lioncityftw
(Senior Member)
****

Registration Date: 21-01-2023
Date of Birth: Not Specified
Local Time: 13-05-2024 at 09:42 AM
Status: Offline

lioncityftw's Forum Info
Joined:
21-01-2023
Last Visit:
1 hour ago
Total Posts:
863 (1.81 posts per day | 0.11 percent of total posts)
(Find All Posts)
Total Threads:
50 (0.1 threads per day | 0.04 percent of total threads)
(Find All Threads)
Time Spent Online:
1 Week, 2 Days, 19 Hours
Total Likes Received:
442 (0.93 per day | 0.25 percent of total 177731)
(Find All Threads Liked ForFind All Posts Liked For)
Total Likes Given:
383 (0.8 per day | 0.21 percent of total 179230)
(Find All Liked ThreadsFind All Liked Posts)
Reputation:

lioncityftw's Most Liked Post
Post Subject Post Date/Time Numbers of Likes
RE: Ridout Road properties: Investigations, including by CPIB, find no wrongdoing 29-06-2023, 12:00 AM 5
Thread Subject Forum Name
Ridout Road properties: Investigations, including by CPIB, find no wrongdoing SG Talk
Market Talk
Post Message
These statements by CPIB is damn interesting (see extracts below highlighted)....

1) Firstly, although Shan had offered and paid for extension renovations beyond his boundary area, why was the land size increased from 9,350 sqm to 23,164 sqm with fencing while the rental remains the same? 

Wah knn so good ah, If tenant is supposed to rent a 9,350 sqm area but if he offered to pay for renovations at adjacent land due to 'safety concerns' at more than twice his original area size, then he is entitled with access to the whole area with fencing at same rent? Adjacent land no need to pay extra rental? How much to pay for reno than can have such special arrangement? Isn't this preferential treatment? Commoner can have such arrangement or not? LOL. 

Can SLA be clear about their guidelines and the law regarding such a special tokong arrangement? *Wink

2) Clause 15 mentions that 'Minister Shanmugam and his agent were not aware of the Guide Rent. But final negotiated amount is $26,500. Next, at clause 23 finally mentioned that initial Guide Rent to be $24,500, then intended to charge tenant another $2000 to 'recover the amortized costs of works' which totals up to match exactly $26,500, LOL. 

WTF is happening? Really satki report findings with so many questionable points appearing technically legal but so coincidental like a freaking elephant in the room..LOL 

[Image: https://i.imgur.com/G56ViHL.png]

[Image: https://i.imgur.com/KcuKtg3.jpg]
[Image: https://i.imgur.com/f8pB6Sq.jpg]
https://onecms-res.cloudinary.com/raw/up...0(002).pdf

.
.
.
NBPCB, next GE better vote them out la. How long is the kum gong 61% going to be hookwinked by these 'legal' antics? LMAO.

lioncityftw's Received and Given Likes
  Likes Received Likes Given
Last week 0 0
Last month 0 0
Last 3 months 1 0
Last 6 months 11 10
Last 12 months 305 233
All Time 442 387
 
Most liked by
Bigiron 177 40%
aiptasia 45 10%
cheekopekman 24 5%
CHAOS 15 3%
Sentinel 14 3%
 
Most liked
aiptasia 33 9%
IndianChief 18 5%
Manthink 15 4%
grotesqueness 15 4%
K88 shu shu 11 3%