The Hon. Leong Sze Hian has 3 Masters degrees in Financial Planning & Financial Services, 2 Bachelors degrees in Economics & Insurance, and 13 professional qualifications. A Wharton Fellow, he is a Certified Investment Fiduciary Auditor, alumnus of Harvard University and the inaugural United Nations University International Leadership Academy. He has served as Honorary Consul of Jamaica, Representative of the Inter-American Economic Council, Chairman of the Institute of Administrative Management, on the Board of Trustees of the Singapore Professional Centre, President of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, the UNESCO Leadership Chair Council, and founding Advisor to the Financial Planning Association of Indonesia. He has authored 3 books and has been quoted over 700 times in the media over the last 7 years.
For letters on investing : Go to www.leongszehian.com/invest
The Electric New Paper :
Help poor now, before GST kicks in
I REFER to reports that the Prime Minister will donate his salary increase for the next 5 years to charity.
14 April 2007
I REFER to reports that the Prime Minister will donate his salary increase for the next 5 years to charity.
He has stated that he does not expect other ministers to follow his example, because although the salary increases were a Cabinet decision, it was he who had to carry the ultimate responsibility, and not the ministers individually.
What individual ministers and MPs want to do, is up to them.
The 3,000 households on public assistance have just had their monthly welfare increased by $30 from $260 to $290. Since the main reason given for raising GST was to help the needy, why not do more to help the needy now, instead of waiting for the GST hike to take effect? After all, civil servants have had their pay increased immediately, even before the GST increase in July.
What the poor need is to be helped now, instead of having to wait until pay increments are channelled to charities, which may take some time to reach needy Singaporeans.
Central Singapore Community Development Council (CDC) has announced that it is making a big push to help an estimated 22,000 financially 'vulnerable' residents. This number was arrived at after conducting a survey of 60,000 low-income residents who had benefited from a public transport fund, in which about a third said they had difficulty meeting their monthly expenses.
The fact that these 22,000 'vulnerable' residents are being identified through tremendous efforts by groups of volunteers knocking on the doors of one- and two-room rental flats, with about one in five having no idea where to look for help, may mean that there are some needy Singaporeans who have yet to be reached in our 'many helping hands' approach to social assistance.
This may be just the tip of the iceberg of the actual number of needy Singaporeans.
Increasing GST and donating pay increments to help the needy are great, but we may need to try harder to find them in the first place, and help them now.
- Leong Sze Hian
Leong Sze Hian
Paper: Straits Times, The (Singapore)
Title: Factor service quality in fare adjustment formula
Author: Leong Sze Hian
Date: August 7, 2006
I REFER to the article,
'SMRT, SBS apply to raise bus, train fares' (ST, Aug 2).
Imposing fines on public transport operators may result in additional
costs of meeting new service standards and fines passed on to commuters.
A more effective deterrent to ensure high service standards may be to
peg some element of failure to meet service standards to the formula for
fare adjustment.
For example, service standard lapses may be equated to a slight drop in
percentage from the 50 per cent wage increase and inflation in the fare
adjustment formula, or a reduction in the maximum 1.7 per cent fare
increase allowed.
With the recent increase in taxi fares, more people may take buses and
the MRT. Consequently, revenue and profits of transport operators may
rise.
Therefore, I suggest that more time be given to assess the impact of
the taxi fare increase before the Public Transport Council makes a
decision on the bus and train fare increase application.
The main reason given for the fare increase is the rising cost of
diesel.
Why not consider reducing the tax on diesel, so the benefit can be
passed on to commuters?
The fact that the cost price of ultra-low sulphur diesel has fallen
substantially since April, by nearly US$9 (S$14) to US$86 a barrel, should
also be considered.
The fare adjustment formula is pegged to the change in average wages
and inflation (consumer price index or CPI).
It is the lower-income group that has no choice but to use public
transport.
Therefore, I suggest some adjustments be considered to take into
account declining wages and relatively high inflation of the lower-income
group.
Although workers were paid 4.3 per cent more last year, household
incomes in the 11th to 20th percentile fell by 4.3 per cent a year from 2000
to last year. The incomes of the 21st to 30th percentile dropped by 0.5
per cent and the 31st 40th percentile rose by just 0.3 per cent.
As to inflation, the lowest 20 per cent income group's CPI rose by 1.6
per cent a year, compared to a decline of 0.6 per cent in the highest
20 per cent income group. Last year, these two groups' inflation was 1.3
and -0.1 per cent respectively.
The CPI increase in the lowest 20 per cent group was the highest among
all income groups.
If this trend of declining wages and higher inflation continues, the
current formula may hit the lower-income group most in the future.
As there were about 420,000 cars (390,000 private plus 30,000 others)
in 2004, according to the Land Transport Authority website, rather than
just take the CPI and wage increase of the entire population, more
weight should be given to reflect the CPI and wage change of those who have
to use public transport.
The rising profits of the transport operators, which I understand has
been the case after the previous two fare hikes, should also be taken
into account in the formula.
In the final analysis, perhaps the ultimate measure of whether the
formula is fair is whether transport operators' profits continue to rise.
The buses and MRT are essentially a monopoly as there is no duplication
of routes. The fare adjustment formula enables operators to keep
increasing fares and profits, because rarely has there ever been a year when
both average wages and inflation have declined.
Author: Leong Sze Hian
Copyright, 2006, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
****************************************************
Paper: Straits Times, The (Singapore)
Title: Re-examine strategy to make Singapore a world class research hub
Author: Leong Sze Hian
Date: August 3, 2006
I refer to A*Star's letter "It is Johns Hopkins University which has
not delivered: A*Star" and the article "Johns Hopkins failed to meet
goals, says A*Star" (ST, July 25).
In A*Star's press statement, John Hopkins University's (JHU) agreement
was terminated because it failed to meet eight out of 13 key
performance indicators (KPIs).
This came just three days after its original press statement describing
the problems as a period of "transition"- a decision taken by the
leadership of the American university and the agency to replace the current
"operational model of collaboration" that is being developed.
This may raise more questions. It is interesting to note that while
five of the KPIs relating to recruitment were not met, the output in the
five KPIs typically associated with academic research far exceeded their
targets.
For example, in the first year the result was zero for training
programmes, graduate students and visiting faculty, and a shortfall of 78% and
62% for full-time faculty and research scientists respectively.
Even by the second year, the result was still zero for graduate
students, with a shortfall of 50% for training programmes, 66.6% for visiting
faculty, 92% for senior investigators with international reputation,
and 69% for research scientists.
In contrast, the KPIs for the number of post-doctoral participants in
research, joint projects with other research institutes in Singapore,
papers published, papers presented at top conferences, and conferences
organised far exceeded their targets by 20%, 300%, 260%, 300% and 100%
respectively by the second year.
The way I see it, if you are not able to recruit the numbers you target
for but fewer people are able to produce much higher outputs, I would
like to know what is the problem.
Perhaps what is more important now is to try to discover why is it so
difficult to get researchers to come to Singapore.
We need to find out how to make our research environment more
attractive to enhance Singapore's research and development efforts in future.
It is instructive that all three KPIs relating to commercial
end-results failed to produce a single patent, new technologies or new products.
There is a need for us to re-examine our fundamental strategies and
approach to develop Singapore into a world class research hub.
If JHU, which is arguably one of the best in the world in its field, is
not able to meet A*Star's standards, are the goals realistic and
achievable within the timeframe stipulated ?
KPIs and agreements aside, it is a no-win situation for A*Star and JHU
as Singapore has clearly stumbled in its maiden major medical research
effort.
We should focus on learning from the experience and not who should take
more of the blame.
Otherwise, we may just be reinforcing the scientific community's
perception that Singapore's environment is not conducive to creativity.
I cannot help but feel that the root cause of the problem may be a
clash of two cultures - Singapore's technocratic efficiency versus the
American ideals of freedom, liberalism, diversity and creativity.
For example, JHU prefers to recruit young researchers as they may have
more passion and are hungrier for a research breakthrough, whereas
A*Star wants researchers with international reputation.
Unlike other American universities and scholarships, JHU does not
believe in bonding scholars, like A*Star, which has a history of taking
bond-breakers to task.
As one researcher I spoke to said profoundly, you need to be happy to
be creative, so Singapore's happiness ranking at 131 out of 178
countries has to improve.
Author: Leong Sze Hian
Copyright, 2006, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
****************************************************
Paper: Business Times, The (Singapore)
Title: DJHS did not deliver as promised
Author: Dr Andre Wan, Director, Biomedical Research Council Agency for
Science, Technology and Research
Date: July 28, 2006
I REFER to the letter 'JHU-A*Star break-up raises more questions' from
Leong Sze Hian (BT, July 27). The key question is whether the return on
Singapore's investment in DJHS has been satisfactory. The answer: Not
satisfactory.
We reiterate that DJHS was established to achieve three goals:
establish a centre of immunology, experimental therapeutics and cancer
research with an international reputation;
establish PhD training at DJHS in Singapore; and
recruit senior investigators with international reputation to
appointments at DJHS and full-time residence in Singapore.
DJHS failed to deliver on its commitments on all three goals.
With reference to key performance indicators (KPIs), they were what
DJHS reported to A*Star. By its own rating, DJHS did not achieve eight of
the 13 KPIs.
The five that DJHS said had been achieved do not outweigh the eight
that were not met. Whether the five KPIs, including the number of papers
published, have been met is yet to be determined by A*Star, in the light
of the sparse presence of full-time senior investigators based in
Singapore.
Mr Leong asked whether A*Star's goals for DJHS were 'realistic and
achievable within the time frame stipulated'. We would clarify that the
KPIs were not imposed on DJHS but were arrived at through negotiation and
mutual agreement. With reference to the issue of recruiting senior
scientists as opposed to junior scientists, A*Star is fully supportive of
nurturing young research talent. Hence our extensive National Science
Scholarship programme.
But the agreement with DJHS explicitly required the recruitment of
senior investigators to lead the research programmes and to mentor students
and young scientists. We need good 'generals' to lead our own young
'lieutenants'. Mr Leong said: 'What is more important now is to try to
understand why it is so difficult to get researchers who are willing to
come to Singapore.'
A*Star has had no difficulty in attracting some of the best scientific
talents in the world to relocate to Singapore. These include world
renowned leaders in their fields as well as bright young post-docs.
By happy coincidence, we are able to quote from the latest issue of
Time magazine (July 23, 2006): 'For a serial kidnapper, Philip Yeo looks
harmless enough. But to hear some people tell it, he's a dangerous man.
Over the past six years, Yeo has been roaming the world, trailing
talented scientists in Washington; San Diego; Palo Alto, California;
Edinburgh and elsewhere, and spiriting them back to his home country of
Singapore - What distinguishes Yeo from other kidnappers, of course, is that
his targets go willingly. They happily relocate to Singapore's new
2-million-sq-ft Biopolis research centre.' (see: www.time.com
magazine/printout/0,8816,1218061, 00.html)
With reference to the scholarship bonds, A*Star as a public entity that
uses public funds, is obliged to the Singapore tax-payer to ensure that
its scholars return and serve Singapore after completion of their
studies. Johns Hopkins, as a privately funded university, may issue
bond-free scholarships if it chooses to do so, but it should not expect A*Star
to fund such scholarships on its behalf. A*Star is not aware of any
other government entity that awards overseas study scholarships without
requiring the recipients to return after completion of their studies.
Author: Dr Andre Wan, Director, Biomedical Research Council Agency for
Science, Technology and Research
Copyright, 2006, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
****************************************************
Paper: Business Times, The (Singapore)
Title: JHU-A*Star break-up raises more questions
Author: Leong Sze Hian, Singapore
Date: July 27, 2006
I REFER to media reports about Johns Hopkins University's Singapore arm
not meeting A*Star's goals in their tie-up.
A*Star's statement that Johns Hopkins University's (JHU) agreement was
terminated because it failed to meet eight out of 13 performance
benchmarks may raise more questions. Its spokesman had, only days earlier,
described the problems as a period of 'transition' - a decision taken by
the leadership of the American university and the agency to replace the
current 'operating model of collaboration' with a 'new model of
partnership' still being developed.
It is interesting to note that whilst five of the performance
benchmarks (KPIs) relating to recruitment were not met, output in the five KPIs
typically associated with academic research far exceeded their targets.
For example, in the first year, the result was zero for training
programmes, graduate students and visiting faculty, and a shortfall of 78 and
62 per cent for full-time faculty, and research scientists
respectively. Even by the second year, the result was still zero for graduate
students, with a shortfall of 50 per cent for training programmes, 66.6 per
cent for visiting faculty, 92 per cent for senior investigators with
international reputation, and 69 per cent for research scientists.
In contrast, the KPIs for number of post-doctoral participating in
research, joint projects with other research institutes in Singapore,
papers published, papers presented at top conferences, and conferences
organised; far exceeded their targets by 20, 300, 260, 300 and 100 per cent
respectively.
If you are not able to recruit the numbers you target, but fewer people
are able to produce much higher outputs, then what is the problem?
Perhaps what is more important now is to try to understand why it is so
difficult to get researchers willing to come to Singapore. We need to find
out how to make our research environment more attractive.
It is perhaps instructive to note that all three KPIs relating to
commercial end-results, failed to produce a single patent, new technologies
or new products. In this context, maybe there is a need for us to
re-examine our fundamental strategies and approach.
If JHU, which is arguably one of the best in the world in its field, is
not able to meet A*Star's standards, are the goals realistic and
achievable within the time frame stipulated?
In the final analysis, KPIs and agreements aside, it is a 'no win' for
A*Star, JHU and Singapore, as Singapore has clearly stumbled in its
maiden major medical research effort.
We should focus on learning from the experience rather than concentrate
on apportioning blame. Otherwise, we may just be reinforcing the
scientific community's perception that Singapore's environment is not
conducive to creativity.
I cannot help but feel that the root cause of the problem may be a
clash of two cultures - Singapore's technocratic efficiency versus the
American ideals of freedom, liberalism, diversity and creativity.
For example, JHU prefers to recruit young researchers as they may have
more passion and are hungrier for a research breakthrough, whereas
A*Star wants researchers with international reputation.
Unlike other American universities and scholarships, JHU does not
believe in bonds for its scholars, like A*Star which has a history of even
taking bond-breakers to task.
As one researcher I spoke to said rather profoundly, you need to be
happy to be creative, so Singapore's happiness ranking at 131 out of 178
countries has to improve.
Author: Leong Sze Hian, Singapore
Copyright, 2006, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
****************************************************
Paper
Paper: Business Times, The (Singapore)
Title: Forum on Islamic financial planning
Date: July 11, 2006
IN the wake of an increasing interest in Islamic products, Berita
Harian will be holding its fourth financial planning conference, 'Islamic
Financial Planning'.
Guntor Sadali, editor of Berita Harian, said: 'The theme Islamic
Financial Planning has been chosen as there is a growing interest in Islamic
finance and banking products.' Participants will learn how to grow
their portfolio under the syariah principle from the conference, he added.
The speakers are Abdullah Gymnastiar, Indonesian management guru and
managing director of MQ Corp; Leong Sze Hian, vice-president of the
Society of Financial Service Professionals Singapore, and Rosli Mohd Yusof,
head of Islamic banking at Maybank. In addition, Rohani Mohd Shahir
will discuss the new trend of Islamic financial planning in the Muslim
community here.
The conference will be held on July 23, at the Raffles Ballroom,
Raffles City Convention Centre.
Copyright, 2006, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
****************************************************
Paper: Straits Times, The (Singapore)
Title: Your Insights - Last week, Insight looked at the new growth
industries. Readers - write in with their views on what they think about
the opportunities - and challenges for vulnerable workers:
Date: July 8, 2006
'ONLY 15 per cent of firms in the private sector which paid wage
increases heeded the National Wages Council's recommendation to
give higher increases to low-wage workers; 32 per cent kept wages
unchanged, with 8.3 per cent cutting wages.
This means only 9 per cent of firms in the private sector adopted
the recommendation. These may have contributed to the low-income
group's wages decreasing by 4.3 per cent per year for the last
five years.
Perhaps the ultimate determinant of wages is demand and supply.
We could try to balance the availability of foreign workers to
attain the desired wage levels to stem further slides in incomes
for this group.'LEONG SZE HIAN, in an e-mail’
Copyright, 2006, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
****************************************************
Paper: Straits Times, The (Singapore)
Title: Housing loans eating up funds for retirement - As of December,
over 25,000 people above 55 were using CPF to pay off debt
Author: Tan Hui Yee
Date: July 3, 2006
Mr Leong Sze Hian, president of the Society of Financial Service
Professionals, explained: 'The older you get, the easier it is to get
retrenched and the harder it is to get re-employed.'
Mr Leong suggested that financially strapped home owners try to use
their other assets to pay off as much of their housing loans as possible,
if the returns from those assets were lower than their mortgage rate.
-- TAN HUI YEE
Author: Tan Hui Yee
Copyright, 2006, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
****************************************************
Paper: Business Times, The (Singapore)
Title: More healthcare subsidies needed
Author: Leong Sze Hian Singapore
Date: June 27, 2006
ACCORDING to the Ministry of Health's website, subsidies for subsidised
patients have been rising from $560 million in 1997 to $1.39 billion in
2005.
Particularly for the poor, increases in subsidies may need to be viewed
in the context of rising healthcare costs. For example, if healthcare
costs rise by 10 per cent, and subsidies also increase by the same
amount, the net impact on the poor is zero.
Notwithstanding rising subsidies, the poor were most affected as
healthcare spending of the lowest 20 per cent of households by income, had
the highest increase of 81 per cent among all items of expenditure from
1998 to 2004. This increase is further compounded by the decline in
average monthly household income of this group by 3.2 per cent a year from
1998 to 2003. A statistic that may need to be looked at is whether the
poor's co-payment for every incremental dollar of healthcare costs
vis-a-vis the government's share has risen over the years.
A slew of changes in healthcare policies in recent years may have
contributed to rising healthcare costs for the poor, such as the 9 per cent
increase in polyclinic fees to cover renovation work; no more free
treatment for infectious diseases like dengue fever and chicken pox at the
Communicable Disease Centre; increase in MediShield deductible and
premiums; maximum waiver of only up to 60 per cent for non-air-conditioned
6-bedded ward under Medifund; means testing for disabled care; means
testing for community hospitals elderly care, etc.
For example, means testing since 2000 for community hospitals elderly
care, starts at $301 per capita income. How can a family with a per
capita monthly income of $301 be considered not poor?
With over three per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on
healthcare, I understand that Singapore's healthcare spending over GDP is
one of the lowest in the world.
The poor is perhaps not interested in the debate or statistics on
healthcare, but rather the issue of affordability and whether healthcare
will continue to be a rising financial burden.
Author: Leong Sze Hian Singapore
Copyright, 2006, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
****************************************************
Paper: Business Times, The (Singapore)
Title: Let's have a referendum on preference in lift upgrading
Author: Leong Sze Hian, Singapore
Date: June 14, 2006
I REFER to media reports that all wards will be upgraded, but the PAP
ones will be given preference.
My mother-in-law passed away on June 9 of a heart attack, shortly after
a visit to the doctor. Over the years, she had developed a phobia of
leaving her HDB flat because of the immense difficulty of going down the
stairs to the lift-landing floor.
As lift upgrading is such a hot-button issue that it increasingly
affects almost everyone, I would like to suggest that a national referendum
be held to decide once and for all whether priority should be given to
the PAP wards over the opposition ones. It is not a question of whether
my late mother-in-law lived in a PAP or opposition ward, but rather the
fairness of it all - that upgrading should be based on need instead of
whom a constituency voted for.
This principle is perhaps underscored by media reports, which cited a
recent survey that most voters value an efficient government and policy
fairness over bread and butter issues such as cost of living and jobs.
This indicates that Singaporeans are maturing in their political
awareness and what they consider important to their lives.
In this regard, the continuance of the 'upgrading last' policy
vis-a-vis the opposition wards may only further divide the nation. Instead, let
us seize this opportunity to come together as one united people based
on justice and equality as enshrined in our national pledge, and do away
with the notion of linking upgrading to votes.
Author: Leong Sze Hian, Singapore
Copyright, 2006, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
****************************************************
Paper: Straits Times, The (Singapore)
Title: Spend more on health care to help the poor
Date: June 3, 2006
HEALTH-CARE spending of the lowest 20 per cent of households by income
had the highest increase of 81 per cent among all items of expenditure
from 1998 to 2004.
According to the World Health Organisation's (WHO) World Health Report
2004, Singapore's per capita government expenditure on health, at an
average exchange rate, fell gradually from US$365 (S$577) in 1997 to
US$274 in 2001.
The WHO Report 2005 showed that Singapore's general government
expenditure on health - as a percentage of total expenditure on health -
declined gradually from 41.6 to 30.9 per cent from 1998 to 2002.
General government expenditure on health as a percentage of total
government expenditure also dropped from 8.7 to 5.9 per cent for the same
period.
We should spend more on health care to help the poor.
Leong Sze Hian
Copyright, 2006, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
****************************************************
Paper: Business Times, The (Singapore)
Title: Let's all work together to help the needy in S'pore
Author: Leong Sze Hian Singapore
Date: May 23, 2006
I REFER to the article 'Affluence doesn't always bring happiness' (BT,
May 13).
Most of the buzz in post-election forum letters, media reports,
Internet blogs and coffee-shop talk seem to revolve mainly around upgrading,
James Gomez, and the defamation suit.
According to Nexlabs' General Election Trends, the top three 'Trends in
Election Themes (Blogs) (20/4/2006-13/05/2006)' were James Gomez,
estate upgrading and defamation suits - at 20, 10 and 8 per cent,
respectively.
In contrast, poverty and cost of living only scored 3 and 4 per cent
respectively. After attending nine election rallies, to my mind the more
important and pressing issues and unanswered questions that remain and
need to be addressed are those that affect particularly the needy in
Singapore.
For example, according to the Ministry of Community Development, Youth
and Sports, the average per capita income of the bottom 20 per cent of
households in 2004 was $213 ($140 in 1980 after adjusting for
inflation). It may not be easy to live in Singapore today with only $213, $426,
$639 and $852 for a household of one, two, three and four family
members, respectively, in the context of today's high cost of living.
Homeowners who moved between 1995 and 2005 owed the HDB an average
$131,000 each in loans. In comparison, households that remained in their
flats owed just $35,000 each on average. Therefore, the average upgrader
increased his or her loan debt by about four times. Even the lowest 20
per cent of income earners who upgraded had an average outstanding HDB
loan of $119,000. This is about 150 times the average household monthly
income of $795 for this group.
I believe this makes their ratio of debt to income one of the highest
in the world. Altogether, 51 per cent of Singapore's households have
still not paid off their HDB loans. This does not include HDB bank loans
and private property loans.
Thus, more than 500,000 homeowners with HDB concessionary loans run the
risk of losing their homes and CPF if they are unable to service their
mortgages. Upgraders who take on larger loans may be increasing their
risks in this regard. Let us all work together to help the needy by
addressing the above issues and concerns.
Author: Leong Sze Hian Singapore
Copyright, 2006, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
****************************************************
Paper: Straits Times, The (Singapore)
Title: Was SBS fare hike justified, given its 12% rise in profit?
Author: Leong Sze Hian
Date: May 18, 2006
I REFER to media reports that SBS Transit had a surprising 12 per cent
increase in first quarter profit to $14.6 million.
This was achieved on the back of a five per cent rise in revenue to
$152 million, due mainly to higher bus and rail fare revenues following a
fare hike in July. The improved bottom line comes despite a relentless
surge in fuel prices. Does the above make you wonder whether the last
fare hike in July was justified in the first place?
I hope that the Public Transport Council will take this into
consideration when it reviews the postponed deliberations, announced in April, on
public transport fares.
Author: Leong Sze Hian
Copyright, 2006, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
****************************************************
Paper: Straits Times, The (Singapore)
Title: House can't get TV reception because of new building next door.
Who can help?
Date: May 8, 2006
I live in a semi-detached house. My neighbour's house was purchased by
a developer and it is being rebuilt for sale.
As the new structure is much higher than mine, we are unable to watch
television or INTV (teletext) as the reception is very poor.
According to a TV antenna company, the problem cannot be rectified
because my house is boxed in by higher structures on both sides. A possible
solution is to fix the antenna on my neighbour's roof. But the
developer is not agreeable to this.
Another solution is to get a new antenna and place it on the fence
behind my house. Have you ever seen a TV antenna placed in such a position?
My neighbour's contractor suggests that we subscribe to cable
television, which costs about $2,500 (payable by monthly instalments over 24
months) followed by a monthly subscription of $25.
Moreover, cable television would deprive me of watching the four
Malaysian channels that I have grown used to because these are not available
on cable.
The developer said it was not their problem because the Urban
Redevelopment Authority (URA) had approved the height of the building. We called
the URA and were told that it was not their problem too.
The URA said it had never encountered such a problem and we would have
to resolve the matter with the developer.
I understand that the developer purchased the property for about $1.1
million and may make a profit of a few hundred thousand dollars by
reselling it.
Shouldn't the URA have considered or at least protect my rights as it
is through no fault of mine that I have no television to watch now?
Can anyone please tell me who can solve the problem?
Leong Sze Hian
Copyright, 2006, Singapore Press Holdings Limited