By Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the article “HDB residents happy where they live – over 95% surveyed satisfied with their flats and neighbourhood” (Asiaone, 18 February).
I believe the statistic for the number of foreigners staying in HDB flats has been made available for the first time ever. I surmised this from this statement in the report:
“The survey also showed that the HDB resident population, comprising Singapore citizens and permanent residents, increased by 2.7 per cent over 5 years to 2.92 million in 2008.”
“This figure makes up 96 per cent of the total population in HDB flats, of which 88 per cent were citizens, and 8 per cent were permanent residents. The remaining four per cent were foreigners.”
So, does it mean that we have 121,667 foreigners staying in HDB flats, which makes up 4 per cent of the total HDB population (as calculated by taking 2.92 million to be 96 per cent)?
Given the acute shortage of rental housing for Singaporeans, with a queue of over 4,000 applicants and waiting periods of up to two years, how many foreigners are staying in flats which may be indirectly rented out by the HDB through managing agents like EM Services?
Are there any countries in the world whereby one in eight people in public housing are not citizens, since 12 per cent are non-citizens (8 per cent PRs and 4 per cent foreigners)?
The article also states:
“86 per cent – especially those who live in newer flats (less than 5 years) and older flats (21 years and above) – feel that their HDB flats are worth the money they spent mainly because of the appreciation in flat value, good location, proximity to facilities, and affordability.
“For residents of older flats, the main reasons given were the location of their flats, flat prices that had either already appreciated or were expected to have a good resale value in the future.”
This statement seems to be somewhat odd, as it conveniently ignores the bulk of flat owners who live in flats ranging from six to 20 years old.
As the statement suggests, those who live in older flats of over 21 years surely feel that their flats are worth what they spent because HDB flat prices were very low and affordable more than 20 years ago.
Similarly, the newer flats of less than five years may be those which have not met the 5-year Minimum Occupation Period (MOP). These flats had been offered at much lower prices than resale flats, which have seen huge price spikes in only the last two years or so.
Surely, those who went through the 13-year bear market (1996 to 2009) waiting for the HDB Resale Price Index to recover its price level may not be so happy when asked whether their flats were value for money, had appreciated in value, or were affordable. If we factor in the interest payments on housing loans, flats bought from as long as about 15 years ago may still not be making any money at all.
So, are we perhaps telling only ‘half the story’ about value for money and affordability?
Several media reports said that we should not blame others for rising flat prices, because only five percent of flats are owned by PRs and only 20 per cent of resale flats last year were purchased by PRs. Perhaps what we need are not just the statistics on ownership, but on rental as well. How many flats are also rented to PRs and foreigners? Perhaps there’s another case of telling ‘half the story’ here?
Did the survey cover any of the 60,000 flat dwellers who were given financial counselling by the HDB for difficulty in paying for their flats in 2008, or the 30,770 flat-owners in arrears over three months as of September 2009, or the estimated about 60 flats repossessed by the HDB every month, or the unknown number of HDB bank loans in arrears or foreclosed? Perhaps another case of ‘half the story’ here too?
With regards to the statement:
“The survey also showed that the HDB resident population, comprising Singapore citizens and permanent residents, increased by 2.7 per cent over 5 years to 2.92 million in 2008”.
It omits to mention what was the increase in the foreigner HDB resident population over the five years. It is inconsistent to on the one hand give the break-down of the resident population by citizens, PRs and foreigners, but omit foreigners in the rate of increase over the five years.
What we need is the rate of increase in the five years, broken down into Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners, in order to have the ‘full story’.
The HDB press release said: “The average household income from work had also risen from $4,238 in 2003 to $5,680 in 2008, reflecting the growing affluence of HDB households.”
However, for the purpose of a rough comparison for discussion’s sake, according to the Department of Statistics’ (DOS) Household Expenditure Survey released in December 2009, the average monthly household income for HDB flats’ dwellers grew from $4,202 in 2002/3 to $5,503 in 2007/08.
The DOS data for all households, including private housing, had the average monthly household income of the 41st – 60th quintile at $5,480. For their data, the DOS uses HDB flats’ average income as well as the average income of the median total population – the average income of the segment of households that separates the higher and the lower halves of the total population sample.
The problem with such a comparison is that the HDB uses just the average income. This figure is skewed upwards by the high incomes earned by wealthier households – which is a significant distortion given Singapore’s income inequality (BusinessWeek ranked Singapore the second most unequal country in a list of the 11 most unequal advanced economies in the world – our score was 42.5, with 0 being complete equality and 100 being complete inequality).
So, the question is why can’t the HDB use median income as well? This would be more reflective of the income of the average household, like data provided by the DOS.
This is not the first time that the HDB Survey data seems to be out of sync with the DOS data. In 2003, according to the DOS Household Survey, while the household income of those living in private homes grew, those in public flats fell by 0.4 per cent per annum, from $3,860 in 1998 to $3,790 in 2003.
Since about 85 per cent of the population live in public flats, does this mean that the majority of Singaporeans were worse off?
In contrast, according to the HDB Household Survey of the same year, “average household income of HDB flat dwellers rose from $3,719 to $4,238 a month.”
How is it possible that the DOS Household Survey differs so markedly from the HDB Household Survey for apparently the same period, for such a crucial statistic?
I tried searching the HDB web site and the internet for the HDB Sample Household Survey Report, but could not find it.
Instead of just a press release fill with HDB’s selective findings and conclusions, may I suggest that the full report be made available to the public so that we may try to figure out the whole story?
________________________
Photo by Joshua Chiang
http://business.asiaone.com/print/Business/News/Story/A1Story20100218-199359.html
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1038222/1/.html
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_491794.html
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_491802.html
http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10296p.nsf/PressReleases/C982024B92F84092482576CD0083862D?OpenDocument
____________________________________________________________________
Kudos to TOC, for providing an alternative voice to the people, long hoodwinked by the rubbish in our so-called “newspapers” which are actually government propaganda thrash
the survey was conducted in 2008….nuff said
MBT has not been getting much popularity for months, thus he needs HDB to come out with positive stories without much basis. As usual, Straits Times are trusted to trumpet it in the hope to help swing vote for MBT in Tampines.
This announcement by HDB is shameless. How in the world would anyone have such courage to tell such blatant lies, without any wink in the eyes… so to speak.
happy to what degree? extremely happy, very happy, moderately happy, etc…
before the recession of course the figures will look better, why did they not conduct a survey in the thick of the recession?
Caveman can also be happy living in his cave.
The state of happiness or dissatisfaction is more than just the shelter itself.
95% are happy with their flats? Are you kidding us. Get real please!!
Whatever the PAP (incumbent govt) spouts out in the form of statistics can NEVER BE TRUSTED. LIES N LIES N LYING ALL THE TIME.
Who verified it? Any transparency? Any accountability? None, excepting futurizing and if and when it does not work, making veiled threats and giving us the runaround.
Shitty Times, sorry can’t help it lar, is so shitty; it just regurgitates. in fact, they are not journalists, just reporters with fancy titles.
saw mbt in ching gay parade, he really desperate now, afraid to lose his tampines seat, until without trousers.
Yet again, another propaganda to win votes!
Shame on you, MBT!
You are desparately greedy to earn the obscene $$$millions!
95%? Thats too high a figure. Maybe 65% sounds more convinving. Yet again. This is SHITTYTIMES reporting. Can you believed a word from the 136th ranked press?
MBT is a “salt fish want to turn” too bad too late. The cast is set. He will be the pivotal in bringing down a GRC for the papies.
Singaporeans should give him the boot.
Goh Meng Seng did an indpendent analysis and came to basically the same conclusion.
http://singaporealternatives.blogspot.com/2010/02/call-for-clarity-from-mah-bow-tan-and.html
call for Clarity from Mah Bow Tan and HDB
In the upcoming elections, I have made clear my intention to contest in Tampines GRC. The reason for my doing so is because Minister Mah Bow Tan’s policies have caused great hardship for many Singaporeans. Mr Mah apparently believes that the hardship caused by his policies are “acceptable” for the greater good. At a recent community event in Tampines, Mr Mah said
“There’s no question that our policies are designed for the good of the people. While there may be certain parts of the policies that are not favourable, overall, I think these policies are for the well-being of the people and are good for the country.”
I strongly disagree with Mr Mah. In GE 2006, the PAP had published a political manifeso with the catchy title “Staying Together, Moving Ahead”. PM Lee made a promise to the Singapore people that “no one will be left behind”. Mr Mah’s statement seems to indicate that he does not believe in PM Lee’s vision. To Mr Mah, it is perfectly OK to sacrifice and leave some Singaporeans behind.
In the past 2 months, I have asked Mr Mah repeatedly for a policy debate so that Singaporeans can understand the issues and decide for themselves. I have done this through the mainstream media as well as in various blogs and Internet sites. So far, Mr Mah has pointedly ignored me. I do not understand why this is so. If Mr Mah is correct and has all the facts to defend himself, then there is nothing to fear from an honest and open debate on the policy issues. If the debate can be aired on national television, all Singaporeans would benefit by having a better understanding of the issues.
Instead of engaging me in a direct debate, Mr Mah has chosen to engage me indirectly by instructing the HDB to release data and findings from the HDB Sample Household Survey 2008
When I read the press release dated 18 Feb 2010, I noted three glaring problems with the way in which the analysis was done.
The first problem is found in the paragraph 2:
The HDB resident population, comprising Singapore Citizens and Singapore Permanent Residents, increased by 2.7% over 5 years to 2.92 million in 2008. This figure made up 96% of the total population in HDB flats (88% were Singapore Citizens and 8% were SPRs), while the remaining 4% were foreigners.
If the underlying population of the survey is 2.92 million, then it would appear that the survey frame is incorrect. This is because in the Yearbook of Statistics 2009 published by the Singapore Department of Statistics, it is stated that the total population of Singapore is 4.84 million. If only 2.92 million are staying in HDB flats, then where would the remaining 1.92 million be staying? It seems inconceivable that the relatively few condominiums, landed properties and worker dormitories in Singapore can house 1.92 million people (39.6% of the population).
If there was something wrong with the survey frame, then the findings from the survey would be invalid. It would almost be too frightening to imagine if this is an indication that Mr Mah has been using the wrong numbers to make policy.
The second problem is found in paragraph 3
The average household income from work had also risen from $4,238 in 2003 to $5,680 in 2008, reflecting the growing affluence of HDB households.
There are two problems here. Using household income instead of individual income is not a good indication at all. The rise in the household income may be the result of Mr. Mah’s HDB policy that pushes up the prices of new flats which in turn, forces young couples to stay with their parents. This will in turn artificially pushes up household income. This is especially obvious when we notice that there is an unusual artificial surge in both median and average household income in 2007 and 2008. Median household income has increased 9.4% and 13.1% in 2007 and 2008 respectively while average household income has increased 10.1% and 12.6% respectively. This is the clear indication that the rapid growth of HDB flat prices during these two critical years have caused such abnormality because as Singaporeans, we do not experience such a high increase in individual income for these two years.
From another perspective, if we are to take household income too seriously, even for the median household income, it would mean that our income would have increase a whopping 38.5% within that 10 years! As for Average Household Income, it would mean that income could have increase a whopping 44.6%! But we are looking at YOUNG COUPLES who have not worked that long in the job market but looking for flats! Have the starting pay for new entrants into the job market very different between 2009 and 1999? Apparently not. Some people are even complaining that their starting pays have even been lower than the 90s due to the influx of Foreign workers!
In fact, my researcher and I were looking through official statistics on MEDIAN INDIVIDUAL INCOME growth as compared to HDB PRICES GROWTH but such time series statistics only starts from 2005 till now. I am sure the PAP government has such statistics from 1999 onwards but why is it holding back such statistics for the last 5 years? Or they could have even use the statistics from 2005 till 2009 to make their justifications! If the PAP government could put up even more detailed statistics of income of Singaporeans who are 30 years and below, it would give a more accurate picture on how the disparity of income vs HDB price growth for the past 10 years!
The second problem here is with the use of average. As a statistical measure of central tendency, the average or mean is known to give inflated values when you have extreme values. Such extreme values are prevalent in income statistics in Singapore given the large income disparity between the rich and the poor.
Even if we are to accept such distorted representation, the more normal approach is therefore to use median rather than average. An illustration of how average gives inflated income statistics can be found in the paper published by the Singapore Department of Statistics. The paper is titled Key Income Trends, 2009. In Table 1, we have a comparison between median household income and average household income. I have extracted the numbers from the table and present them here:
This table shows that if we use average, the household income is inflated by 35% to 45%. The reason for this is the small number of households who have very high income. To my knowledge, the Singapore Department of Statistics uses median household income in all of their papers and publications. It is unknown why HDB would want to use the inflated average household income in their policy making. If Mr Mah were to use median household income, maybe he will understand why so many Singaporeans are saying HDB flats are not affordable.
Intriguingly, the widening percentage differences between the median and average household income actually reflects a serious problem here….the widening of income inequality! It actually shows that income inequality has widen about 15% or more for the past 10 years in terms of household income!
The final problem is found in paragraph 5.
96.4% of all HDB households surveyed said they were satisfied with their flats, while 95.1% were satisfied with their neighbourhood.
This finding seems to be very strange as it would suggest that almost everyone was happy with their HDB flat. If that is true, then HDB should not be receiving any complaints and we should only be seeing only happy people in their HDB flats. The truth on the ground seems to be very different. The majority of us living in the HDB heartlands, do not seem to be seeing universal joy and happiness. I do not understand this finding and will be writing in to ask HDB for the survey form and the methodology with which they used. I will post what I learn when HDB replies to me.
The electoral battle in Tampines will be a referendum on Mr Mah’s policies. I urge the voters of Tampines to stand with me and send a strong message to the PAP that policy failures like those committed by Mr Mah cannot and will not be tolerated. If we continue to keep quiet, then the policy failures will continue and Singaporeans will continue to suffer.
When reading Tan Kin Lian’s blog, I came across the passage below. It was written by Niemoller, a German who lived during the rise of Nazism. Many Germans were against Nazism but were reluctant to speak up. While we are not living in Nazi Germany, the underlying message tells of what will happen if we continue to keep quiet.
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Goh Meng Seng
a Survey is just a survey. i dun take it seriously because it is not absolute.
TOC can try this:
1. conduct similar survey based on a sample size similar and then some more than this survey, if it is known the size it used.
2. compare the results.
3. Let people know if there is discrepancy.
4. Let people know what is their criteria used.
5. Liberate the people’s minds. The people is unique. this we must remind ourselves.
95% to me is might as well say 100%. :P
95% happy?
the first idea that came to my mind was the one about a certain iraqi president winning 100% of the votes during an election…
well well, PAP at its best!
Uncle Leong
If you are interested to get a copy of the report, you can order from HDB
http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10320p.nsf/w/PublicationForSale?OpenDocument
HDB very stingy … dun release the report for free on the internet.
The latest financial engineering tricks of the PAP govt:
Problem: Singapore doesn’t want to raise interest rate because it hurts the GLC companies earnings.
PAP solution:
1. take some monies out of the CPF interests supposedly to be given to the contributors; that lowers the apparent long term interest rate. Could also be in the form of extra GST, or CDAC funding or insurance against insurance companies failing.
2. put the excess monies in a fund to supposedly help solve a social problem: could be old age, could be to insure against an insurance company’s collapse, could be to fund “training” through CDAC, could be to help pay for more medical expenses, could be to help the poor etc. We all recognize these seemingly good reasons which turned out empirically to not happen.
3. restrict the access of these monies by the contributors. We don’t even know how much was the interest rate assumption used in the setting up of these funds. For all you know it is zero.
that is why even though the amount received by beneficiaries has increased, the number of people who receives aid has decreased, for example, pertaining to the extra GST increases to help the poor fund/reason.
4. use the fund monies to do whatever the govt thinks is necessary to increase the GDP as if throwing good monies after bad is a good solution.
What I want to say is:
1. if you are hoping that those social problems are solved by the govt funding or financial engineering method, I say you should think again.
They are just patches for them to keep the interest rate to benefit the govt and its companies.
So whenever, there is a call to contribute by any governmental effort, it is better you don’t contribute.
Notice also that the govt stop employing the 1 for 1 method whereby every dollar donated by the public, the govt match with 1 dollar to make up the short fall in social assistance program.
You should also not be expecting a high return from your insurance product any time soon.
Be very skeptical of such govt “surveys”.
What are the questions posed and are respondents limited by multi-choice answers???
Maybe one of HDB’s “survey” questions is:
Question: Are you satisfied with your flat.
Please choose one of the following answers:
(a) Feels like heaven, (b) Extremely happy, (c) very very happy, (d) very happy
Most respondents chose (d). Presto….HDB says that most S’poreans are “very happy”!!!
As has been pointed out, the figures produced by the HDB just do not tally.
As the saying goes, you can cheat some people some of the time; or you can cheat all the people some of the time; but surely you cannot cheat all the people all the time.
Hey Mr. MBT, why so bodoh?
Your time is up!
Not all have Wisdom.
It takes wisdom to Digest information presented to you.
People who swallow wholesale what info is presented to them Without Analysis and thorough understanding is technically swallowing based on Trust.
Good argument Leong Sze Hian,you have once again exposed the lies by PAP!
After over 40 years of propaganda,PAP has now resorted to desperate distortion of truths even in surveys;thinking that no one can tell it’s the work of its “spin doctors”.
PAP should feel ashamed to claim winning “hands down”each election
through such factual distortions!
The HDB or reporters conducting such untrue surveys are likened to an analogy such as feedback from rape victims revealing that they are actually ” 95% sexually satisfied during the rape ” (and the jury is forced to believe it!)
Please note that surveys can be structured and modelled to get results that the party wants to see, and what they want the people to hear. Surveys and words can be choreographed.
i think they’re saying,95% of those flats dwellers that can service their loans are happy…
It took me one long year to look for my present dream flat but my dream flat turn out be a nightmare the day my neighbour decide to live with their son and rent the whole flat to a Zhi Char boss who rent the flat to house his foreign workers mostly from Malaysia. The foreign workers live like norturnal animals, sleep in the day but very active and noisy in the middle of the night from midnight onwards. Complaining to the HDB is like complaining to the wall. I am very sure there many Singaporean HDB owners is facing the same problem as me. Then we have this littering problem. Nowadays if I hear someone say Singapore is very clean, I wanted to throw out. Come to Sembawang GRC especially Marsiling areas and I am happy to show you around the neighbourhood to see all the litters and rubbish. If you see the cleaners washing the common area two days in a row that means MP is coming to vist the estate. No MP visit one piece of paper will lay there for days at the same position. I live in the neighbourhood for ten years and the illegal parking problem is getting worse. There are plenty of Certis Cisco traffic wardens patrolling Causeway Point/Woodlands Civic Center areas and Woodlands Center but none is willing to come to Marsiling Lane to book those illegal parking my non-residents. From dawn to dusk and dusk to dawn vehicles park illegal. Many accident happens along the strecht of road and only recently two accidents whereby pesdestrians were injured. One accident ambulance were call and the other a coffeeshop assistant crossing the Zebra Crossing was knocked down by a car and the motorist compensate the woman $150 and the accidnet was not reported. I have seen twice cars making a U-turn at the Zebra Crossing. Then we have this carpark problem. At least 20 car owners who bought monthly carpark coupon cannot find parking space nightly. I have hear others complaining about their neighbourhood too exactly the same problem my neighbourhood is facing so how can 95% Singaporeans is happy with their flats?
I can also safely say that more than 33% of the voters will vote against the PAP during the next GE;
(1) even though 95% are happy with their flat
(2) even though Majority also feel that ministers pay rise is justifiable
(3) even though Majority also feel that transport fees increase is reasonable.
(4) even though Majority also believe that pigs can climb trees.
(5) even though Majority also believe that more foreigners are good for us.
(6) even though Majority also believe that HDB flats are affordable.
That why I say; “dont believe the internet; don’t believe in what you see and experienced; believe in the Straits Times, it is filled with goodness like milo”.
I am not happy at all having to pay and pay with so much of my hardearned savings to a small flat that is definitely Overpriced according to me and many people i speak to.
Why must so much of my money be stuck in a small public housing?
I am not satisfied with this situation.
I want Change.
Nevermind some noisy neighbors, I have to live in an estate where Fighter Jets ROAR pass low over my head EVERYDAY! Why on earth didn’t HDB consider the potential Noise Pollution before building flats in this locale???
Now talk about HDB carpark.
My friend who stay at Tampines Block 210 for 25 over years told me that he is unable to get a HDB season parking ticket this month as they were sold out.He was summon even he display hourly or night coupon parking.He was told that there are hourly parking lots available for parking and he found out it was more than 500 meteres away.Nevermind,and when he wanted to use it,found that it was a wrong information or maybe to trap him again as that is also meant for season parking.Having summoned at least 3 times this month for parking without a valid season parking coupon of a total of S$150.00 ,despite having displayed hourly or night coupon ,he told me that he has to sle ep outside every night as he will be summon if he goes back with his van.,unless he park somewhere and take a public transport home.And the van is a necessity and not a luxury as his living depend on it.Cannot see his wife and child peacefully,Can he be happy?
@agongkia : Well ,, MM say we are daft . Are you or your friend? You put this $m ministers there of course must think how to get million right.
If you don’t vote for change,, nothing will change, so in a way don’t complaint.
Why is it that most of our hardearned money is being held in a so-called Public Housing flat?
Why is it become a situation where public housing is one of the most expensive in the world if not The?
Why is that that guy said something like the flat is for living not as something to profit from?
If so, how is the record overpricing affecting people who should pay and pay to live in a small house called a flat?
If gonmin not responsible for controlling price, who is?
I know what i want this election.
regards
Ah Fork de Hum
[i]
tigger
Feb 22, 2010 21:55
95% happy?
the first idea that came to my mind was the one about a certain iraqi president winning 100% of the votes during an election…
well well, PAP at its best![/i]
i also see 1 african president who also won 101% of the votes every time..
his amry just blungeon any voters who vote the opposite the moment they cast their votes..
want to win..used a club..sured win mah…with you aroun..defiteniteLEE pauchiak…
Survey done by who? HDB. So what do u expect the outcome of survey to be. The chinese sayings goes: Those selling flowers, will praise the flowers fragrance. It is just another piece of Pap gimmicks, look like more gimmicks coming before election.
This is the year 2010, why are they using 2008 information? In singapore, we suppose to be super effective, surely u dont need 2 years to do a survey, right?
Why dont u state 1980 figures instead:P
alamak,
with the price sky high,
1. how to afford?
2. how to be happy then? (if cant afford)
alamak
I agree with most that the 95% figure look suspect. There may be some truth in it though, like maybe 95% are happy just to have a roof over their heads; they may not be exactly overjoyed with the accommodation; or like myself - I’m happy because I really had to fork out a fortune to buy my flat, so maybe there is a psychological effect that people will want to think their money is well spent. After all, how many people really have more than one house to appreciate in S’pore?
Anyway, a survey is a survey. Does that mean only 5% are unhappy with their flats? That would seems a rather low figure given the high rejection rate of first time applicants with their flats. Did the survey covered those living on the 1st or 2nd floors, near to rubblish bins, or those flats that have been consistently rejected over the years by everyone, etc….
An aside, an incident which I mentioned previously. MBT recently officiated opening of a solar-powered building at BCA Academy. On TV, one staff mentioned the payback is 5-6 years (totally unbelievable); MBT said 10-12 years (stretching it but can be possible if S’pore weather somehow changes). The actual cost of retrofitting the building was $11 million, so the actual payback will be like more than 100++ years!. So any figures released for general public consumption really depends on from which angle one wants to present it. 5-12 years would look good to showcase we are embracing new technology, blah, blah….. even though clearly a “half-truth” (or an outright lie?). To be fair to MBT, I think he just read whatever script given to him; whether he wants to look like an idiot is really up to him. But consideration for his mega-salary probably has a part, no?
This is such a good example of an unbelievable bullshit!
My concern is whether most just Accept the Survey WHOLESALE.
But really, I would not be surprised.
We need more foreign talents.
I remember the public transport survey that says most people are happy with it, yet the number of people using it FELL.
Remember that? What a joke, these surveys…
BTW, did anyone or ST actually conducted a survey with our MPs to find if they had believed they could deliver Swiss standards of living to S’poreans or World Cup 2010? Understand now SingTel even have problems telecasting WC 2010?! Aiyah, only survey-survey, what!
My main concern is NOT if the majority now will vote out this corrupt regime, but will the opposition have sufficient escorts to monitor the vote-boxes when they are ferried out of the polling stations to the counting centers. If patronizing citizens through such BS surveys are normal aside from the other usual propaganda stuff, switching conveyancing transport (carrying vote ballot boxes) in heavily contested constituents, are not beneath them. They WILL do Anything to “win legally” in the eyes of the world.
I don’t think the PAP will resort to stuffing ballot boxes to win.
In the event of an Oppostion taking down a GRC, the more important thing to do will be to lock down the town council so that nothing gets shredded or deleted.
Plenty of skeletons for those who know where to look.
I NEVER trust MIW at any level. When the opposition takes down a few GRCs, prepare for wayang drama cos old man said he will send in the army-all the freshly-minted little boy colonels and generals. Dun pray pray. They shoot to kill one. Bang! Bang! :)
95% are happy with their flats?
yeah right, LIARS! GREAT LIARS!!!
I suggest all singaporeans who are now jobless to vote out the papies, make them pay for causing pain and hardships to the citizens.
I’d think that people may like to own things which they can monetize, not so for a HDB flat which they have to monetize in their old age. Affordable and value for money indeed. Uniquely Singapore!
if they say 66%, i would not be surprised. But 95%? oh, they must be right. We must believe in honesty and integrity.
what an ungrateful Singaporeans we are, we are safe and secure, how can you people have the hearts to comment negatively ?
Your house ,even an earthquake wer to strike, i bet my life , our building will stand.
You people will go overseas and show off arrogantly as sporean, how will this be possible without a proper govt ? The way we react and our arrogant attitude speaks for itself that our Govt is world class .
We have a world class safety
We have a world class economy
We have a world class education system
We no doubt have a world class housing development system
we are just good in complaining till we face the opposite then all of us will start regreting, whatever done is done for the good for Singaporeans, yes here and there there might be scratches, but in the whole, i see a big white clean sheet and lets not over hype over a small pencil mark .
“arrogant attitude speaks for itself that our Govt is world class”
OMG!…haha…associating an obviously negative and undesirable trait with being world class??!!!
And we wonder where all the brain dead world class bootlicking ugly Singaporeans are hiding? Scary sad sad day!
Statistics is often skewed to suit an interested party. To say 95% of HDB dwellers is satisfied is too far- fetched. Given an option I would prefer a simple attap hut in a kumpong like in the good old days. My main grudge with HDB is the mentality of people. Your neighbour live for themselve and don’t give a damn who you are. My immediate neighbours were friendly S’pore Malays and we got along fine. They left and now foreigners moved in and they shut their doors. The main rubbish chute is forever cluttered - don’t care or don’t know how to use I wonder. At the car-park, motorists honk and use their remote car door key to make a lot of noise even during the silent hours at night. Imagine these people cannot open their car door silently - technology is useless if it contributes to noise pollution. Car alarms go off and wake up the whole neighbourhood. Karang guni man blare their horns. One can become a nervous wreck staying in HDB flat.
Dear Mr Leong,
One of the things we have missed ou is this : How many PRs have bought HDB and return home to their countries for a few years and waiting for the HDB prices to increase befor selling them. By this I mean how many PRs have puchased HDBs and returned to their country while renting out or leaving these flats empty and waiting for the price to increase before selling them thus making a profit .
Lets not forget that many so called PRs are cash/asset rich with bank accounts in their own countries but working in singapore and exploting the loophole in buying and selling HDB flats at a profit before they eventually give up their PR status and return home.