随笔南洋网



 
LoveSG
高级会员
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 114907
精华 0
积分 4225
帖子 2054
威望 2169 点
阅读权限 20
注册 2013-12-17
状态 离线
发表于 2015-1-13 22:10  资料 文集 短消息 
回复 #20 华林 的帖子

The below is an open letter sent by residents from Fernale to Minister Khaw Boon Wan for National Development and Prime Minister Lee .

Read the report on the dialogue session held with the residents and Dr, Lam Pin Min on Januarary 2015.

To:

Mr. Khaw Boon Wan

Minister for National Development

Dear Minister,

Re: Fernvale Link Columbarium of Chinese Temple.



1. We refer to the issue of HDB awarding the land meant for Chinese Temple to a private commercial company, Eternal Pure Land Pte Ltd (EPL), owned by the Australian Public Listed company, Life Corporation Limited (LC).



2.We are a group of present and future residents of Fernvale HDB estate who will be affected by the abovementioned development. Although we have different concerns of the said project, but we have come to the following consensus and conclusions.




3. First and foremost, all of us in the group, with different religions, agree that it is totally inappropriate for a commercial company to bid for a land meant for religious use and to make money in the name of religion.



4. It is implied in the Charity Act that any organization with advancement of religion should be subjected to the Act and supervised by the Commissioner of Charities. It means that anyone who runs a Chinese Temple at Fernvale must be a non-profit organization registered with the Commissioner of Charities.                           


5. Apparently from the dialogue we had on last Sunday (4 Jan 2015), the representative from LC has admitted that they are not a non-profit organization or a registered religious organization.

6. This will set a very bad example and precedent for all the religious organizations in Singapore, including but not limited to Buddhist, Christians, Catholics, Hindu etc. Registered religious organizations are non-profit organizations and it is unfair for them to compete with commercial entities which have more financial power to tender for the very limited land slated for religious purposes. For the example of Chinese Temple, we notice that only 20 plots of land were slated for tender by HDB over more than two decades.

7. Moreover, the company, Eternal Pureland Pte Ltd, which won the tender, is registered as company which deals with Funeral and related activites (including embalming, Cremating and Cemetery services upkeep of cemeteries, sales of bereavement products and services). This company was incorporated only 16 days after the tender was called and it has absolutely no experience whatsoever in running a Chinese Temple.

8. We have also learned from the advertisement put up by EPL that they are marketing their niche at the price of $6,500, which is a discounted price from its original $15,000. We do not think such columbarium which put up such Premium Prices could serve ordinary HDB heartlanders like us at all.




9. Many of us have a religion and this is a grave concern to us to see the official stance of HDB in allowing religion to be “Corporatized”. We reiterate that we are against commercial companies making money in the name of religion.



10. We hope that HDB should declare the tender null and void as such practice affects all religious organizations in Singapore.

11. We hope that in the event of putting the land up for tender again, HDB could consider the combination of Chinese Temple with Childcare/Student Care. The Childcare/Student Care centre should be required to open to all races. This will serve the community well as many of the residents are young couples with kids.

12. This will be the most satisfactory and perfect solution to prevent any unwanted disruption to the many BTO buyers who were misled by HDB as well as present residents who weren’t even made known of this development at all when they bought their flats.

13. It will be totally regrettable if HDB insisted in carrying on the building of the columbarium and the Chinese Temple.


14. The reason why so many of us were caught off guard is because we have placed so much trust in a government statutory board. We have expected HDB to be transparent, open and more forthcoming with important information. We didn’t expect a reputable and biggest developer of properties like HDB would hide critical material information under ultra fine prints and vague uncertain phrases (eg. “may include”) coupled with disclaimers.

15. We believe that if there were information which could help HDB to fetch a better price for the BTOs (eg. Mall, LRT stations, amenities etc), HDB would surely have put them up prominently and affirmatively. We expect HDB to do likewise for information (eg. Columbarium) that may make the flats less attractive to most buyers and thus, fetch lower prices for HDB.

16. These are not “isolated cases” but happened in a massive scale. Thus, we feel that HDB should not treat our demand for refund without other penalties as a case by case basis. HDB should be more transparent and fair in dealing with all those who wanted a full refund.

17. We expect that HDB treats those of us who wanted a full refund fairly with the following conditions:

18. We feel that this is the worst option for all of us, even if full refund is given to some. We still hope that the option of having a Chinese Temple with Childcare/Student Care could be granted as it serves almost everyone’s interests.




a) full refund of whatever deposits paid;



b) no technical penalty (eg. 1 year wait) should be applied;



c) priority to select alternative flats in other development.



19. It would be utterly regrettable if HDB did not void the tender to LC and let it proceed as planned. Even worse if HDB refused to treat all of those who seek a full refund fairly.

20. We hope that you, as the Minister of the ministry, could do the right thing, not only for us but for the whole of Singapore, to set the record right by disallowing commercial entities to bid for land slated for religious purposes. Thus, void the current tender to LC.

21. As the old saying goes, Trust is hard to earn but easy to lose. In you, we trust to right the wrongs. Thank you.

Present & Future Fernvale Residents

=====================================================================

The Singapore Mass Media has put up very negative report on us trying to portray us as some petty people who only care about our flat value and that is why we reject the columbarium. That is far from the truth.


I hereby represent the hundreds of affected stakeholders to put up the following statement:

1. We are unhappy and felt aggrieved by HDB’s misrepresentation by way of omission of material fact in their sale brochures. We reiterate that there was absolutely NO MENTION of columbarium in the sale brochures while the stated “Ancillary Service” phrase is so general that anyone who read that would have misconstrued as something else. Such definition can only be found in URA website and not HDB website at all. Any ordinary man would not have known how to get access to the details at all.

2. We are against such sales tactic as we should be treated fairly to be given FULL DISCLOSURE of information by the seller, HDB before we chose to buy the flat. We should have the right to make INFORMED choices and not short-changed with such omission of critical material information by HDB.

3.We are also very concerned about how HDB allowing a private commercial entity owned by a foreign public listed company to bid for the land gazetted for religious purposes. It is totally inappropriate for a commercial entity to make money out of any religion.

4.According to High Court ruling, any entity that advance religion cause, should be subjected to Charity Act and put under the supervision of Commissioner of Charities. Apparently HDB has not made appropriate screening prior to the award of this land, which is meant for religious use, to a commercial entity.

5。Commercial business should be restricted to land meant for commercial purposes, like industrial park. Land meant for religious purposes should be reserved to religious organizations registered in Singapore. This is to protect the interests of religious organizations as commercial entities would have more financial muscles to outbid them. It is totally unfair to these religious organizations which are Non-Profit Organizations to compete with Profit-oriented commercial entities in bidding for such limited land slated for religious purposes.

6.Most of us are buying a flat as a HOME, not for property speculation. Thus, property resale value is least of our concern. Our main concern is the conduciveness of our living environment for our families. Thus the Main Stream Media has put up a totally misrepresentation of our plight and this is really a double whammy to us. What we want is just a fair deal for our choice of home and we plead to the Main Stream Media not to put a double stabbing into our hearts and dignity by such grossly misreporting.

7. We are all law abiding citizens and we expect the Rule of Law to be adhered by the very institutions which are supposedly tasked to uphold the law and justice for citizens.



8. We sincerely hope that the relevant authorities, including the Ministry of development, HDB and URA to look into the matter as soon as possible.

Thank you.


On Behalf of Stakeholders, BTO Buyers.

[ 本帖最后由 LoveSG 于 2015-1-13 22:30 编辑 ]
顶部
LoveSG
高级会员
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 114907
精华 0
积分 4225
帖子 2054
威望 2169 点
阅读权限 20
注册 2013-12-17
状态 离线
发表于 2015-1-13 22:18  资料 文集 短消息 


QUOTE:
原帖由 mpt 于 2015-1-13 19:08 发表
人死了是自然的规律,我认为是平常的事,也就是说如果政府认为不正常的话才要解释。新加坡是多元文化种族的国家,是不是代表了其复杂性,这样的事认为不正常了,很多事情也就不正常了。

你是因为居民有反应了 ...

我觉得奇怪,这是建筑设施内骨灰瓮和讯息不透明的问题,你一直和我谈生死规律的事情,然后说政府认为不正常的话才要解释,是如你一贯的认为政府所作所为都是正确的,所以居民会觉得不正确要求解释,是居民不正常吗?
顶部
mpt
超白金会员
Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6



UID 112488
精华 9
积分 12880
帖子 6367
威望 6509 点
阅读权限 50
注册 2011-12-22
状态 离线
发表于 2015-1-13 22:40  资料 文集 短消息 
回复 #22 LoveSG 的帖子

生活中有太多的大大小小的事情概括在其中,除非认为事情不一般,才有突出的必要。

我不是认为政府所做的事一定是正确的,但是,事事有关联,在不能事事如意的时候,也只能做到利大于弊。如果只片面地看问题,就会样样不满。

我也说了,居民通常只为自己想,不能因为这样就认为政府一定是错的。我是认为,至少应该从双方面来看问题。
顶部
LoveSG
高级会员
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 114907
精华 0
积分 4225
帖子 2054
威望 2169 点
阅读权限 20
注册 2013-12-17
状态 离线
发表于 2015-1-13 23:30  资料 文集 短消息 
回复 #23 mpt 的帖子

老调重弹就不必了,反正我支持居民,你为政府辩护,也算是从双方面来看问题。
顶部
小民
超白金会员
Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6



UID 101735
精华 6
积分 19206
帖子 9506
威望 9700 点
阅读权限 50
注册 2011-7-7
状态 离线
发表于 2015-1-14 07:30  资料 文集 短消息 
回复 #23 mpt 的帖子

居民说违反了慈善法令,不知政府如何解释这样的指控。
顶部
mpt
超白金会员
Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6



UID 112488
精华 9
积分 12880
帖子 6367
威望 6509 点
阅读权限 50
注册 2011-12-22
状态 离线
发表于 2015-1-14 12:09  资料 文集 短消息 
回复 #25 小民 的帖子

那你就问政府,请他们解答啊。
顶部
华林
高级会员
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 113745
精华 0
积分 3095
帖子 1539
威望 1556 点
阅读权限 20
注册 2013-2-20
状态 离线
发表于 2015-1-14 13:00  资料 文集 短消息 
回复 #21 LoveSG 的帖子

所以,已经不是"骨灰瓮共居"那么单纯的问题,一部分居民认为购买了组屋,周遭土地怎么发展也要问他们或者预先让他们知道?是这样吗?

新加坡地少,即使有些私人公寓,排屋附近也有天主教,佛教安置骨灰瓮,Fernvale Link附近的Punggol Road也有一个。
顶部
楚越
禁止发言




UID 112518
精华 2
积分 24236
帖子 11976
威望 12234 点
阅读权限 1
注册 2011-12-28
状态 离线
发表于 2015-1-14 13:32  资料 短消息 
回复 #27 华林 的帖子

最好的方法 就是立法 不管是私人公寓或政府组屋 都强制需拿出几个单位当骨灰存放所 这样谁都不能争了

新加坡地小 活人死人需要同居。除非您很有钱买有地排屋

[ 本帖最后由 楚越 于 2015-1-14 13:36 编辑 ]
顶部
LoveSG
高级会员
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 114907
精华 0
积分 4225
帖子 2054
威望 2169 点
阅读权限 20
注册 2013-12-17
状态 离线
发表于 2015-1-14 14:37  资料 文集 短消息 


QUOTE:
原帖由 华林 于 2015-1-14 13:00 发表
所以,已经不是"骨灰瓮共居"那么单纯的问题,一部分居民认为购买了组屋,周遭土地怎么发展也要问他们或者预先让他们知道?是这样吗?

新加坡地少,即使有些私人公寓,排屋附近也有天主教,佛教安置 ...

影响了民居生活的土地发展,当然要说明解释了,难道suka suka想建什么就建什么?

都什么年代了,怎么还有以前那种我是精英,做事一定对,你小老百姓静静看着默默忍受就好的思想!
顶部
小民
超白金会员
Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6



UID 101735
精华 6
积分 19206
帖子 9506
威望 9700 点
阅读权限 50
注册 2011-7-7
状态 离线
发表于 2015-1-14 14:51  资料 文集 短消息 
回复 #26 mpt 的帖子

拥护政府也要具备些能力和知识,这才不会陷入逢政府必捧的尴尬。问到具体细节就不懂:"你就问政府",然后用些肤浅搔不到痒处的搪塞:'政府一定有考量','事事有关连','居民也有私心',很难替政府背书。
顶部
小民
超白金会员
Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6



UID 101735
精华 6
积分 19206
帖子 9506
威望 9700 点
阅读权限 50
注册 2011-7-7
状态 离线
发表于 2015-1-14 15:00  资料 文集 短消息 


QUOTE:
原帖由 楚越 于 2015-1-14 13:32 发表
最好的方法 就是立法 不管是私人公寓或政府组屋 都强制需拿出几个单位当骨灰存放所 这样谁都不能争了

新加坡地小 活人死人需要同居。除非您很有钱买有地排屋

现在居民反对主要是两个理由:
- 没有事先知会,毕竟骨灰存放处有其特殊之处。这个容易答复:当时规划建设时还没有确定要建庙宇和骨灰存放。
- 是否违反<慈善法令>。这个需要熟习该法令的人答复。
只要这两个能够摆上台面的问题合理解答了,不合理的贬值理由自然不用理会。
顶部
华林
高级会员
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 113745
精华 0
积分 3095
帖子 1539
威望 1556 点
阅读权限 20
注册 2013-2-20
状态 离线
发表于 2015-1-14 15:14  资料 文集 短消息 


QUOTE:
原帖由 LoveSG 于 2015-1-14 14:37 发表


影响了民居生活的土地发展,当然要说明解释了,难道suka suka想建什么就建什么?

都什么年代了,怎么还有以前那种我是精英,做事一定对,你小老百姓静静看着默默忍受就好的思想!

对啊,什么年代了,还要用声大大压人吗?所以我第一个问题就是问购屋者有没有看组屋的宣传册,宣传册有没有说明。如果有还怪谁?
顶部
LoveSG
高级会员
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 114907
精华 0
积分 4225
帖子 2054
威望 2169 点
阅读权限 20
注册 2013-12-17
状态 离线
发表于 2015-1-14 15:43  资料 文集 短消息 
回复 #32 华林 的帖子

森林黑店事件,旅客也是有签合约的,旅客有没有看合约,合约有没有说明。如果有还怪谁?你是这个意思吗?

不知21楼梯的声明你有没有好好看?更不知道当时你是不是在现场,所以知道谁在声大大压人吗?
顶部
华林
高级会员
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 113745
精华 0
积分 3095
帖子 1539
威望 1556 点
阅读权限 20
注册 2013-2-20
状态 离线
发表于 2015-1-14 16:06  资料 文集 短消息 
回复 #33 LoveSG 的帖子

作为新加坡人都知道声大大不表示在现场

森林黑店事件,坦白说,旅客是有责任看合约的。而这次的事件,我觉得居民不喜欢哪里也可以要求退款。这个不能勉强。

至于土地发展用途,平常多看报纸再不然看URA发展图,真的要知道细节,应该有其他管道。

问题是每个人都有自己的想法和喜好,LoveSG是不是觉得样样事情都要问每个人ok不ok才来计划?如果您认为是,我心里就清楚LoveSG的的想法

[ 本帖最后由 华林 于 2015-1-14 16:23 编辑 ]
顶部
LoveSG
高级会员
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 114907
精华 0
积分 4225
帖子 2054
威望 2169 点
阅读权限 20
注册 2013-12-17
状态 离线
发表于 2015-1-14 17:41  资料 文集 短消息 
回复 #34 华林 的帖子

作为新加坡人,我只知道依法而行,有理走遍天下,却不知道不在现场也能声大大在本地会是常态。

新加坡的土地发展用途,不是平常多看报纸再不然看URA发展图,也只能明白大概方向,在新闻节目里就事件访问的律师房地产业人士,都指出相关信息细节都是很不透明和片面的,或许华林先生特别有办法有特殊管道,这就不得而知了。

的确是每个人都有自己的想法和喜好,但政府对于不少事却是可以说清楚讲明白,然后让每个人根据自己的想法和喜好去做选择的,当然如果华林先生认为自己是不需要问事情,最好就是完全由别人来替自己计划安排的人,我对华林先生的想法和立场也不敢有意见。
顶部
华林
高级会员
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 113745
精华 0
积分 3095
帖子 1539
威望 1556 点
阅读权限 20
注册 2013-2-20
状态 离线
发表于 2015-1-14 18:53  资料 文集 短消息 
回复 #35 LoveSG 的帖子

本来就是可以做选择。觉得这个政府可以把计划做好才委托他当政府,如果不行就把他换下来,何必委托了又怀疑用意。对新加坡有什么好处。信息透明度可以改善,这点我没意见,国人受教育高了,也读得懂这些信息。

个人方面,喜欢住那里就那里,二手成熟地区也是大把选择。S11的问题罢了
顶部
LoveSG
高级会员
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 114907
精华 0
积分 4225
帖子 2054
威望 2169 点
阅读权限 20
注册 2013-12-17
状态 离线
发表于 2015-1-14 22:32  资料 文集 短消息 
回复 #36 华林 的帖子

华林先生把一般的单一事件,转化成对整个民选政府管理权力的挑战,这一点比mpt还厉害一些,再来如果委托了就不能再提意见,发现错误也必须沉默忍耐,相信政府也不会如此认为,不然成立什么民意处理组,也只是为了门面功夫吗?
顶部
古长龙
超白金会员
Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6Rank: 6



UID 113040
精华 2
积分 14178
帖子 6908
威望 7041 点
阅读权限 50
注册 2012-7-14
状态 离线
发表于 2015-1-14 22:34  资料 个人空间 短消息 
好事基本不需要信息透明的了。 比如买的屋子很偏远 交通不便。 突然政府规划一条新地铁线经过, 那 你说 这些人还 要不要退房?
顶部
LoveSG
高级会员
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 114907
精华 0
积分 4225
帖子 2054
威望 2169 点
阅读权限 20
注册 2013-12-17
状态 离线
发表于 2015-1-14 23:56  资料 文集 短消息 
有人日子过得舒服滋润平安没事,会无端往医院警局跑的吗?

政府被人民委托掌握权力,把事情做好,让人民有个安居乐业的环境本来就是责任,可能有人习惯了政府隐恶扬善,把施政当成施舍的社会环境,来到新加坡就觉得居民莫名其妙了。
顶部
华林
高级会员
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



UID 113745
精华 0
积分 3095
帖子 1539
威望 1556 点
阅读权限 20
注册 2013-2-20
状态 离线
发表于 2015-1-15 07:05  资料 文集 短消息 
回复 #37 LoveSG 的帖子

我摆明是针对说这种话的人“suka suka想建什么就建什么”,这样也叫做民意? 你觉得我需要心服口服吗
顶部
 




当前时区 GMT+8, 现在时间是 2019-10-17 13:02

    本论坛支付平台由支付宝提供
携手打造安全诚信的交易社区 Powered by Discuz! 5.0.0  © 2001-2006 Comsenz Inc.
Processed in 0.034187 second(s), 7 queries , Gzip enabled

清除 Cookies - 联系我们 - 随笔南洋网 - Archiver