk the myths of ownership and economic progress here
Care to stand for election?
lol i kid.
Jim on Sat, 14th Nov 2009 3:51 am
fair and square
You are damn right. I am actually very tired already physically. Its already 3.45 am in the morning now.
No Red Bull for me.
Regards.
fpc on Sat, 14th Nov 2009 4:38 am
//Jim
I am not mistaken.
Industrial consumption of electricity (and probably water) is subsidised by domestic consumption.
This is mentioned by the director of EDB in his presentation.
fpc on Sat, 14th Nov 2009 4:43 am
//Jim
I wonder how much you are paid to write this comment…
See TR or the opposition creates jobs.
fpc on Sat, 14th Nov 2009 4:45 am
// Jim
If you want to save PAP on this, you ‘d need to kick that EDB director’s ass.
hahaha
fpc on Sat, 14th Nov 2009 7:36 am
//Jim
I have not mistaken.
This is publicly announced by your own government people on at least one occasion.
Lassie on Sat, 14th Nov 2009 8:30 am
According to my friend who works in HDB, HDB calls flat owners “lessees”. Hope that clarifies the bogus “homeownership”.
These flat “owners” are basically tenants. They enjoy limited property rights.
True owners of the property would have to freedom to sublet the flat, the freedom the sell the flat anytime.
But look at HDB lessees, they can’t even choose which dogs to keep in the flats! They need to stay in the flat for a Minimum Occupation Period before they are allowed to sell/sublet the flat. They need approval from HDB to rent out the flat. They are allowed to stay in the flat until the 99 year tenancy ends. This doesn’t sound like home ownership at all.
So to all the goons out there who are paying sky high prices for a tenancy of 60-70 years in resale HDB flats but think they are “owning” the property, think again.
Jim on Sat, 14th Nov 2009 3:20 pm
fpc
It’s interesting what you pointed out. What I know is that there is tariff differenial on utilities between users, i.e. whether they are household (for consumption of basic needs) or commercial (to generate income). I have lumped industrial users into the second category because their use of such utilities though not directly applied to generate income but are indirectly related through the end products which are income driven. However, I do not actually know what principle they are applying to industrial users becase this whole rates structure are very secretly kept and not readily accessible to the public. But in as far as commercial users are concerned, their rates are definitely very much higher than for households. You will be surprised that provision shop in your neighbourhood pays PUB bills between $1,500 – $2,000 per month on the average when compared to what you are paying (as a household user). Maybe they do subsidise industrial owners here by giving rebates to them to make production costs here more competitive I am not sure because they are very secretive on this aspect regarding the breakdown of tariffs being imposed across the board (very typical PAP mentality – what the public don’t get to see they won’t know how to make noise).
However, I must point out that I have missed out earlier in mentioning that the utilities market has just been opened up a few years ago (privatised as termed by the government). Electricity is being supplied by SP Power and no longer within PUB’s ambit. The PUB is now only responsible for managing our water resources.
Jim on Sat, 14th Nov 2009 3:40 pm
fpc
Perhaps you may also want to know that the tariffs on water are very high here (probably because it is a very precious commodity to us). Industries here require a lot of water for cooling and other production related purposes and it would be a considerable wastage if our precious potable water were used for any purpose other than to satisfy very basic human needs. I mean you don’t need to use the water from a can of Coke to use it for washing or cooling some industrial applications isn’t it. You’ll be amazed that industrial application and need for water is very colossal indeed. That is why we have resorted to production of industrial water (non potable).
Industrial water are usually derived from the sea or river – they are highly desalinated water (the pandan reservoir is an example of industrial water and it supplies such water to meet the needs of the industries in the Jurong and Tuas area. I am not sure the water here are potable or not). Newater is another example or re-generated water, and it is drinkable. Maybe people will be shocked when they find out that, among other components used to re-constitute them, water used in treatment of sewerage is one of them !
If you see those foreign workers in the HDB estates wasting water away by their regular washing of the compounds, hold your horse and not jump in with all guns blazing. They are using non potable industrial water for such purposes. You can’t drink these because they are not fully treated or sterilised like those coming from your household taps.
Regards