Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?

[phtthp]

once population soar to 6.9 million on our tiny, suffocating land scarce island SG -

below scenario will become a norm - with horrible, disgusting people around. Some said her son study in St Hilda primary, recently shifted to Bedok temporary holding premises.

http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/sgseen/this_urban_jungle/1609366/woman_honks_car_loudly_when_she_cant_get_to_her_usual_spot.html#commentSection

[chrisloh]

can provide information for all the properties rather than just a few? thanks.

Irrelevant:

mum_sugoku:

Er.. could the drop in rental incomes a result of having fewer tenants leasing these properties?

Wow! I love this student. Confirm got pay attention.

You have pointed that out correctly, ma'am. However, I deliberately chose those properties whereby the occupancy rate is steady.

[JannettLee]

Wait until you grow white hair you also won't get the facts because they talk based on perceptions and yet insist that what they said are \"facts\" and when you ask for facts they say you can google and find them easily, don't need them to provide. That makes people wonder then how do they get their conclusion without the facts they purported should have to back what they say? :roll:

kaking:

Can provide facts & data to justify your statements?

Irrelevant:

[quote=\"Dora1\"]SMEs are suffering from the great rental increases. I'm sure REITs, gov policies and international money printing are all contributing effects. Anyway, like you said, from 2008 to 2013 40% increase in rent on average, and this is not considered substantial in your opinion? And there are definitely rent increase beyond 50% in the same period, and it was shared with me by more than just a handful of SME owners in different areas of SG. If you choose not to believe me, that's your own right because that's what a forum is about - discussing different opinions and exchanging different news and ideas.

I agree that some SME might have experienced a 50% over a 5-year period. However, I would be surprised that this is experienced by most SMEs and it is contributed mainly by REITs.

Dora1:

Anyway, we are seriously OT liao.... The reason I brought up the property rental issues is to highlight that the tightening of FW quota so that companies will hire more SCs is not working if other business costs keep escalating at the same time. Being squeezed on both ends will only kill the businesses. Worse, there are a few of these SMEs that are way behind a lot of other companies in the neighbouring countires in terms of technology and product improvement because they are struggling to make ends meet day-to-day, no money to pump in, shortage of manpower to improve their products.

I fear that you have not fully appreciated what the politicians are saying. Let me try to interpret for you. They are saying:

If everyone is unhappy about the influx of foreigners=>
We will cut the growth rate for them=>
Companies that rely on FW will be squeezed=>
Definitely some of them have to close shop if they cannot adapt.

There are no 2 ways about it. Manpower costs have always been the highest overhead of companies operating in Singapore.

[/quote]

[ChiefKiasu]

JannettLee:

Wait until you grow white hair you also won't get the facts because they talk based on perceptions and yet insist that what they said are \"facts\" and when you ask for facts they say you can google and find them easily, don't need them to provide. That makes people wonder then how do they get their conclusion without the facts they purported should have to back what they say? :roll:

Dear JannettLee,

There is a difference between debating constructively and debating out of spite. We have noted that you have ignored our numerous moderating actions to remove all the irrelevant personal fights that involve your account in the last few weeks. If you insist on continuing to engage others in our community in this manner, your account will be terminated.

Thank you.

[JannettLee]

I rest my case now

[pirate]

chrisloh:

can provide information for all the properties rather than just a few? thanks.

Dora1 provided a link to a page on propwise with a graph of median rentals for multi-user factories and warehouses.

Much will depend on over what time period you choose. If you take 2006-2012, it would have increased by about 60% over 6 years. But 2006 was just when the market was taking an upswing after SARs in 2003 (after being flat for 3 years).

If you take 2008-2012, it would have increased by about 15% over 4 years. 2008 was the previous peak.

If you take 1998-2012, it would have increased by about 25% over 14 years.

If you take 1998-2004, it would have decreased by about 30% over 6 years. Unfortunately, the graph only went back to Q4 1998. 1996/97-2004 would have been more spectacular downwards, as that would have been the peak before the Asian financial crisis.

So, it all depends on which points of the cycle you are comparing. Comparing trough to peak will give you nice, spectacular numbers over relatively short periods of time. Very useful if you want to be misleading.

[JannettLee]

ChiefKiasu:

JannettLee:

Wait until you grow white hair you also won't get the facts because they talk based on perceptions and yet insist that what they said are \"facts\" and when you ask for facts they say you can google and find them easily, don't need them to provide. That makes people wonder then how do they get their conclusion without the facts they purported should have to back what they say? :roll:

Dear JannettLee,

There is a difference between debating constructively and debating out of spite. We have noted that you have ignored our numerous moderating actions to remove all the irrelevant personal fights that involve your account in the last few weeks. If you insist on continuing to engage others in our community in this manner, your account will be terminated.

Thank you.

I just wanted to state my last piece of words before I get terminated by you.

While I'm fully agreed with you on 'There is a difference between debating constructively and debating out of spite.' Many times, it's the others who initiated to spite with personal character attacks such as:
1) 3Boys said I am a \"Moron\".
2) 3Boys said \"lack credibility\"
3) a few said I'm pouting rubbish
(There are many more, even more disgusting ones from these people like Harlequin, etc).

However, you turn a blind eye by just simply removed their postings and I never see you gave them warning despite complaints from other forumers about their resorting to personal character attack statements. They have ignored all your numerous moderating actions to remove all the irrelevant personal fights and personal character attacks' statements going back longer than the last few weeks!

You said I debating out of spite, however, the fact is, I am debating with much tolerance even when faced with personal character attacks' statements from these people (without resorting to tit-for-tat type of personal character attack statements), and what I throw back to them is much milder than what they initiated and put to me. While you have deleted all these evidence, I have captured these evidence to show to any of you if you want me to prove to you. You can't deny these facts. All these facts make me think that you are obviously siding and shielding them for \"some reasons\"?

You can terminate my account for all you want since you can not be impartial.

I'll capture this print-screen as a record.

[ChiefKiasu]

JannettLee:

...


However, you turn a blind eye by just simply removed their postings and I never see you gave them warning despite complaints from other forumers about their resorting to personal character attack statements. They have ignored all your numerous moderating actions to remove all the irrelevant personal fights and personal character attacks' statements going back longer than the last few weeks!

You said I debating out of spite, however, the fact is, I am debating with much tolerance even when faced with personal character attacks' statements from these people (without resorting to tit-for-tat type of personal character attack statements), and what I throw back to them is much milder than what they initiated and put to me. While you have deleted all these evidence, I have captured these evidence to show to any of you if you want me to prove to you. You can't deny these facts. All these facts make me think that you are obviously siding and shielding them for \"some reasons\"?

You can terminate my account for all you want since you can not be impartial.

I'll capture this print-screen as a record.

When moderating, we do not judge the who is right or wrong. We will simply embargo (not delete) all posts containing what we determine to be too personal from all parties involved in the fights. In most cases, members will back off once those posts are embargoed, and there is no need for us to warn anyone. It is only in the extreme cases where members repeatedly taunt each other that we will step in. It is your prerogative to believe that we have not been fair to you.

We wish you the best in your efforts to educate Singaporeans on the points which you have laboured to make on our platform in the past few weeks.

Thank you.

[WeiHan]

Didn't Lucky Tan just made a good point?


It is a known ideology of PAP that they will not spend too much resources into looking after the elderly. Everybody need to make sure that they save enough for their retirement or else move out of Singapore to a cheaper place to retire. Then, what is the need to say that immigration policy is for the purpose of lifting the working adults/elderlies ratio?

http://singaporemind.blogspot.sg/2013/02/the-truth-about-silver-tsunami-and.html

[Irrelevant]

WeiHan:

Then, what is the need to say that immigration policy is for the purpose of lifting the working adults/elderlies ratio?

I'm keen to debate you on this point.

Let's say we have this scenario. What if the government credits every Singaporean 10 million dollars into his bank account. What is the impact on the economy?

A logical outcome would be that a huge chunk of Singaporeans will decide that they can retire too. This implies that the SUPPLY of good and services will dip significantly while DEMAND remains steady. To resolve this shortage, price of goods and services can only spike. Agree?