TR EMERITUS

From our Correspondent Succumbing to public pressure, the government has aborted a proposed change to the tax laws dealing with gains made from property sales. The public consultation process for the proposal attracted 64 responses with 60 opposing the change. Under the proposal, an individual who sells a property would be taxed on the profit if he had sold another property within the preceding four years. Touted as a measure to curb speculation in the property market, the announcement of the news led to a two day slump in property stocks. In a statement yesterday, MOF said there was feedback that the proposed change 'could bias purchase decisions towards investing in one bigger property, rather than numerous smaller properties'. The scrapping of the proposed changes means the prevailing tax regime remains in place. The government has already earned considerable profits from the stamp duties collected from property transactions as well as levy from resale of HDB flats. Capital gains from property sales remain untaxed though Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore assesses a small number of individuals who makes regular property transactions each year. The Singapore property market has made a remarkable recovery since hitting a low at the beginning of the year. Prices are now comparable to the peak in 2007. Mass market homes have led the way with a recent project in Ang Mo Kio fetching prices at above $1,000 psf which is unsustainable according to most analysts. Despite the high prices, Singaporeans are still flocking to new launches. For many HDB upgraders, the desire to live in a condominium overrides all other monetary concerns.  Read More →

IT IRKS me that young people blog negatively about the Singapore Government. They live in an era where there is peace and harmony, they have a roof over their heads, plenty to eat and so much to enjoy. There is a need to realise that all these good things do not come naturally. Someone has to do the job and we are fortunate to have a sound and honest government to take care of this place we call our home. We live in a small place with no natural resources but we have done well. We have good infrastructure, a clean environment, a safe place and the list goes on. Our children are free to roam the streets and return home safely. We cannot take all that we enjoy now for granted. The Government took great pains to mould this tiny island into a place of wonder. There is no one policy that suits everyone. It is not possible to please everyone all the time. We may not always benefit from some of the policies implemented but we should be happy that others do. Life was a struggle before but after years of persistent hard work and thrift, we managed. I travelled quite a bit but whenever I looked around, I could not help but feel blessed that I have a home called Singapore. This is only possible because we have a government that cares to make this a better place. The question often asked is, 'What can the Government do for me?', but shouldn't it be, 'What can I do for my country?' I am grateful to the Government, which has done a great job, and in particular Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who has gone through so many trials and tribulations. Even now, at his age, he has not stopped caring about Singapore. My heartfelt thanks to MM Lee and I wish him happiness and health. Juliet Chua (Ms) Source: ST Forum EDITORS' NOTE: Ms Chua should be asking why young people blog negatively about the government when they are living in an era of "peace and harmony". If the government is really that good, why is it receiving so much criticism online? Ms Chua is one of the many brainwashed Singaporeans who think they are being "patriotic" by defending the regime, but is in fact doing Singapore a great disservice. It's time MM Lee retires gracefully and return the power to the people so that we can open the account books of GIC and Temasek and find out what exactly went wrong. By publishing such a one-sided, biased and baseless article, the Straits Times has demonstrated its lack of ideas to counter the fast rising anti-establishment sentiment among young Singaporeans.  Read More →

What is a Pledge? 作者:冀居·谢 去了一个萧锦鸿来了一个维斯瓦（Viswa Sadasivan），使我想起孙文的名言：“世界潮流浩浩荡荡，顺之则昌，逆之则亡。”他所指的潮流就是民主政治 (democracy)。看来官委议员制度接下来应该还有很多微调和改革的空间。 维斯瓦的动议设计得十分狡黠，就刚巧在国庆之后，高调宣读信约之余温尚未散去，人们发现原来执政党并不能够根据信约的原则来治国，很好笑，是不是？ 黄永宏说：词藻优美的歌词或信约不足以确保国家生存繁荣。李资政说破给大家听：拉惹勒南和他共同撰写并修改的信约，原来是一个平等主义的画饼。他认为平等 原则并非现实也不实际。既然如此，政府早该丢弃这个骗人的信约，为什么还要大家在国庆日庄严宣誓呢？害得李慧玲的老爸老妈都受骗。 李光耀说：“信约是什么？是种意识形态（ideology）吗？不是，那是个抱负（aspiration）。我们可能实现吗？我不知道，但我们必须一直努力尝试。我们是个国家吗？是转变中的。” 根据马克思主义者对意识形态的定义，我们的信约绝对是意识形态，因为它符合这个：由社会中的统治阶级对所有社会成员提出的一组观念（a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society）。李资政说的“抱负”，是一项长期并最终要实现的东西，但是国民信约如同早报报人所理解的那样，那是我们在“起跑点”时唬人的东西，是出 于政治考虑的建国理念，是件旧包袱。加上部长所说的为了继续繁荣富强而不能够去实践，那么这个抱负根本没有动机和理由要国人去信守，是个虚无缥缈，浮在云 端的东西，李光耀要把“国会带回现实”（bring the House back to earth），是不是再一次骗人了呢？维斯瓦这招“以子之矛攻子之盾”简直太绝了！咱们的两位资深反对党议员，等着领退休金，什么事都不干了，嘘！ 那我们退而求其次，不当信约是意识形态，就当它是个盟誓好了。当年刘邦打败秦朝，因为秦朝太多严刑峻法，为了与民休养生息，刘邦只和灞上的父老约法三章： 杀人者要处死，伤人者要抵罪，盗窃者也要被判有罪，如此而已。但是接着下来，汉朝统治天下的时候，约法三章应该有个时效，过期了就失效。还是继续告诉人 民，国家只和他们约法三章，实际上什么法都进来，那就是欺骗人民了。 盟誓也未必是抱负，因为盟誓有时为了一己之私，是个临时的苟合：为了实现XX之幸福，共同努力。它也可以是非道德的，如《投名状》最著名的信约：“抢钱、抢粮、抢娘们！”只要目的达到，大家以后发财立品，过去的荒唐事也就别提了。 陈振泉在参与辩论时指出，维斯瓦忽视了政府政策所附带的责任与义务。因为一个负责任的政府在制定政策时，必然是以顾及人民的利益为出发点。这么说来，如果 我们根据信约的内容来制定政策，反而会伤害人民的利益！？拉惹勒南误国误民，罪该万死。周殊钦说：“陈振泉把国会带回现实中的一席演讲，立时把我的思绪从 天花板上拉回到现实世界。就在我‘脚踏实地’地离开记者席之前，就听到议事大厅里传来赞赏陈振泉令人信服演讲的零星掌声。我在想，其实议员们给他的掌声可 以更热烈、更响亮些。”——这马屁准准拍在屁股上，因为看法和李资政不相伯仲。 他们可以相信李显龙在国庆群众大会充满隐喻地说我们种族和谐伊甸园已经成立——“不要走、不要走，杀很大！”，却认为维斯瓦的“公正平等”提议不切实际？ 更甚的是，强烈要求实践“信约精神”倒成了里通外国的洋奴，因为要把西方的那一套搬进国情特殊的新加坡。请问部长先生，信约是谁写的？ “65后”hiphop议员柏默说：“事实上，维斯瓦先生今天能够不畏后果，站在这里畅所欲言，就否定了所谓‘恐惧氛围’或‘担心报复心理’的存在。而我 的反驳，也是民主进程的体现。”—— 他忘了那是议员的特权，一般人是享受不到的。当年惹耶勒南就是太享受这个特权，使到执政党在86年8月通过“国会（特权、豁免和权力）法修正案”，亦可谑 称为“惹耶勒南修正案”，专门用来对付敢严词批评的反对党议员。还有执政党国会领袖马宝山近年进行的国会发言程序和时间的改革，官位越大发言时间越长和更 自由，都在在使到国会有他讲没你讲（早报也不让维斯瓦的完整言论和读者见面）。维斯瓦先生不知要轮到什么时候，才可以进行反驳？极有可能这个处女秀也成了 他的天鹅之歌了。  Read More →