Connect with us

Comments

Mistaken about actual length of fireworks, citizens decry waste of tax-money on hour-long show in year-end celebration at Marina Bay

Published

on

The Urban Redevelopment Agency (URA) announced in a press release on Wednesday (5 December) that a series of breath-taking fireworks will light up Marina Bay for a full hour leading to midnight for the first time to celebrate New Year Eve.

The agency stated that this multi-sensory fireworks musical will take the fireworks display to the next level. The audience will be wowed with a combination of the dazzling fireworks and pyrotechnics, lights, 3D surround sound and performance acts by Taiko drummers, dancers, fire performers and more.

“At the stroke of midnight, the spectacular fireworks that can be viewed from around the bay will bloom against the backdrop of Singapore’s city skyline, lighting up the whole of Marina Bay and marking the grand finale to the celebrations,” it added.

The agency stated that there will be light projection shows on key landmarks around the bay; Mediacorp’s Let’s Celebrate 2019 countdown concert at The Promontory, made free for the public for the first time; the Food Truck Fest at the Marina Bay Sands Event Plaza, offering modern local gastronomical delights; Esplanade Presents Come Together outdoor performances by local acts at the Esplanade Outdoor Theatre and the Prudential Marina Bay Carnival at the Bayfront Event Space.

There will also be the Car-Free New Year’s Eve (Car-Free NYE) at the Civic District, where the roads around the Padang will be closed to vehicular traffic for activities such as movie screenings, live performances, bazaars, salsa dancing and more. Enter the New Year with an awe-inspiring fireworks display set against the iconic Singapore’s city skyline with STAR ISLAND Singapore Countdown Edition.

Source: URA.

Mr Lim Eng Hwee, Chief Executive Officer of the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) said that the government hopes that the event will inspire members of the public to play part in helping the less privileged through the Build a Dream initiative.

Various mainstream medias published the story regarding the matter, including Channel NewsAsia. As the report was unclear about the actual length of the fireworks which led to many assuming that the fireworks are an hour long, netizens took to the Facebook page commenting that they do not disagree with this kind of celebration, saying that they would rather to see the money spend for the unfortunate and that there will be excessive environmental pollution caused by this activity.

Max Ho wrote, “Lee Hsien Loong, dear Sir please help to convince your agency not to proceed with an hour long firework display (if the headline is true). It is really a waste of money and not to mention the environmental pollution to the Marina Barrage. Can we instead channel these monies to something more meaningful for our community? Thank you.”

Julie Allen wrote, “What a terrible waste of money.”

Levianna Teng wrote, “Hate fireworks. Things so pretty will not last a minute. Please, don’t waste our nations money in this area.  Build roads, help the elders, orphans, families trying to make ends meet.
Don’t just throw it into the sky and pollute the environment.
Come on brainy people up there. You can do better.”

Melvin Yee Wai Khuen wrote, “Can we get more bonus cash payouts instead?”

Alvin Tan wrote, “Didnt someone say to tighten the belt, be frugal with expenses?
So now, got budget for hour long fireworks? Paid for, using whose money?”

David Ko wrote, “Can we not do that fireworks thing? Maybe the money can be used to bring cheers to charity instead?”

Keith Lim wrote, “A waste of money. As a fellow Singaporean, I want some of this money spent on the poor. This is incredibly shameful given our current plight. Our government has lost its moral bearing or so it seems. I also remember not long ago when our PM told us to live more frugally.”

Bbreeze Eileen wrote, “Why do we need hour long fireworks? People generally don’t come to Singapore for fireworks. Give me an hour long buffet anytime.”

Anchor Anderson wrote, “This is crap, environment pollution, excessive noise, many negative elements, waste of money instead keep it low key!!”

Vin Lam wrote, “No thank you. Please donate the funds to some charitable association please.”

RS Danny wrote, “Is is this even necessary? Why waste the money? the money can be put to better use!”

Tan Chong Wei wrote, “After 5 minutes, the sky is already enveloped in smoke and the fireworks become boring. Imagine 1 hour.”

Silvana Gianoli wrote, “People will be bored with a hour long display. And omg really, money could be better spent on something else.”

Kelvin Lim wrote, “Without any theme, it will be boring. Look at Japan fireworks. That’s what fireworks all about. If you keep firing it into the sky without any theme and coordination at all, might as well fire it into someone who needs it more. Use the money to bring down the cost of dish washing for whatever social simi enterprise.”

Aloysius Chia wrote, “For the sake of spectacle. The money could be more productively and usefully spent on helping people who really need it. 1 hour of fireworks could effectively be used in those hours spent on helping the young who need tuition, the needy to buy books and food, the sick for help in alleviating medical bills. Is this really necessary?!”

Chin Heng wrote, “Another way is to spread out the fireworks to various heartland areas, just a 5 minute duration is more than enough. I believe the overall cost would be lower.”

Hong Kim Kwee Jesse wrote, “Talk about carbon emissions, environmental friendly etc and now this? How irony!”

Esmond Lee wrote, “How much tax payer money will be spent??”

Desmond Buckland wrote, “Too excessive la. Money shouldn’t be spend in this way. If provide more necessities for poor better.”

Mak Zhen Yu wrote, “Too many funds to spare is it? How about prepare for next year Hong bao for citizens?”

Zoel Lee wrote, “Just another new year, what’s the occasion need to be so extravagant? Why don’t spend on something more meaningful instead? Waste of resources.”

Tan Hok Jun wrote, “Singapore is rich. But not the citizens.”

Mark Oh wrote, “Air pollution. Like that how to complain to Indonesia when next haze come.”

Yusri Lias wrote, “I’ve seen fireworks 10 times better and flying lanterns float up in the air at the same time simple but way more beautiful. Our country using all those fancy fireworks but only a small area. Waste of our money.”

Samy Rajoo wrote, “An hour long is just redundant lah. Also no mention of the cost.”

Melodie Tan wrote, “Stop scaring the birds. They can die from being scared by the fire works.”

Darryl Kang wrote, “After 5 minutes, you will see nothing but smoke.”

Alvinkk Lim wrote, “I heard before that the government will listen to the ground. An hour of fireworks? Really? Come on. It can be put to better use.”

Andy Wee wrote, “They should have it in two to three places instead. Watching fireworks in a big crowd for so long after a while is not so nice.”

Hady Azman wrote, “Ahhh. So that’s where our money went to. All those hike.'”

Woon Hong Kiat wrote, “Why use money like that instead of helping those in need. It’s like burning money. See nice only but after finish, spent millions of taxpayers money. If it is sponsored by the ministers money, I salute them.”

Esther wrote, “Why not an hour of giving free meal, free electricity, free water usage, free parking that benefits most people? How much it costs for an hour fireworks? What will happen if the fireworks not handle properly?”

Daniel Ong wrote, “Waste of money. The government raise GST to burn money on this.”

Jaxon Lee wrote, “Broadcast live to the world. Be more creative on camera angles, editing to better capture the fireworks display. Our fireworks display ALWAYS looks amateurish compared to other fireworks displays in other countries.”

Haziq Rosli wrote, “$1000 burning every second. Millions of dollars. Eh pay me that much and I’ll create firework graphics that can run for a full 24 hours on Mediacorp.”

Maya Todd wrote, “Please please please, don’t want hour long fire works. 10 mins beautiful fireworks is all the eyes can take. Please scrap this plan.”

Edmund Goh wrote, “Please, tell me is one hour of fairy sticks not firework. That smoke will pollute our air like smog we had years ago. And how much does that gonna cost us?”

Antony Lee wrote, “You have time to watch an hour worth of fireworks? Maybe the lucky few. These fireworks display is meant for visitors and tourists.
Using whose money??”

Yew Chong Nelson Lee wrote, “What a waste of money! And now cannot cancel contract because already signed!”

Fred John Sam wrote, “I watched it once 2014.. I was watching near Merlion. And there it was, SMOKE SCREEN! Did not watch it again the years after.”

Earl Perera wrote, “Who ever came up with this idea is beyond dumb and too elitist to notice what a waste of money. I really hope the government that I voted for does not go ahead with it.”

Leng Leng Clara wrote, “Pure waste of money when we see people struggle in the neighborhoods or paying cleaners only $700 a month. This instant gratification is meaningless. Use the money to distribute food vouchers for those living in rented housing.”

Jerichó Augustus Tan wrote, “Seeing fireworks: I cry not because i am patriotic and feeling nationalistic. There goes my income tax.”

David Mah Chuin Wai wrote, “Some fireworks is nice but 1 hr???? What is the committee thinking??? One hand smoke free, while the other hand create smoke . One hand ask Singaporeans to help the poor. The other hand spend like no body’s business!”

Ishete Chellaiah wrote, “Of course! What a fabulous way to celebrate climate change!!”

Nidhi Bansal wrote, “Wastage of money, time, and resources to create tonnes of polluted air! Singapore should set an example with technology to the outer world and use the drones that can put a remarkable show for celebrations.”

Greg Lim wrote, “Wow. Isn’t it “wonderful” to let the citizens watch their tax money burned for an hour? All the talks about being environmentally friendly crap came to this.”

Steve Lee wrote, “Would it not be better to use the money to help the elderly.”

Jane Tan wrote, “An hour long? What a waste of money! And BAD for the environment!!!”

Lee Tze Hoo wrote, “Please, do not do the firework displays, instead donate the money to charity.”

Bernard Chua Kong Liat wrote, “Goodness what a waste money.. Help those who needs the money more… Please!!!!”

Sallu Hyesung wrote, “Complete waste of money. Please, put the money for better use.”

Grace Li wrote, “Ugh! Spend the $$$ on the less fortunate and other more worthy causes!”

Some even said that this celebration is a political move towards 2019 General Election (GE).

Chia Wee Loon wrote, “Stanford Raffles 200th year, hour long fireworks – General Election in 2019.”

Jackie Wau Wai Lan wrote, “Pre 2019 GE countdown! Cut the firework; sheer waste of taxpayers’ money and air pollution.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Comments

Dr Chee Soon Juan criticises Ho Ching’s vision for 8-10 million population

SDP chief Dr Chee Soon Juan criticised Ho Ching’s claim that Singapore could support a population of 8 to 10 million through effective city planning. In a video message, he expressed scepticism about the push for population growth, citing adverse effects like rising living costs and mental health issues. Dr Chee argued that smaller populations can thrive, referencing Scandinavian countries that excelled internationally and produced Nobel laureates.

Published

on

Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), slammed Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s spouse, Ho Ching, for her assertion that Singapore could accommodate 8 to 10 million people with proper city planning and land reclamation.

In a video message published on 1 October, Dr Chee expressed strong scepticism regarding the narrative of increasing the population, highlighting that the current surge past the 6 million mark had been largely driven by the influx of foreigners, which led to several adverse consequences.

He further highlighted that smaller populations were not inherently negative, drawing examples from some Scandinavian countries that had flourished on the international stage despite their smaller populations and had even produced Nobel Prize laureates.

Ho Ching expressed confidence that with proper city planning, Singapore could accommodate up to 8-10 million people

Last Friday (27 September), in a Facebook post, Madam Ho, who was also the former CEO of Temasek Holdings, highlighted the growing demand for caregivers as the population aged and the need for workers to sustain sectors like construction and engineering, particularly as the workforce shrank due to lower birth rates.

“As we have less children, we need more people from elsewhere to join us to keep this city functioning, from repairing train tracks through the night to serving patients in hospitals through the night. ”

Dr Chee Highlights Risks of Population Growth

In response, Dr Chee recalled his experience of being reprimanded by Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan during the last General Election for raising concerns about the implications of a rapidly growing population.

He questioned why Madam Ho, who shared similar views, had not faced the same scrutiny.

In his video, Dr Chee articulated several concerns regarding the proposed increase in population, highlighting the potential negative impacts, including increased demand for food, housing, and transportation, which would result in a significant rise in living costs.

With a larger population, Dr Chee pointed out that more flats, roads, hospitals, and public transportation would need to be constructed, which would ultimately require higher taxes and fees to maintain the necessary infrastructure.

The SDP leader emphasized that an influx of residents would intensify competition for jobs, exerting downward pressure on wages and potentially leading to higher rates of unemployment and underemployment.

Dr Chee further expressed concern over the environmental degradation that would accompany population growth, citing the recent clearing of forests for housing and industrial developments, including Tengah and Kranji Forests.

Dr Chee questioned the ability of existing infrastructure to cope with a growing population, referencing the persistent issues with the MRT system, including breakdowns and safety hazards.

He highlighted the toll that congestion and overpopulation take on the mental health of Singaporeans, noting a rise in reported mental health challenges.

“All this while the ministers live in secluded and luxurious bunglows and villas, far from the madding crowd which we are subjected to every single day.”

“So, when Ho Ching says that we can accommodate up to 10 million people, I’d like to ask her, where and what type of house she lives in?”

Dr Chee Argues for Innovative Economic Solutions Over Traditional Urban Expansion

Regarding the ruling government’s persistent push to increase Singapore’s population to what he considered “unhealthy levels,” Dr Chee suggested that the PAP lacked viable alternatives for fostering economic growth.

He implied that the government resorted to traditional methods of expansion, such as construction and urban development.

He highlighted that the government is fixated on physically expanding the city—“digging, pouring concrete, and erecting structures”—to sustain GDP growth.

This approach, he argued, creates an illusion that Singapore remains a productive economic hub, despite potential downsides.

Dr Chee Advocates for the Value of Smaller Populations: Cites Political Freedom as Key to Innovation and Success

Dr Chee further contended that a smaller population did not necessarily hinder a nation’s success.

He cited several Scandinavian countries and Taiwan, emphasising their global brands and innovations despite their relatively small populations.

Dr Chee connected the success of these nations to their political freedoms, arguing that the ability to think and express oneself freely fostered innovation and societal progress.

He contrasted this with Singapore, where he claimed that the government controlled media and stifled freedom of expression.

He criticised the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) for its centralised control and for limiting the potential of Singaporeans. Dr Chee used the metaphor of a “grotesque monkey” clinging to the nation, suggesting that the PAP hindered progress and growth.

Dr Chee emphasised that the quality of a population—its talent, energy, and potential—was far more important than its size.

He suggested that Singapore possessed the necessary attributes to succeed on a global scale but was held back by the current political landscape.

He urged Singaporeans to engage in critical thinking rather than passively accepting government narratives.

Dr Chee advocated for a more mature and sophisticated approach to governance and civic engagement, encouraging citizens to take an active role in shaping their society.

Continue Reading

Comments

Netizens criticise PM Wong’s video, urge Govt to address root causes of cost-of-living crisis

Netizens have voiced concerns over PM Wong’s approach to addressing the cost-of-living crisis. Many argue that distributing CDC vouchers provides only temporary relief and are calling for more substantial action on issues such as transport and rental costs.

Published

on

By

SINGAPORE: In response to Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s video titled “Tackling Cost of Living Concern,” uploaded on 2 October, netizens expressed that the Singapore government should address fundamental issues like transport and rental costs, rather than relying on measures such as distributing Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers.

In the six-minute video, PM Wong acknowledged that although inflation has moderated, the cost of living remains a significant issue for many Singaporeans.

PM Wong assured Singaporeans that his team is committed to helping them through this challenging period.

He emphasised that while inflation is expected to decline further in 2024, prices will still rise from time to time.

He explained that delaying price adjustments would only worsen the situation in the future, but the government will work on mitigating the impact of any necessary increases.

The prime minister outlined that the long-term solution to managing living costs is to ensure Singaporeans have access to good jobs with better wages.

He added that higher wages should outpace inflation, allowing citizens to improve their living standards in real terms.

PM Wong also provided an economic outlook for 2024, predicting higher growth and lower inflation, which could lead to increases in real incomes for workers.

He noted that the government is closely monitoring economic conditions for 2025 and will reveal more of its plans in the upcoming Budget.

Recapping earlier initiatives, PM Wong said the government has allocated over $10 billion through the Assurance Package to help Singaporeans cope with rising living costs, including enhancements to the package.

He highlighted that this year, every household has received S$800 in CDC vouchers, alongside utility rebates and cash payouts.

PM Wong also touched on global inflation trends, explaining how disruptions from the pandemic and global conflicts affected prices.

He assured Singaporeans that the government has taken measures, such as strengthening the Singapore dollar, to shield them from the worst of these effects.

Netizens criticise government’s approach to rising cost of living

Hundreds of netizens have voiced their concerns under a Facebook post by The Straits Times on PM Wong’s video, criticising the government’s approach to addressing cost-of-living issues.

Many users expressed frustration, noting that despite the government’s repeated reassurances about helping Singaporeans, there has been a lack of action to address the ongoing increases in utility and transport fares.

Others echoed similar sentiments, with one user blaming the increase in GST to 9% as a major factor contributing to the rising cost of living. As Finance Minister, PM Wong was the key advocate of the GST hike and defended it when the opposition called for a deferment.

One netizen criticised the government’s actions as being counterproductive.  They pointed out that while the government raises prices in several areas, it simultaneously claims to be providing help, which they view as contradictory.

Netizens call for action on rising rental costs, criticise reliance on CDC vouchers

Many commenters also criticised the distribution of CDC vouchers as insufficient, urging the government to tackle root issues such as high rental and housing costs.

One netizen argued that CDC vouchers provide little relief, and reducing rental, medical, and food costs would be a more effective solution.

Another user called for standardised rental prices for hawker stalls and suggested that the government should fine landlords who raise rents excessively.

Other commenters focused on the need for more substantial measures, such as controlling hawker stall and coffee shop leases.

They argued that skyrocketing rental prices directly affect consumers through higher food costs.

One user proposed reducing government officials’ salaries and reforming other key policies such as lowering the GST and making housing more affordable as real solutions.

Additionally, some netizens highlighted the need to address transport and rental costs, noting that higher transport and raw material costs will continue to drive up consumer prices.

They urged the government to reduce rent for commercial shops and food stalls.

Netizens call for concrete measures in addressing cost of living

Some netizens expressed doubts about the government’s efforts to address the cost of living, calling for more transparency and concrete actions.

Many have called for clear metrics, such as housing prices, Certificate of Entitlement (COE) prices, transportation costs, and population growth, to be presented as proof of the government’s commitment to tackling these issues.

Other commenters urged the government to avoid short-term solutions such as payouts, which could ultimately lead to higher taxpayer costs.

They suggested more long-term measures, including lowering CPF contribution rates, which they view as a financial burden on lower-income earners.

 

Continue Reading

Trending