The "gotcha" here is that the home is, legally and technically, on a 99-year lease from the government. So, the government is free to take it back once the lease expires. This happened a couple of years back with an old enclave - the "owners" had to vacate their units as their lease had expired and the government needed the land for developmental purposes.
In fact, this had become a hot button issue in the elections. All this while, and even today the government claims that the people are the owner considering they can sell the units and book profits. On the other hand, they justify the 99-year limit, as a step to being fair towards future generations in a land scarce country.
There have been many policy and public discussions around this topic. But, as of date, there is no firm or permanent solution to this conundrum.
Thanks for correcting me; I accept that CPF can be used for both the cases you have mentioned.
My comment came from two observations:
1. The majority of Singapore citizens live in HDB.
2. The vast majority of non-landed residential properties (private condos and HDBs) are on 99-year leases.
This European perspective is one of the reasons that many developing countries outside of Europe didn't condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine. As India's External Affairs Minister had remarked, "Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe's problems are the world's problems, but the world's problems are not Europe's problems."
I agree with the stance that companies like Google, Meta, et al are taking. Politics, like religion, should be strictly a personal matter and not be used to push a personal belief onto a larger group. As the GP noted, one is free to leave their employer if they don't agree with the latter's policies; they can't (and shouldn't be allowed to) force their viewpoints on others.
The EFF raises valid concerns regarding the abuse of security backdoors. As far as I remember, they and other privacy advocate have been doing so for the longest period of time.
Unfortunately, the real world will always fall short of the ideal one. Telegram and Durov are already facing this issue - where privacy ends and law enforcement begins.
That last sentence is an interesting sentiment. I can understand that it could be from the perspective of patriotism, supporting local manufacturing, quality perception, etc.
However, you would also appreciate that a large number of migrants (legal or otherwise) are involved in local manufacturing as well. The recent Reuters news on the matter comes to mind, "How migrant workers suffered to craft the 'Made in Italy' luxury label - https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/how-migrant-workers-suf..."
Not siding with either Matt or WPE, but I think just sponsoring community events should not be giving back enough. If I remember clearly, companies like Google, Microsoft, etc. spend substantial (to the community) monetary and non-monetary support to many open-source projects, in addition to sponsoring community events.
I guess we are in agreement here. As far as I understand, the word shocking is used, in this context, at the unexpected happening of the event; not that the event happened. If I remember the sequence of events correctly, he was admitted to the hospital for a routine checkup and on Monday, his team had released a statement on his behalf that he was recuperating.
Another reason that a lot of Indians found this news shocking is because of the value and emotions attached to the name, "Tatas". Post India's independence, they were instrumental in helping India industrialized; the other were the Birlas.
As the study highlights, these effects were observed in patients who caught the infection before the vaccines were developed. The researchers didn’t look at the effects of the vaccination, but suspect that it would be protective.
The study also didn’t investigate whether repeated infections increase the health risks. However, some research (details not provided in the article) has found such a link.
In fact, this had become a hot button issue in the elections. All this while, and even today the government claims that the people are the owner considering they can sell the units and book profits. On the other hand, they justify the 99-year limit, as a step to being fair towards future generations in a land scarce country.
There have been many policy and public discussions around this topic. But, as of date, there is no firm or permanent solution to this conundrum.
reply