September 14, 2008
Dear Editor,
Introduction
The iconic Holland Village faces a car-park space crunch.
This is unfortunate as Holland V, as it is affectionately known, has become something of a tourist attraction boasting a myriad of global cuisines and is popular for its alfresco dining.
For reasons known only to Providence and our omniscient government, the restaurant owners are made to suffer one misfortune after another.
Holland V’s list of misfortunes
First came 9-11 seven years ago when as an anti-terrorist measure, part of the main street was closed to vehicular traffic and car-parking curtailed.
Then came the Circle Line MRT station construction (2004) when much-needed carpark lots disappeared.
Just when the entrepreneurial business owners thought they had found an innovative solution by having valets park their patrons’ cars, the HDB, almost predictably, appeared to shove a spanner in the works.
Valet parking is efficient use of resources
From my personal experience, valet parking is an extremely efficient use of limited resources. All hospitals (private and public), many major eateries and all hotels use them. Valets can squeeze in many more cars into a limited space then ever thought possible. No machines can ever replace the ingenuity of the human brain.
HDB,Consider this win-win solution
HDB, please don’t be silly. Have a heart and please consider the following win-win solution.
1. Proceed with the Electronic Parking system (EPS). With this, there is no question of HDB being deprived of its revenue. Valet parking will be in addition to and not a substitute for payment for carparks.
2. Let the valets continue, but only under close scrutiny. Residents and patrons who are self-parkng must not be harassed nor inconvenienced. Fine the valets for infringements, if you have to.
In this difficult economic climate, government bodies such as the HDB should consider themselves partners of private enterprise, helping small businesses survive.
What say you, HDB?
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
cc: HDB
Links:1.ST Discussion Forum & 2. ST Report
NB: This letter printed in 2 newspapers
Showing posts with label injustice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label injustice. Show all posts
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Burma fools the world (again)
Hi Friends
Burma makes a fool of the international community once again.
Burma makes a fool of the international community once again.
It now has a draft constitution which more or less says, “ Anyone who is named Aung San Suu Kyi cannot participate in the 2010 elections.”
Okay, it actually stipulates that anyone who is married to a foreigner (even if the latter has long died) or who have children who are not Burma nationals cannot take part in domestic politics.
All these tailor-made laws and constitutions have a déjà vu effect about it.
Deja vu effect (or history repeating itself)
Now, let me think.... what does all this tinkering of the country’s laws remind me of?
Hey, isn’t it a real coincidence that the Malaysian elections has been hastily fixed for early Mar 08? Do you guys think early elections was called because the Malaysian economy is booming and the Barisan Nasional is confident of getting an overwhelming mandate from all the ethnic races- including from the Indians? And the electorate has forgotten how well their Health Minister Dr.Chua has performed ( in and out of bed)?
Or do you think that former deputy PM Anwar Ibrahim’s automatic disqualification till later in Mar 08 has anything to do with the election date?
Before I am accused of being arrogant and of belittling our ASEAN neighbours, let me be fair and state that such dastardly actions are not unknown on our own very shores. Really!
But I am getting old and my memory is fading... was it at our general elections when the polling date coincided with the disqualification period of some opposition politician? Someone please jolt my memory- was it JBJ ( again) or someone else?
Anyway it just goes to show that in the politics of this neck of the woods, the incumbent party always tries all tricks ( legal or otherwise) to stay in power! Like someone famously said, their job is not to help the opposition win!
ASEAN’s reaction ( or not) to Burma’s action
Going back to Burma’s situation, I do not think that Foreign Minister George Yeo’s statement,” But this is their own country, this is their own history, what can we do about it?" is particularly helpful to the cause of justice.
He could at least say, “Hey, if you continue like this, I don’t "friend" you!” or in diplomatic-speak, “ Burma’s actions are anachronistic and ASEAN and the rest of the international community cannot be expected to stand idly by while you continue to .... blah blah”
Sigh, in the real world, bad people continue to do bad things and the rest of the world just look away!
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”
Edmund Burke
Edmund Burke
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
By S. Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia Posted: 20 February 2008 0220 hrs
SINGAPORE :
Myanmar citizens who have a foreign husband and whose children are not Myanmar nationals cannot take part in domestic politics.
This is the regulation stipulated by the country's new Constitution.
Myanmar's Foreign Minister Nyan Win gave this update when he briefed ASEAN foreign ministers at their retreat in Singapore on Tuesday, according to Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo who spoke to the media.
Mr Yeo was responding to a question on whether the Myanmar minister had given any indication if opposition leader Aung Syan Syu Kyi can take take part in the country's elections which is slated to be held in 2010.
According to Mr Nyan Win, this eligibility criteria has been around since 1974 and would be carried forward in the new Constitution.
Mr Yeo said "We (the ASEAN Foreign Ministers) expressed our views on this. It is not keeping with the times that certainly such a provision would be very odd in any other country in ASEAN. But this is their own country, this is their own history, what can we do about it?"
Separately, ASEAN's Foreign Ministers attending the informal retreat are due to spend the greater part of Wednesday discussing how members are implementing the ASEAN Charter.
Mr George Yeo, who is currently the ASEAN's Chair said, before getting down to discussions, Malaysia, Laos and Brunei will hand over documents to the ASEAN Secretary-General as their respective countries had completed ratifying the ASEAN Charter.
This brings the number of ASEAN member countries who have ratified the Charter to four, including Singapore.
Singapore was the first to hand over the documents to the new Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan in Jakarta.
Observers say a top priority for ASEAN now is to set up a dispute settlement mechanism, as spelt out in the Charter.
Such a mechanism already exists to deal with disputes in the economic arena.
Another aspect of the Charter that has drawn much interest is the ASEAN Human Rights Body.
The terms of reference for this body has to be worked out and there's a committee looking into this matter.
All ASEAN Foreign Ministers are attending the two-day retreat in Singapore, except Malaysia's Syed Hamid Albar.
He is busy with preparations for the upcoming general elections.
Mr Syed Hamid is represented by the Secretary-General of Malaysia's Foreign Affairs Ministry. - CNA/de
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Greedy landlord + helpless tenant = UGLY SINGAPOREAN
Signed and sealed with a handshake, yet no deal
(ST Forum 18.8.07)
AMID the hot property market, both in rental and sale, my search for a place to rent has exposed unethical behaviour on the part of both agents and landlords.
When I first moved to Singapore in 2002, looking for a place to rent was a hassle-free process.
Sure, often places I liked were out of my price range, but that was to be expected. At least a price was cited at the beginning and if you accepted it, you provided a letter of intent and a cheque. You shook hands and the deal was done.
Not so anymore. I have been looking for a new place to rent for the past couple of months after my landlord increased the rent 400 per cent. Not once, but three times, have I looked at a place, accepted the stated price, signed a letter of intent, shaken hands, and handed over a cheque, only to receive a phone call from the agent or landlord that the price had gone up.
My family has wasted a tremendous amount of time and energy running around the island, meeting agents and going back with our chequebooks, only to be told that they were negotiating with other people on the side the entire time.
I am upset by such unethical behaviour. An eye-to-eye agreement with a firm handshake is now meaningless.
It saddens me in particular that this is often done deliberately, with agents and landlords making deals with several people at the same time, demanding signatures and cheques from them, and then making a selection.
Hence, we are still homeless, even though we are willing to lower our standards significantly in terms of both size and style, move farther out of the city, and pay twice or triple what we currently pay in rent.
Perhaps at this rate we should just move out of Singapore as it is increasingly becoming a less attractive place to live in. If many expatriates do likewise, what will happen to real-estate values?
Laura Thornton-Olivry (Ms)
My comments
Hi Friends,
I want to comment on this note-worthy letter in today’s forum page.
Laura was alluding to how landlords are not honoring the prospective tenants' letters of intent. An even worse scenario than this is becoming common. Existing tenants are being asked to vacate their homes with nothing more than two months' notice from their landlords!
Background
The relative shortage of rentable apartments has led to a dangerous situation. We can thank the ridiculous “en-bloc” fever and the buoyant economy for this.
The rentals have gone out of the world and it is not just market forces of “supply and demand” that is causing the greatest harm to Singapore’s reputation as an economically competitive nation. The behaviors of the landlords are also responsible.
Let me say that mine is not a case of sour grapes. I have had at different times been a landlord and tenant and I do know what is and is not acceptable behavior. It used to be that the tenancy agreements are 2+2 or 1+1 ( ie 2 years tenancy with option for additional 2 years etc) and only after the initial 2 years or 1 year ( as the case may be) is over, that the landlord will raise the rentals or get new tenants after the old have left.
Unreasonable behavior of landlords
In the recent race of the rentals to the stars, I have been told that landlords now just give existing tenants 2 months’ notice to vacate and that is that. Apparently, there is no need to prove that the tenant had not lived up to his part of the tenancy agreement and hence had violated a contract. The tenant is literally being “kicked” out. He has no right to seek any recourse and he then becomes just another house-hunter. He is at the mercy of the “wolf-like” greed of the landlords!
In my many years as a landlord and tenant, I have never seen any clause ( not even in microscopic fine print) that allows such an unequal treatment of any of the parties.
Unequal treatment under the tenancy contract
Just let the tenant try to leave the lease prematurely and see what happens? Other than giving legitimate reasons such as citing the “diplomatic clause” that he is leaving Singapore -having been sacked or repatriated (even then it can be terminated only at least after 12 months) , the tenant would most likely be unable to break the contract without compensating the landlord.
What is the tenancy agreement for and what is the point in getting it stamped and scrutinised by lawyers and going through a seemingly useless ritual, when the tenant can be kicked out at the whim and fancy of any greedy landlord? Any legal eagles want to comment?
The greed of our countrymen is causing great harm to Singapore’s reputation as a affordable place for foreigners to live and work in.
The market will find its own solution ( it always does)
I am a firm believer that in the “free market” a rational equilibrium would be found sooner or later by market forces. But I still find such conduct quite unbelievable and abhorent.
The natural outcome would be that foreigners will increasingly stay outside of the city and District 9,10,11 or even in HDB estates. Or their companies would just set up shop in KL or elsewhere. People are not THAT stupid!
Cheers
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
(ST Forum 18.8.07)
AMID the hot property market, both in rental and sale, my search for a place to rent has exposed unethical behaviour on the part of both agents and landlords.
When I first moved to Singapore in 2002, looking for a place to rent was a hassle-free process.
Sure, often places I liked were out of my price range, but that was to be expected. At least a price was cited at the beginning and if you accepted it, you provided a letter of intent and a cheque. You shook hands and the deal was done.
Not so anymore. I have been looking for a new place to rent for the past couple of months after my landlord increased the rent 400 per cent. Not once, but three times, have I looked at a place, accepted the stated price, signed a letter of intent, shaken hands, and handed over a cheque, only to receive a phone call from the agent or landlord that the price had gone up.
My family has wasted a tremendous amount of time and energy running around the island, meeting agents and going back with our chequebooks, only to be told that they were negotiating with other people on the side the entire time.
I am upset by such unethical behaviour. An eye-to-eye agreement with a firm handshake is now meaningless.
It saddens me in particular that this is often done deliberately, with agents and landlords making deals with several people at the same time, demanding signatures and cheques from them, and then making a selection.
Hence, we are still homeless, even though we are willing to lower our standards significantly in terms of both size and style, move farther out of the city, and pay twice or triple what we currently pay in rent.
Perhaps at this rate we should just move out of Singapore as it is increasingly becoming a less attractive place to live in. If many expatriates do likewise, what will happen to real-estate values?
Laura Thornton-Olivry (Ms)
My comments
Hi Friends,
I want to comment on this note-worthy letter in today’s forum page.
Laura was alluding to how landlords are not honoring the prospective tenants' letters of intent. An even worse scenario than this is becoming common. Existing tenants are being asked to vacate their homes with nothing more than two months' notice from their landlords!
Background
The relative shortage of rentable apartments has led to a dangerous situation. We can thank the ridiculous “en-bloc” fever and the buoyant economy for this.
The rentals have gone out of the world and it is not just market forces of “supply and demand” that is causing the greatest harm to Singapore’s reputation as an economically competitive nation. The behaviors of the landlords are also responsible.
Let me say that mine is not a case of sour grapes. I have had at different times been a landlord and tenant and I do know what is and is not acceptable behavior. It used to be that the tenancy agreements are 2+2 or 1+1 ( ie 2 years tenancy with option for additional 2 years etc) and only after the initial 2 years or 1 year ( as the case may be) is over, that the landlord will raise the rentals or get new tenants after the old have left.
Unreasonable behavior of landlords
In the recent race of the rentals to the stars, I have been told that landlords now just give existing tenants 2 months’ notice to vacate and that is that. Apparently, there is no need to prove that the tenant had not lived up to his part of the tenancy agreement and hence had violated a contract. The tenant is literally being “kicked” out. He has no right to seek any recourse and he then becomes just another house-hunter. He is at the mercy of the “wolf-like” greed of the landlords!
In my many years as a landlord and tenant, I have never seen any clause ( not even in microscopic fine print) that allows such an unequal treatment of any of the parties.
Unequal treatment under the tenancy contract
Just let the tenant try to leave the lease prematurely and see what happens? Other than giving legitimate reasons such as citing the “diplomatic clause” that he is leaving Singapore -having been sacked or repatriated (even then it can be terminated only at least after 12 months) , the tenant would most likely be unable to break the contract without compensating the landlord.
What is the tenancy agreement for and what is the point in getting it stamped and scrutinised by lawyers and going through a seemingly useless ritual, when the tenant can be kicked out at the whim and fancy of any greedy landlord? Any legal eagles want to comment?
The greed of our countrymen is causing great harm to Singapore’s reputation as a affordable place for foreigners to live and work in.
The market will find its own solution ( it always does)
I am a firm believer that in the “free market” a rational equilibrium would be found sooner or later by market forces. But I still find such conduct quite unbelievable and abhorent.
The natural outcome would be that foreigners will increasingly stay outside of the city and District 9,10,11 or even in HDB estates. Or their companies would just set up shop in KL or elsewhere. People are not THAT stupid!
Cheers
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)