I wanted to go to Gain City in Ang Mo Kio. I went to the RED Map and type in "Gain City Singapore". It showed the address and postal code and a map of the vicinity. It is very easy to use and fast to respond.
Here is the URL: http://projects.easyapps.sg/propinfo/
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Better regulation to ensure a fair market
I welcome the move by the Government to put curbs to prevent a bigger bubble on the property market. It is necessary and desirable.
The frequent speculation in the property market is an example of the failure of the market to produce the right results for consumers. It allows certain parties to take advantage of the ignorance of consumers to make excessive profits for their businesses. Another example is the market for financial products.
We need the market to be better regulated to work better in producing fair outcome for all parties. Excessive profiteering, through deceptive means and abuse of pricing power, should be stopped. The regulator has to act to protect the interest of consumers, rather than to expect consumers to find redress through legal means - as they not have the financial resources to engage lawyers.
We have similar problems with public transport and the telecommunication services. They also need to be better regulated to ensure the interest of consumers and businesses are better balanced.
The government policy to allow matters to be decided by the market has boosted the profits of businesses but has caused hardship to consumers. It is time for the policy to be reviewed and for better regulation to be introduced.
Tan Kin Lian
The frequent speculation in the property market is an example of the failure of the market to produce the right results for consumers. It allows certain parties to take advantage of the ignorance of consumers to make excessive profits for their businesses. Another example is the market for financial products.
We need the market to be better regulated to work better in producing fair outcome for all parties. Excessive profiteering, through deceptive means and abuse of pricing power, should be stopped. The regulator has to act to protect the interest of consumers, rather than to expect consumers to find redress through legal means - as they not have the financial resources to engage lawyers.
We have similar problems with public transport and the telecommunication services. They also need to be better regulated to ensure the interest of consumers and businesses are better balanced.
The government policy to allow matters to be decided by the market has boosted the profits of businesses but has caused hardship to consumers. It is time for the policy to be reviewed and for better regulation to be introduced.
Tan Kin Lian
The Stingy Nanny
The Economist magazine had an article entitled "the stingy nanny". Here is the reply from the Singapore High Commission to the magazine.
SIR
SIR
I refer to your article “The stingy nanny” of Feb 13th.
Each society has to decide for itself the appropriate balance between unconditional welfare and self-reliance. Singapore has concluded that we cannot afford European-style state welfare, not because of dogma, but because our circumstances are different. We face competition from some of the most vibrant economies in the world, we have no hinterland or natural resources of our own to fall back on, and our future depends on being a dynamic and self-reliant people who strive our utmost to excel and create wealth for ourselves, our families and our society. Each generation must earn and save enough for its entire life cycle.
Our approach is based on time-tested values of hard work, self-reliance, family responsibility and community support for those in need. While we avoid over-generous welfare handouts, we have substantial state subsidies for education, health care and public housing. These are major investments that uplift the skills, promote the health and increase the assets of all Singaporeans. The result has been high growth, low unemployment, high savings and the highest home-ownership rates in the world.
No society has ever succeeded in totally eradicating poverty, nor in eliminating inequality of incomes, not even Communist systems. A generous welfare state, despite its theoretical attractiveness, is not a panacea. Singapore’s system is by no means perfect, but it has produced real results for the vast majority of Singaporeans, and enabled even the poor to live with dignity and hope. The burden of proof is on its critics to demonstrate that their proposals will in fact work, and improve on what Singapore has achieved, given our socio-cultural fabric and economic circumstances.
Michael Eng Cheng Teo
Each society has to decide for itself the appropriate balance between unconditional welfare and self-reliance. Singapore has concluded that we cannot afford European-style state welfare, not because of dogma, but because our circumstances are different. We face competition from some of the most vibrant economies in the world, we have no hinterland or natural resources of our own to fall back on, and our future depends on being a dynamic and self-reliant people who strive our utmost to excel and create wealth for ourselves, our families and our society. Each generation must earn and save enough for its entire life cycle.
Our approach is based on time-tested values of hard work, self-reliance, family responsibility and community support for those in need. While we avoid over-generous welfare handouts, we have substantial state subsidies for education, health care and public housing. These are major investments that uplift the skills, promote the health and increase the assets of all Singaporeans. The result has been high growth, low unemployment, high savings and the highest home-ownership rates in the world.
No society has ever succeeded in totally eradicating poverty, nor in eliminating inequality of incomes, not even Communist systems. A generous welfare state, despite its theoretical attractiveness, is not a panacea. Singapore’s system is by no means perfect, but it has produced real results for the vast majority of Singaporeans, and enabled even the poor to live with dignity and hope. The burden of proof is on its critics to demonstrate that their proposals will in fact work, and improve on what Singapore has achieved, given our socio-cultural fabric and economic circumstances.
Michael Eng Cheng Teo
High Commissioner for Singapore
London
London
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)