'More space per person despite smaller HDB flats'

[thefarside]

Theoretically, if I am one person, a 35 sqm house is above average. It meets the math. But hardly a good way to live.

[hyom]

Better standard of living despite higher cost of living.

This is because when costs go up, one thinks of ways to live more cheaply. As one gets used to a cheaper lifestyle, one gets contented more easily. A contented person is a happy person. Therefore, with a happier state of mind, a higher standard of living is achieved despite becoming poorer by the day. It is highly recommended that the National Wage Council cut wages across the board to raise our standard of living.

Good reasoning?

[touzi]

Sounds like she came from the same camp as the SMRT CEO, who said that crowded trains don't matter as it is a choice as to whether the commuter wants to board such trains.

Dr Cheong did not say that singaporeans has a choice not to buy. She did not say if you can only afford a HDB, don't expect the same quality of living as the rich who can afford condos. I read and re-read her comments, and I cannot find what is wrong with it. Probably I am one of those with low EQ.

People in their Ivory Towers can never imagine what it is like to be poor, desperate or destitute.

Be careful of reverse snobbery.

---

And the example of space occupied by each occupant is really childish.Does she ever wonder why household is getting smaller and smaller? With housing price keep increasing and available space keep reducing, how do you expect people to have bigger families? And yet she says each occupant have more space now than before, amazing!!! Yes, it is force by circumstance that we have more space now than before.

Shrinking family size is a global phenomenon. The main reason is probably woman entering the workforce than anything else. A secondary reason may be the improved technology by Durex, Okamoto, Sagami etc.

[hyom]

I read and re-read her comments, and I cannot find what is wrong with it. Probably I am one of those with low EQ.

Logically, there is nothing wrong with her comments. Your EQ is ok.

A boss has an engineering problem. He tells X the problem. Obviously, he wants X to solve the problem. X gave his boss logical reasons why this problem exists and why it is very hard to solve it. X even persuade his boss to try to find ways to live with the problem and tolerate it. Bystanders can read and reread X's argument and cannot fault the logic. However, if you were the boss, would you want X to work for you?

Moral of the story:
When there is a problem, please at least acknowledge it. Most of all, please don't skirt around it and tell people to live with the problem. Sometimes, even wise and respected men can say things like "No amount of engineering can prevent such problems". I sure love such bosses as an engineer. What an easy life. However, if such an attitude is prevalent among people at the top, the world will not progress and problems will forever remain unsolved. This is why people who bear the brunt of the problems are angry when the people with the responsibilities to solve problems say things that show they have no intention to even try to solve the problems.

[touzi]

Logically, there is nothing wrong with her comments. Your EQ is ok.

My EQ is nonexistent. Not only do I find her comments nothing wrong logically, but I find it emotionally acceptable. However knowing Singaporeans cynicism, I knew it will be hot topic ( hey, maybe there is hope for me afterall ! ).

I choose not to believe the whole gahmen is made up evil, cold blooded men and women who are out to enrich themselves and screw singaporeans at every opportunity. Perhaps I am naive, but I believe many of policy makers have the long term interest of Singapore at heart. Even if I disagree with their policies from time to time, you will seldom find me lampooning them.

A boss has an engineering problem. He tells X the problem. Obviously, he wants X to solve the problem. X gave his boss logical reasons why this problem exists and why it is very hard to solve it. X even persuade his boss to try to find ways to live with the problem and tolerate it. Bystanders can read and reread X's argument and cannot fault the logic. However, if you were the boss, would you want X to work for you?

I will be a very satisfied boss if X tell me he is trying to solve my problem ( build enough flats on a land constrained country ), describe the solution ( build smaller flats ) , tell me the limitation ( admit that overall they are smaller ) and advise me how to mitigate it (proper interior design).

When there is a problem, please at least acknowledge it. Most of all, please don't skirt around it and tell people to live with the problem. Sometimes, even wise and respected men can say things like "No amount of engineering can prevent such problems". I sure love such bosses as an engineer. What an easy life. However, if such an attitude is prevalent among people at the top, the world will not progress and problems will forever remain unsolved. This is why people who bear the brunt of the problems are angry when the people with the responsibilities to solve problems say things that show they have no intention to even try to solve the problems.

We obviously have a different view on what is the problem HDB needs to solve. Yours is HDB needs to build big flats for everyone. Mine, HDB needs to build enough flats. To me, Dr Cheong did not skirt the issue.

By the way, you have a interesting style of writing ( not just this post ). Always start with one point ( Nothing wrong with your EQ ) and spend the bulk of the message saying the opposite.

[Big Toe]

On the argument on space/pax.
Another one of those things that mathematically makes sense, but in reality is total crap.

It is flawed logic. Each person walks around the house and shares the entire house with the rest of the family members.
We are not confined to a certain amount of space. Using space per person is as illogical as it gets.
If they do not have anything good to say, don't say it. It just make things a lot lot worse.

[hyom]

I will be a very satisfied boss if X tell me he is trying to solve my problem ( build enough flats on a land constrained country ), describe the solution ( build smaller flats ) , tell me the limitation ( admit that overall they are smaller ) and advise me how to mitigate it (proper interior design).

On this particular occasion, I don't get the impression that X is trying to solve the problem. Rather, X is trying to persuade his boss to accept the problem and live with it. If X had said something like "please live with the problem for the time being while I try to get my people to come out with a solution", then that is more acceptable.

Aside from this speech. The new housing minister Khaw Boon Wan is doing his best to build enough flats on a land-constrained country. No dispute about that. Singaporeans should be thankful to him for that.

I choose not to believe the whole gahmen is made up evil, cold blooded men and women who are out to enrich themselves and screw singaporeans at every opportunity. Perhaps I am naive, but I believe many of policy makers have the long term interest of Singapore at heart. Even if I disagree with their policies from time to time, you will seldom find me lampooning them.

No, you are not naive and I am not going to spend the bulk of the message saying you are. I believe it is the government has the long-term interest of Singapore at heart because they have to face elections every 5 years. It is in their long-term interest to do. On this, the interests are aligned.

By the way, you have a interesting style of writing ( not just this post ). Always start with one point ( Nothing wrong with your EQ ) and spend the bulk of the message saying the opposite.

I am a two-headed snake? Is this an insult? I do have a tendency to try to be polite even if I do not agree for healthier discussion. That is how I conduct my discussion with my colleagues. No derogatory personal remarks. Would you like me to start off with your EQ being hopelessly retarded, then spend the bulk of the message proving it? I said there was nothing wrong with your EQ because I don't know what poor EQ has to do with interpreting her logic. Now, I realize what you mean by poor EQ from your reply(no offense, that's what you wrote) as in not understanding why people are frustrated with her comments.

[Musicwhiz]

I note that the discussion is getting heated up - a gentle reminder for all forumers to refrain from personal attacks and insinuations. Let's respect one another's viewpoints even if they may be different from ours!

Thanks!

[yeokiwi]

I am very pissed off because of the logic that was presented.
What kind of logic are we teaching our younger generation?

"Hey, no problem kid.. The flat is smaller, more expensive but in actual fact we have more space per person!"

A good leader should not do this kind of thing and there is nothing wrong to acknowledge that the land and the building cost is higher and also, the buyers are expecting a higher quality flat and environment than before.
How can a CEO behave like that??

One thing for sure, I will not teach my kids this kind of warped logic.


"Reading out the figures in a shrill, rapid voice, he proved to them in detail that they had more oats, more hay, more turnips than they had had in Jones's day, that they worked shorter hours, that their drinking water was of better quality, that they lived longer, that a larger proportion of their young ones survived infancy, and that they had more straw in their stalls and suffered less from fleas."

[KopiKat]

"Reading out the figures in a shrill, rapid voice, he proved to them in detail that they had more oats, more hay, more turnips than they had had in Jones's day, that they worked shorter hours, that their drinking water was of better quality, that they lived longer, that a larger proportion of their young ones survived infancy, and that they had more straw in their stalls and suffered less from fleas."

Yes!

"Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad!"

becomes,

"Four Legs Good, Two Legs Better!"

Haha...