Twice as many applicants as Centrale 8 flats
Project oversubscribed despite record asking price for DBSS flats
By Cheryl Ong
A couple at the Centrale 8 showroom at the weekend. The project saw 1,431 applications by Tuesday’s deadline. — ST PHOTO: CHEW SENG KIM
THE most expensive Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) flats to hit the market have been two times over-subscribed.
The 708-unit Centrale 8 project in Tampines, which raised an uproar over the $880,000 price tag for its largest units, pulled in 1,431 applications by the deadline on Tuesday.
Some industry observers expressed surprise at this performance, although they pointed out that the number of times over-subscribed is not a good indicator of how well a development eventually sells.
Centrale 8, developed by the Sim Lian Group, made the news last week with a record asking price for a DBSS flat, triggering an outcry that the price was nearly that of executive condominiums.
Sim Lian backed down on its prices to varying degrees across its flat types, hours before applications closed on Tuesday, saying that the quoted price ranges were only ‘indicative’. It then released a ‘confirmed price range’ for the flat types, which showed a $100,000 price drop to $778,000 for the top-end units.
The application result puts Centrale 8 on par with those of more recent DBSS launches. Adora Green in Yishun drew three times as many buyers as there were flats. In 2009, The Peak in Toa Payoh drew about 2,900 applications for 1,203 units. Natura Loft in Bishan in 2008 received 600 applications for 480 flats.
http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20110607-282696.html
In addition, Major-General Chan Chun Sing, Acting Minister for MCYS, Lanfang Republic and the Demak Sultanate also said that another reason for the low fertility rate is because Singaporeans are not having enough sex.
Clearing the air on ‘awkward’ comment Letter from Inderjit Singh Member of Parliament for Ang Mo Kio GRC 04:46 AM Jun 02, 2011
I wish to highlight to you an article carried by your publication on May 28, “PAP MPs surprised Dr Tan might run for President”.
I was quoted as saying: “For Presidential Elections, there’s always been a candidate that the Government supports … it’s quite clear that we will be fully behind this person so it will be very awkward (to have Dr Tan in the contest).”
The text, provided in the parenthesis, which was added into my quote, did not accurately reflect my thoughts and sentiments nor were they something I had alluded to. By adding these words, the reporter has created an impression among readers that it would be awkward for Dr Tan to contest in the Presidential Elections. In actuality, this is not what I had meant or said.
The “we” I referred to in my quote were the PAP party members and, therefore, I clearly meant that we will be behind the government-backed candidate and therefore it would be awkward for us, the party members. This is because Dr Tan, himself a former party member and a former colleague, is well-known to most of us and a close-friend of many members of the party. Hence, it would be an awkward situation for a party member to be in that position to have to choose between at least two candidates who may be well-known to us.
However, by adding his own interpretation of my quote into the piece, without perhaps seeking a more thorough clarification, your reporter has helped to create several misleading perceptions of my statement and my thoughts on this topic. As a result, I now face an onslaught on the online and social media front, where netizens have used your article as a basis to question the motive behind my statement.
I have spent much time since Saturday having to deal with these online questions and comments about this article and I find that if it there is no clarification made on the actual interpretation of my statement, then it may serve to undermine my credibility and reputation as a political leader and a Member of Parliament.
I do feel that your reporter should have clarified his interpretation with me prior to adding it, in parenthesis, into my quote. I would have had no qualms in helping to uphold the high standards of responsible journalism that is prevalent in Singapore. However, I do sincerely hope that you will help in clarifying this position and I will appreciate your help in this regard as it will help in minimising the damage created by this situation.
Editor’s note
The text, provided in the parenthesis, was necessary to make clear the subject of the question which had been posed to Mr Inderjit Singh by the reporter. With regards to the “we”, which Mr Singh used in his quote, it is clear from reading the article (including its headline “PAP MPs surprised Dr Tan might run for President”) that he was referring to PAP party members, as he has pointed out in his letter. It would be a stretch to suggest that Mr Singh’s use of the word “we” would imply that he was speaking on behalf of any other group or even the entire country.
We note that Mr Singh has posted a similar clarification on his Facebook wall, in which he writes “the reporter must have tried to sensationalise what I said”. We do not sensationalise our reports. Our track record speaks for itself. We thank Mr Singh for the opportunity to clarify this matter.
I’m trying hard to understand this. The way I see it, there are only the following possibilities.
1. Mr Singh doesn’t understand the article;
2. Mr Singh doesn’t think Singaporeans understood the article, considering his explanation here only served to confirm what most Singaporeans understood from the article, which is the fact that PAP members would find Mr Tan Cheng Bock running for President awkward according to him;
At latest count, at least three PAP MPs need media training, seriously. Did I mention earlier that I’m in the phone book?
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1132239/1/.html
Me: “Daddy, can I please have my money that I’ve saved up?”
Daddy: “No, you can’t. You’re too young and irresponsible to know what to do with your money. I need to give it to you in fixed payments so you don’t spend it all in one place.”
Me: “But I’m 62!”
Daddy: “Trust me. Daddy knows best.”
by
Lim Wee Kiak on Friday, May 27, 2011 at 4:12pm
Minister’s pay is a sensitive issue and is one that many are concerned about. I would like to clarify my comments made to Lianhe Zaobao and also reproduced in LianheWanBao
I made three fundamental points.
1. We need a balanced approach to the question of Ministerial pay.
2. Personally, I think we should not use pay and perks to attract capable people to come forward to serve. I agree with PM that there is a service to country element and an element of sacrifice expected for the Ministers by the public.
3. On the other hand, we need to take into consideration their responsibilities and job scope when we remunerate Ministers.
On further reflection, I agree that the example I quoted regarding a MICA minister meeting the heads of telcos and saying that there may be some loss of face if the minister’s salary is low is inappropriate and incorrect. I withdraw those remarks and apologise for making them. Dignity cannot be and must not be measured purely in monetary terms.
http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC110524-0000316/The-importance-of-frank-feedback
It’s time to get the hierachy right.
Civil servants.
Do school principals need to be taught the meaning of this? MOE officials, be it the clerk, the deputy director or the Minister, are civil servants.
In plain English, school principals? You’re the boss.
Well, okay, maybe that’s an exaggeration, since educators are civil servants as well, but this letter writer makes a lot of sense. The purpose of these MOE visits would have to be to connect with the ground and to find out what is wrong. If we can’t trust our educators to be honest and take this opportunity to highlight reality to the officials, then how can we trust them to teach our kids about the real world?
Civil servants. Serve, damn you.
