Sammyboy RSS Feed
27-02-2015, 03:00 AM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
ST AGGRESSIVELY CENSORS CHAN CHUN SING'S SPEECH ABOUT THE RICH-POOR GAP
Post date:
26 Feb 2015 - 5:53pm
http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/Chan%20Chun%20Sing_3.jpg?itok=mLYKCfNU (http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/field/image/Chan%20Chun%20Sing_3.jpg)
Chan Chun Sing recently participated in a panel discussion organised by the Real Estate Developers Association of Singapore (REDAS) and attended by about 50 students from NUS and NTU.
At the event, he spoke about several issues including how to bridge the rich-poor gap and suggested that putting subsidized HDB flats in prime locations was not a good solution.
He spoke about a variety of reasons why this is not a good solution including that it was unfair for just some people to get a windfall because they were lucky to get a good location.
Full Story See: CHAN CHUN SING: IT'S NOT FAIR TO BUILD HDB FLATS IN GOOD AREAS AND SELL THEM CHEAPLY (http://therealsingapore.com/content/chan-chun-sing-its-not-fair-build-hdb-flats-good-areas-and-sell-them-cheaply)
His comments were initially reported in full in the Straits Times but a short while later, some of Mr Chan's comments were mysteriously removed as ST deleted their original article and posted a new one in its place.
The original copy is still available to be viewed through Google Cache (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3A9ZncAIh4QZIJ%3Awww.straitstimes.c om%2Fnews%2Fsingapore%2Fhousing%2Fstory%2Fbuilding-hdb-flats-prime-sites-may-not-bridge-rich-poor-divide-says-min+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=sg) and the new version is now located here (http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/housing/story/bridging-social-divide-calls-more-hdb-flats-prime-land-minister-2015022).
Many of the comments which were cut were not actually bad in themselves so it is not clear why they were removed from the article. Perhaps our Straits times, which could easily be mistaken for the PR agency for the government felt they put him in a bad light as they weren't very articulate.
Here are a list of some of the comments that didn't make the cut:
When talking about the unfairness of allowing some people to purchase highly subsidized HDBs in prime locaitons he asked the audience: “Is it fair for someone to ‘tikam’ (Malay for taking a random chance), ballot and pay an artificially low price for a flat in the heart of Downtown, and five years later, after the Minimum Occupancy Period, enjoy a windfall?"
Mr Chan also raised questions about whether simply forcing pepole to live near each other meant that they would mingle. “I doubt many of them even walk to each others’ precincts,” said Mr Chan in relation to the rich and poor in his constituency.
Another comment which was removed included "Many people would wax lyrical, but we must touch our hearts, will you look down on someone because he stays in a rental flat in the same block?"
This comment was in reference to whether more well off people would complain that they had to live near poorer people.
While there is nothing clearly wrong with these comments that Mr Chan had said, perhaps the heplful PR team at ST felt that they sounded too condescending, elitist or just plain silly so they cut them away for him.
Maybe they looked at some of the critical comments online about Mr Chan's words and decided they needed to do some cleaning up for their masters.
What do you think?
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?201507-154th-AGGRESSIVELY-CENSORS-CHAN-CHUN-SING-S-SPEECH-ABOUT-THE-RICH-POOR-GAP&goto=newpost).
ST AGGRESSIVELY CENSORS CHAN CHUN SING'S SPEECH ABOUT THE RICH-POOR GAP
Post date:
26 Feb 2015 - 5:53pm
http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/Chan%20Chun%20Sing_3.jpg?itok=mLYKCfNU (http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/field/image/Chan%20Chun%20Sing_3.jpg)
Chan Chun Sing recently participated in a panel discussion organised by the Real Estate Developers Association of Singapore (REDAS) and attended by about 50 students from NUS and NTU.
At the event, he spoke about several issues including how to bridge the rich-poor gap and suggested that putting subsidized HDB flats in prime locations was not a good solution.
He spoke about a variety of reasons why this is not a good solution including that it was unfair for just some people to get a windfall because they were lucky to get a good location.
Full Story See: CHAN CHUN SING: IT'S NOT FAIR TO BUILD HDB FLATS IN GOOD AREAS AND SELL THEM CHEAPLY (http://therealsingapore.com/content/chan-chun-sing-its-not-fair-build-hdb-flats-good-areas-and-sell-them-cheaply)
His comments were initially reported in full in the Straits Times but a short while later, some of Mr Chan's comments were mysteriously removed as ST deleted their original article and posted a new one in its place.
The original copy is still available to be viewed through Google Cache (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3A9ZncAIh4QZIJ%3Awww.straitstimes.c om%2Fnews%2Fsingapore%2Fhousing%2Fstory%2Fbuilding-hdb-flats-prime-sites-may-not-bridge-rich-poor-divide-says-min+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=sg) and the new version is now located here (http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/housing/story/bridging-social-divide-calls-more-hdb-flats-prime-land-minister-2015022).
Many of the comments which were cut were not actually bad in themselves so it is not clear why they were removed from the article. Perhaps our Straits times, which could easily be mistaken for the PR agency for the government felt they put him in a bad light as they weren't very articulate.
Here are a list of some of the comments that didn't make the cut:
When talking about the unfairness of allowing some people to purchase highly subsidized HDBs in prime locaitons he asked the audience: “Is it fair for someone to ‘tikam’ (Malay for taking a random chance), ballot and pay an artificially low price for a flat in the heart of Downtown, and five years later, after the Minimum Occupancy Period, enjoy a windfall?"
Mr Chan also raised questions about whether simply forcing pepole to live near each other meant that they would mingle. “I doubt many of them even walk to each others’ precincts,” said Mr Chan in relation to the rich and poor in his constituency.
Another comment which was removed included "Many people would wax lyrical, but we must touch our hearts, will you look down on someone because he stays in a rental flat in the same block?"
This comment was in reference to whether more well off people would complain that they had to live near poorer people.
While there is nothing clearly wrong with these comments that Mr Chan had said, perhaps the heplful PR team at ST felt that they sounded too condescending, elitist or just plain silly so they cut them away for him.
Maybe they looked at some of the critical comments online about Mr Chan's words and decided they needed to do some cleaning up for their masters.
What do you think?
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?201507-154th-AGGRESSIVELY-CENSORS-CHAN-CHUN-SING-S-SPEECH-ABOUT-THE-RICH-POOR-GAP&goto=newpost).