https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSVcapmUS/
https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSVsTFCF1/
https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSVsf3Ecn/
Maju forest discussion intrude into private houses.
Golf course, gcb - maju forest.
Climate group against GCB and landed properties.
----
1. I read and listen to some of the environmentalists comments and speeches.
2. I find it appalling that these groups are attacking residents living in landed properties and GCB - to give up their honest hard-earned assets.
3. These attacks go right into the ethos of attacking:-
a. The core of capitalism
b. The function of market economy
c. The reward system that encourage people to be innovative, enterprising and create wealth for themselves - which in turn benefits the whole economy - by creating business, companies, create jobs and employment for other Singaporeans.
4. It smack of being a sour grape, envious of people success - in which equal opportunities are given to everyone in our Nation successful economic, social and political model that make Singapore successful as a nation.
5. In fact, I want to draw a parallel to the seriousness of such group tearing into the fabric of our social cohesiveness, harmony and unity - for pitching one group against another group that happen to do well in the economy.
The like of exploiting racial, religious divisiveness and divide our Nation.
6. Such attack by the environmentalists are unwarranted and does not help in their cause of protecting the environment - and will in fact lead Singaporeans to call our capitalist system and market economy that make us so successful into question - and does not help in social cohesion.
In fact, these environmentalists are trying to drive a wedge, sow discord and exploit the faultlines of social class to deliver their environmentalist message.
I feel that there is a need to bring this up politically to address this head-on and not let such sour grape syndrome sow discord in our Society.
----
Singapore allocates about 15% of its total land area for housing, splitting this footprint almost equally between public and private developments.
Land and Housing Breakdown
Public Housing (HDB / BTO): Takes up about 8% of Singapore’s total land area. It houses roughly 80% of the resident population across 1.09 million flats.
Private Housing (Condos & Landed): Takes up about 7% of total land area.
Private Condominiums/Apartments: Accommodate about 18% of residents with roughly 370,000 to 400,000 units.
Private Landed Properties: Account for only about 5% to 6% of total housing stock (approx. 70,000 to 73,000 homes) due to extreme land scarcity, housing less than 5% of the population.
Source:- Google Gemini AI
Land and Housing Breakdown
Public Housing (HDB / BTO): Takes up about 8% of Singapore’s total land area. It houses roughly 80% of the resident population across 1.09 million flats.
Private Housing (Condos & Landed): Takes up about 7% of total land area.
Private Condominiums/Apartments: Accommodate about 18% of residents with roughly 370,000 to 400,000 units.
Private Landed Properties: Account for only about 5% to 6% of total housing stock (approx. 70,000 to 73,000 homes) due to extreme land scarcity, housing less than 5% of the population.
Source:- Google Gemini AI
----
URA has already allocated the appropriate ratios for :-
1. Public housing BTO flats
2. Private condos and apartment
3. Landed properties and GCB
Why should these environmentalist groups single out landed properties and GCB - to sacrifice their hard-earned assets to be sacrifice in the name of climate protection and sow discord and wage divisiveness and unhappines within our society?
1. Public housing BTO flats
2. Private condos and apartment
3. Landed properties and GCB
Why should these environmentalist groups single out landed properties and GCB - to sacrifice their hard-earned assets to be sacrifice in the name of climate protection and sow discord and wage divisiveness and unhappines within our society?
----
Environmentalist sour grape stance against landed properties and GCB dwellers - will in effect sending message that:-
1. Talents with the abilities to create wealth for themselves, the economy, setup business, companies and create jobs are not welcome in Singapore.
2. Capitalism and market economy that drive success in Singapore economy and society that reward enterprising individuals and talents are to be discarded to be replaced by socialism, equal miseries - that will reverse Singapore success.
3. I think it is time to push back against these environmentalists excesses - don't fool around with Singapore successful economic model - the push back will be strong and ferocious.
1. Talents with the abilities to create wealth for themselves, the economy, setup business, companies and create jobs are not welcome in Singapore.
2. Capitalism and market economy that drive success in Singapore economy and society that reward enterprising individuals and talents are to be discarded to be replaced by socialism, equal miseries - that will reverse Singapore success.
3. I think it is time to push back against these environmentalists excesses - don't fool around with Singapore successful economic model - the push back will be strong and ferocious.
====
====
Where the Law Draws the Line
Singapore legal policy distinguishes between objective commentary and targeted exploitation:
Permitted Discourse
Criminal or Actionable Offence
Permitted Discourse
Academic discussions on income inequality.
Permitted Discourse
Research or surveys regarding class divides.
Source :- Google Gemini AI
LCL Danny 心 (1st HP):
Speech that intentionally exploits fault lines like social class to divide Singapore's social fabric can constitute a breach of law under specific legal mechanisms, depending entirely on the speech's context, intent, and threat to public order.
While Singapore's most explicit hate speech legislation focuses heavily on race and religion, several broader public order, safety, and digital harms laws address acts that threaten overall societal cohesion.
Speech that intentionally exploits fault lines like social class to divide Singapore's social fabric can constitute a breach of law under specific legal mechanisms, depending entirely on the speech's context, intent, and threat to public order.
While Singapore's most explicit hate speech legislation focuses heavily on race and religion, several broader public order, safety, and digital harms laws address acts that threaten overall societal cohesion.
----
Applicable Legal Frameworks
Public Order Act: If speech exploiting class divisions incites a public assembly, procession, or creates a threat to public order and tranquility, it can be restricted or prosecuted under the Public Order Act. The state maintains strict control over public messaging that could lead to physical unrest.
Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA): If the divisive speech is propagated online via social networks, websites, or messaging apps to deliberately polarize communities or create systemic malice, the government can issue "disabling directions". This forces platforms to block or restrict the content to protect the domestic social fabric.
Historical Precedent (Sedition Laws): Historically, laws like the Sedition Act penalized the promotion of feelings of ill-will and hostility between different "classes" of the population. While Singapore has modernized its statutory landscape to focus on targeted public harmony, the foundational principle of legally protecting the state from class-driven fracturing remains integral to its legal philosophy.
----
Applicable Legal Frameworks
Public Order Act: If speech exploiting class divisions incites a public assembly, procession, or creates a threat to public order and tranquility, it can be restricted or prosecuted under the Public Order Act. The state maintains strict control over public messaging that could lead to physical unrest.
Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA): If the divisive speech is propagated online via social networks, websites, or messaging apps to deliberately polarize communities or create systemic malice, the government can issue "disabling directions". This forces platforms to block or restrict the content to protect the domestic social fabric.
Historical Precedent (Sedition Laws): Historically, laws like the Sedition Act penalized the promotion of feelings of ill-will and hostility between different "classes" of the population. While Singapore has modernized its statutory landscape to focus on targeted public harmony, the foundational principle of legally protecting the state from class-driven fracturing remains integral to its legal philosophy.
----
Where the Law Draws the Line
Singapore legal policy distinguishes between objective commentary and targeted exploitation:
Permitted Discourse
Criminal or Actionable Offence
Permitted Discourse
Academic discussions on income inequality.
Criminal or Actionable Offence
Intentional incitement of hostility against a group.
----
Intentional incitement of hostility against a group.
----
Permitted Discourse
Research or surveys regarding class divides.
Criminal or Actionable Offence
Spreading harmful falsehoods to trigger unrest.
Spreading harmful falsehoods to trigger unrest.
----
Permitted Discourse
Policy debates on social mobility or housing.
Permitted Discourse
Policy debates on social mobility or housing.
Criminal or Actionable Offence
Actively trying to fracture the social fabric.
Actively trying to fracture the social fabric.
====
No comments:
Post a Comment