Law minister’s reduced ma rates suggest hdb lessees have been fleeced

[makapaaa]

[h=1]LAW MINISTER’S REDUCED MA RATES SUGGEST HDB LESSEES HAVE BEEN FLEECED[/h]
Post date:
16 Feb 2015 - 8:36pm








I refer to the recent attack on the WP in parliament with regard to the issues of transparency and accountability.

Although the CPIB has not been called in, the PAP has provided supporting ‘evidence’ – Law Minister Shanmugam’s table shows stark differences between PAP’s and WP’s MA rates.

I trust PAP cannot be wrong for the following reasons:

– The Law Minister would have been meticulous ie the figures had been verified .
– As the advisor to his town council, he should have known the figures at his fingertips.

From 1 April last year, S & CC were raised for about 500,000 HDB households. For a 4-room HDB flat, the increase will amount to 11% from April 1 2015.

According to a TRE article, managing agent EM Services’ previous MA rate was $6.25 which means it has reduced its rate by 12% to $5.50 (Pasir Ris).

Now that Minister Shanmugam has confirmed the rate reduction in parliament, there was never really any reason for our S & CC to be increased.​







The Law Minister cannot be wrong. He has been supported by MP Hri Kumar who had lectured the WP to “do the right thing”. Based on Shanmugam’s ‘facts’, Minister Khaw has seen it fit to withhold up to $7 million in government grants. Minister Heng has also confirmed Shanmugam’s ‘facts’ when he said “Yesterday we saw the big differences in the MA rates”. With so much support from some of the best brains in the government, Minister Shanmugam must be right.

Since our MA rates had been reduced, why was our S & CC increased? Were HDB lessees fleeced again?

Phillip Ang
*The author blogs at https://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.com

 

[LEGEND]

This is a valid question to ask.

 

[jw5]

He does indeed look rather creepy. :o

 

[LEGEND]

Na Beh Chee Bye! Feel like Kana Ji his forehead! :oIo:

 

[Sinkie]

Of course, like I've said in another similar thread, if the contract rates are reduced during the option to extend the duration of the contract, then the tenderer or in this case, the contractor, must explain and document it to the TC why the rates are reduced and why the rates are quoted higher in the previous years.

I tell you what. Either the table is wrong or there're changes to the items quoted in as mandatory in the contract. No tenderer, or in this case, will reduce the rates, as this hinges on how much the S & CC the constituents are required to pay. There is transparency in the details but the details are deliberately made opaque to prevent public scrutiny.

This is behaving like an ivory tower fiefdom, with the castle right up the hill-top and all the serfs are living in the surrounding valley, and paying taxes but not owning the land, yet the land has been becoming more and more barren by the day and wolves in sheep's clothing are let loose into the farm-land and over the horizon, can witness dark sinister clouds and an impending long drawn-out drought. Many will suffer and many already have.