The Mouthpiece briefly mentioned that Young Autocrat (who inherit his father's throne after ex-Regent Woody warmed it for 13 years) should offer some consolation in his State of the Regime Address for stupid peasants who are unable to get new 'affordable' leased flats or must pay half a million for a leased pigeonhole.
Marboro failed KPI of building new pigeonholes to match demand
Marboro has been routinely criticised for persistent expensive public housing and chronic shortage of new pigeonholes during periods of intense property speculation in Singapore e.g. 1996 and 2007. Recently between 2008-2009, public housing were deemed to be out of reach by average peasants.
Peasants purchase a lease of tenancy from the state controlled Housing Development Board (HDB) or open resale market. All public housing 'owners' are contractually known as flat tenants. After 2007, housing resale prices reached SG$600,000 for a 90 square feet 99-year leasehold resale flat near the suburban areas[2], levels unseen since the 1996 property boom. Peasants are generally displeased that they need to pay between $300,000-$500,000 to become flat tenants and cough up front 30k-50k cash above valuation.
Bargain Hen's liberal foreign worker policy that encouraged a huge influx of low skilled labour from Commie China, democratic India, basket case Philippines and the pariah state, Burma. These guest workers and PRs bloat demand for public housing and contributed to the resale pigeonholes' demands, increased valuation and selling prices.
Marboro's lackeys further compounded the problem by underestimating the demand on pigeonholes caused by a As a result, younger peasants headed for the new pigeonhole segment and the majority were unsuccessful, even in the first round of balloting.
Maboro realising he did not meet KPI for new pigeonhole availabilty, shamelessly disgruntled peasants of cherry picking pigeonholes during selection exercise. Maboro cunningly did not explain why many peasants were unable to choose their new pigeonholes in the first place.
Marboro did not meet the second KPI of affordable pigeonholes.
Marboro withhold revealing the cost of building flats after 1981 to redine the concept of 'affordability'. Marboro, with help from housing lackeys define affordability based on the percentage of the citizens' income. Mah claimed that if 30% of the household's income is used to service the monthly public housing debt, that meets the criteria of affordability and achieve his affordable pigeonhole KPI. Therefore, Marboro wants peasants to accept his lackey's definition of affordability.
In 1988, a sub-urban five room leased pigeonhole's price tag was $140,000 with annual median income of $3500. In 2010, the median income rose to $4500-5000 levels but pigeonholes rose to $500,000. A income of $10,000-12000 will be a more suitable bracket given the pigeonholes' price hikes.
However smarter peasants questioned marboro the actual cost of flats and current high public housing prices. For example, a 22 year loan taken for a $400,000 public housing flat will incur a interest repayment of $200,000. This effectively drained Singaporeans pension accounts and created a classic case of 'equity lock-in' with little cash for retirement. In addition, netizen's claimed that Mah's housing authority will have made consistent profits if housing costs are estimated to be less than $150,000 based on recent estimates despite Mah's claims of additional factors not taken into consideration by irate netizens e.g. land costs and amenities.
Peasants believed that Mah's policies have distorted the resale public housing market pricing by controlling land sales and marking up selling prices of new flats based on actual sales price of resale flats and private properties using a complex formula that enriches the state but created affordable enoromus housing debts for peasants.
Marboro discriminates minority peasants using politically motivated quotas.
In addition, the housing lackeys introduced ethic quotas to prevent racial enclaves forming in public housing in the 1980s. That incidentally caused price discrimination and create market distortion for minority races who are forced to resell their flats in a smaller market segment. There was public and academic perception that the racial quota is an political response to the electorate weakness that the regime faced during the procedural elections after 1980 e.g. Cheng San, Eunos.
The racial quota scam is a move to prevent freak election results should the opposition politicians are able to canvass votes by successfully appealing to minorities. The racial quota is implemented in 1980s rather in early years of nation building where racial relations were more volatile and the policy would have more impact earlier. Racial quotas are not enforced in private residential areas.
Impact of ruinous pigeonhole loans
Many netizens revealed that citizens usually repay the housing loan using their pension contributions. The median was around $600. The interest repayments and flat 'ownership' resulted in cases where citizens do not have sufficient funds when they retire at the age of 62.
Clever peasants criticised the 'flat ownership' scheme because it merely provide monetary security for banks and housing lackeys to repossess the flat if the public housing tenants default their loan repayments. Furthermore high flat prices is little utility to ensure peasants have adequate savings in their pension accounts until they sell their flats upon retirement. Marboro suggested retirees resell their tenancy lease in return for a modest monthly repayment but this scam remains unpopular because many peasants realised that housing lackeys enjoyed significant discount while 'repurchasing' the remaining tenancy lease from cash strapped peasants.
Vocal peasants revealed the concept of 'expensive flat ownership' is flawed because contractual terms used in public housing contracts contradicted citizens' perception of flat ownership. The housing contracts that citizens sign relegate them as tenants whom merely purchase 99-leasehold tenancy rights to live in the flats.
At the time of writing, peasants are still clamouring for Marboro's scalp. Marboro recently conceded in a 2009 interview he was taken by surprised by public housing prices moving northward during a global credit crisis despite his considerable intellectual prowess.
As of today, Marboro is still enjoying his million dollar pay package despite not meeting his KPI. In addition, he will also enjoy a generous pension package after he retires on top of his fat cat benefits.
Marboro failed KPI of building new pigeonholes to match demand
Marboro has been routinely criticised for persistent expensive public housing and chronic shortage of new pigeonholes during periods of intense property speculation in Singapore e.g. 1996 and 2007. Recently between 2008-2009, public housing were deemed to be out of reach by average peasants.
Peasants purchase a lease of tenancy from the state controlled Housing Development Board (HDB) or open resale market. All public housing 'owners' are contractually known as flat tenants. After 2007, housing resale prices reached SG$600,000 for a 90 square feet 99-year leasehold resale flat near the suburban areas[2], levels unseen since the 1996 property boom. Peasants are generally displeased that they need to pay between $300,000-$500,000 to become flat tenants and cough up front 30k-50k cash above valuation.
Bargain Hen's liberal foreign worker policy that encouraged a huge influx of low skilled labour from Commie China, democratic India, basket case Philippines and the pariah state, Burma. These guest workers and PRs bloat demand for public housing and contributed to the resale pigeonholes' demands, increased valuation and selling prices.
Marboro's lackeys further compounded the problem by underestimating the demand on pigeonholes caused by a As a result, younger peasants headed for the new pigeonhole segment and the majority were unsuccessful, even in the first round of balloting.
Maboro realising he did not meet KPI for new pigeonhole availabilty, shamelessly disgruntled peasants of cherry picking pigeonholes during selection exercise. Maboro cunningly did not explain why many peasants were unable to choose their new pigeonholes in the first place.
Marboro did not meet the second KPI of affordable pigeonholes.
Marboro withhold revealing the cost of building flats after 1981 to redine the concept of 'affordability'. Marboro, with help from housing lackeys define affordability based on the percentage of the citizens' income. Mah claimed that if 30% of the household's income is used to service the monthly public housing debt, that meets the criteria of affordability and achieve his affordable pigeonhole KPI. Therefore, Marboro wants peasants to accept his lackey's definition of affordability.
In 1988, a sub-urban five room leased pigeonhole's price tag was $140,000 with annual median income of $3500. In 2010, the median income rose to $4500-5000 levels but pigeonholes rose to $500,000. A income of $10,000-12000 will be a more suitable bracket given the pigeonholes' price hikes.
However smarter peasants questioned marboro the actual cost of flats and current high public housing prices. For example, a 22 year loan taken for a $400,000 public housing flat will incur a interest repayment of $200,000. This effectively drained Singaporeans pension accounts and created a classic case of 'equity lock-in' with little cash for retirement. In addition, netizen's claimed that Mah's housing authority will have made consistent profits if housing costs are estimated to be less than $150,000 based on recent estimates despite Mah's claims of additional factors not taken into consideration by irate netizens e.g. land costs and amenities.
Peasants believed that Mah's policies have distorted the resale public housing market pricing by controlling land sales and marking up selling prices of new flats based on actual sales price of resale flats and private properties using a complex formula that enriches the state but created affordable enoromus housing debts for peasants.
Marboro discriminates minority peasants using politically motivated quotas.
In addition, the housing lackeys introduced ethic quotas to prevent racial enclaves forming in public housing in the 1980s. That incidentally caused price discrimination and create market distortion for minority races who are forced to resell their flats in a smaller market segment. There was public and academic perception that the racial quota is an political response to the electorate weakness that the regime faced during the procedural elections after 1980 e.g. Cheng San, Eunos.
The racial quota scam is a move to prevent freak election results should the opposition politicians are able to canvass votes by successfully appealing to minorities. The racial quota is implemented in 1980s rather in early years of nation building where racial relations were more volatile and the policy would have more impact earlier. Racial quotas are not enforced in private residential areas.
Impact of ruinous pigeonhole loans
Many netizens revealed that citizens usually repay the housing loan using their pension contributions. The median was around $600. The interest repayments and flat 'ownership' resulted in cases where citizens do not have sufficient funds when they retire at the age of 62.
Clever peasants criticised the 'flat ownership' scheme because it merely provide monetary security for banks and housing lackeys to repossess the flat if the public housing tenants default their loan repayments. Furthermore high flat prices is little utility to ensure peasants have adequate savings in their pension accounts until they sell their flats upon retirement. Marboro suggested retirees resell their tenancy lease in return for a modest monthly repayment but this scam remains unpopular because many peasants realised that housing lackeys enjoyed significant discount while 'repurchasing' the remaining tenancy lease from cash strapped peasants.
Vocal peasants revealed the concept of 'expensive flat ownership' is flawed because contractual terms used in public housing contracts contradicted citizens' perception of flat ownership. The housing contracts that citizens sign relegate them as tenants whom merely purchase 99-leasehold tenancy rights to live in the flats.
At the time of writing, peasants are still clamouring for Marboro's scalp. Marboro recently conceded in a 2009 interview he was taken by surprised by public housing prices moving northward during a global credit crisis despite his considerable intellectual prowess.
As of today, Marboro is still enjoying his million dollar pay package despite not meeting his KPI. In addition, he will also enjoy a generous pension package after he retires on top of his fat cat benefits.
