I have just come back from the Pre-Elections Conference for all opposition parties. It is a tiring process although we have made some progress.
I am not in the position to reveal any details of the meeting but I will speak about my view in general of why this meeting is so important for Singapore, not just opposition parties.
I think Singaporeans are having high expectation of opposition parties as a whole to avoid 3 corner fights and most Singaporeans want to vote. It is the responsibility of ALL opposition parties to make sure that we could meet such high expectations. If not, the disappointment created may have big repercussion on all opposition parties; i.e. the middle ground voters may just abandon us altogether. No matter how we try to "differentiate" our "party branding" from each other, but there is still a substantial number of people who will view opposition as one big group.
Some people may not agree with me but this is the sentiment on the ground. People are prepared to vote for opposition but NO 3 CORNER FIGHT PLEASE!
NSP has been very open, reasonable and ever ready to negotiate so far in this whole process. Although there are still some outstanding issues to be ironed out, I believe and am hopeful that most opposition parties will come to reasonable settlement for all. It is not going to be a simple process but i just hope that everyone of us can take a good look at the overall picture. When we come to negotiation table, it is all about give and take. There must be willingness from all parties to reach a reasonable settlement for all.
The next meeting will be held on this coming Saturday (5 March 2011). I just hope that every outstanding issues will be solved by then.
Goh Meng Seng
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
NSP Response to Budget Statement 2011
NSP Response to Budget Statement 2011
The National Solidarity Party is very disappointed that the PAP government has not addressed in this budget the fundamental question on whether the current economic growth model of “Growth at all cost” based on indiscriminate importation of foreign workers at ALL LEVELS of employment should carry on. Instead, it tries to address the “ill symptoms”, which are caused by this flawed economic strategy, in such an inadequate way.
While the excuse of low fertility rate is cited as the main reason to import excessive foreign workers into Singapore, the miserable $300 to $400 Child Development Credit is totally inadequate to address this problem. We would expect healthcare cost to be lowered or a comprehensive social safety net for children up to 18 years old or heavy subsidy for pre-school education etc. The little top ups to students’ Edusave by $130 could hardly offset the enormous increase in tuition fees over the years. Apparently there are not enough subsidies given to tertiary institutions to defray the rising costs. On the other hand, there are no new initiatives to strengthen work-life balance for couples so that they could enjoy family life with their children.
The only “real” solution to the low fertility rate provided by PAP government is to depend on the influx of foreign workers. Although PAP has increased worker levies but it falls short of giving us the assurance that the number of foreign workers, thus population, will not grow any further.
The first critical problem of having excessive foreign workers is, either citizens' jobs are displaced or wages are suppressed by them. PAP has chosen to increase workers levies while giving more workfare to citizens to address these problems. However, we believe that without a minimum wage scheme, the effectiveness of both the workfare and worker levies will be dampened (due to substitution effects).
The influx of cheap foreign labour has apparently suppressed wages and thus widened the income disparity. According to the chart shown in the budget speech as well as what the Finance Minister has said, the real income growth of the 20th percentile in the past decade would only be 5% instead of 8.1% if it was not for the workfare. The income disparity has widened when the real income growth for the 50th percentile is 20.7%!
There is no doubt that workfare has managed to close the gap of the widening trend just a bit but the most important question we have to ask: is this economic model sustainable in the long run? Can the PAP government guarantee that it will keep giving out more and more workfare in the years to come in a bid to cushion the impact of the widening of income gap?
We are very doubtful about the Finance Minister’s assertion that the real income of all our workers could grow by 30% for the next decade. While we are only able to raise the income of the 20th and 50th percentile by 8.1% and 20.7% in real terms respectively with a corresponding average growth of 4%-6% in GDP for the last decade, how can we possibly achieve a higher growth of 30% in real terms for ALL Singaporeans when our Finance Minister only expects our economy to grow at a slower pace of 3% to 5% for the next decade? We believe that only the million-dollar salaried ministers will enjoy more than 30% increase in real terms in the coming decade!
In the mad pursuit of more foreign workers, the PAP government has taken the lead to cultivate the mindset that only foreigners are “talents” while Singaporeans are not. The government should not put too much emphasis on foreigners as talents. Our homegrown MNCs should emphasise more on grooming our Singaporean PMETs instead of replacing them with “foreign talents”.
We do not think that the effort to raise productivity would bear fruits in raising our citizens' wages as long as PAP continues to let the whole world supply us with cheaper and younger foreign labour indiscriminately. The economic growth model needs a major overhaul. Comprehensive plans should be put in place to groom local SMEs as well as local talents with global view.
The sudden rapid increase in foreign workers has also caused a whole range of other problems, from rising inflation to inadequate public transport and healthcare infrastructure as well as high housing cost. However the PAP government has not effectively addressed all these issues at all.
The Minister says he wants to help Singaporeans to fight inflation but yet he has conveniently avoided mentioning anything about GST. Either GST should be reduced or at least stay permanent at 7%, but there is no commitment from PAP at all.
In spite of a shortage of hospital beds, the budget for Ministry of Health has been reduced for 2011 resulting from a cut in “development expenditure”. We are surprised that the government has cut healthcare funding but increased the defence budget by a substantial 5.4% instead.
On the property front, we believe that the key issue of high HDB price lies with the pricing policy of new HDB flats. NSP advocates cost-plus pricing for new HDB flats. Giving more grants to low-income buyers will not solve the burden of 30-year mortgage tagged on these flat purchases.
In conclusion, NSP would want to make an open call to the PAP government to set its priorities right. The PAP should not merely focus on giving away goodies to voters in this election year. but focus on the long-term structural problems of our economy. As long as the ruling party refuses to realign its economic growth model for the coming decade, we will forever face the critical problems raised above.
A responsible government should take the welfare of our citizens at heart in longer terms instead of engrossing itself in populist policies which may temporarily alleviate unhappiness on the ground but are totally unhelpful in solving our longer term structural problems.
Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party
Afternote: I have some feedback, including from my wife, that some of the technical things are difficult to understand. Especially the part in bold.
The logic is this, the Finance Minister Tharman claims that in order to continue to have real income growth, we need GDP to grow continuously. But the question is, by this logic, how could we have HIGHER REAL INCOME growth with LOWER GDP growth? He was talking about 30% REAL INCOME GROWTH FOR EVERYONE! But, in spite of the fact that we had HIGHER average GDP growth in the last decade of 4%-6%, the real income growth for BOTH 20 percentile and 50 percentile is far lesser than 30%. He then projected that we will have LOWER GDP growth for the next decade at 3% to 5% but expect REAL INCOME growth to be HIGHER! On top of that, with the present economic growth model the real income growth is going to be unequal and income disparity will widen. It is really impossible to have EQUAL real income growth for everybody. It is really an amazing contradiction or simply MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.
The National Solidarity Party is very disappointed that the PAP government has not addressed in this budget the fundamental question on whether the current economic growth model of “Growth at all cost” based on indiscriminate importation of foreign workers at ALL LEVELS of employment should carry on. Instead, it tries to address the “ill symptoms”, which are caused by this flawed economic strategy, in such an inadequate way.
While the excuse of low fertility rate is cited as the main reason to import excessive foreign workers into Singapore, the miserable $300 to $400 Child Development Credit is totally inadequate to address this problem. We would expect healthcare cost to be lowered or a comprehensive social safety net for children up to 18 years old or heavy subsidy for pre-school education etc. The little top ups to students’ Edusave by $130 could hardly offset the enormous increase in tuition fees over the years. Apparently there are not enough subsidies given to tertiary institutions to defray the rising costs. On the other hand, there are no new initiatives to strengthen work-life balance for couples so that they could enjoy family life with their children.
The only “real” solution to the low fertility rate provided by PAP government is to depend on the influx of foreign workers. Although PAP has increased worker levies but it falls short of giving us the assurance that the number of foreign workers, thus population, will not grow any further.
The first critical problem of having excessive foreign workers is, either citizens' jobs are displaced or wages are suppressed by them. PAP has chosen to increase workers levies while giving more workfare to citizens to address these problems. However, we believe that without a minimum wage scheme, the effectiveness of both the workfare and worker levies will be dampened (due to substitution effects).
The influx of cheap foreign labour has apparently suppressed wages and thus widened the income disparity. According to the chart shown in the budget speech as well as what the Finance Minister has said, the real income growth of the 20th percentile in the past decade would only be 5% instead of 8.1% if it was not for the workfare. The income disparity has widened when the real income growth for the 50th percentile is 20.7%!
There is no doubt that workfare has managed to close the gap of the widening trend just a bit but the most important question we have to ask: is this economic model sustainable in the long run? Can the PAP government guarantee that it will keep giving out more and more workfare in the years to come in a bid to cushion the impact of the widening of income gap?
We are very doubtful about the Finance Minister’s assertion that the real income of all our workers could grow by 30% for the next decade. While we are only able to raise the income of the 20th and 50th percentile by 8.1% and 20.7% in real terms respectively with a corresponding average growth of 4%-6% in GDP for the last decade, how can we possibly achieve a higher growth of 30% in real terms for ALL Singaporeans when our Finance Minister only expects our economy to grow at a slower pace of 3% to 5% for the next decade? We believe that only the million-dollar salaried ministers will enjoy more than 30% increase in real terms in the coming decade!
In the mad pursuit of more foreign workers, the PAP government has taken the lead to cultivate the mindset that only foreigners are “talents” while Singaporeans are not. The government should not put too much emphasis on foreigners as talents. Our homegrown MNCs should emphasise more on grooming our Singaporean PMETs instead of replacing them with “foreign talents”.
We do not think that the effort to raise productivity would bear fruits in raising our citizens' wages as long as PAP continues to let the whole world supply us with cheaper and younger foreign labour indiscriminately. The economic growth model needs a major overhaul. Comprehensive plans should be put in place to groom local SMEs as well as local talents with global view.
The sudden rapid increase in foreign workers has also caused a whole range of other problems, from rising inflation to inadequate public transport and healthcare infrastructure as well as high housing cost. However the PAP government has not effectively addressed all these issues at all.
The Minister says he wants to help Singaporeans to fight inflation but yet he has conveniently avoided mentioning anything about GST. Either GST should be reduced or at least stay permanent at 7%, but there is no commitment from PAP at all.
In spite of a shortage of hospital beds, the budget for Ministry of Health has been reduced for 2011 resulting from a cut in “development expenditure”. We are surprised that the government has cut healthcare funding but increased the defence budget by a substantial 5.4% instead.
On the property front, we believe that the key issue of high HDB price lies with the pricing policy of new HDB flats. NSP advocates cost-plus pricing for new HDB flats. Giving more grants to low-income buyers will not solve the burden of 30-year mortgage tagged on these flat purchases.
In conclusion, NSP would want to make an open call to the PAP government to set its priorities right. The PAP should not merely focus on giving away goodies to voters in this election year. but focus on the long-term structural problems of our economy. As long as the ruling party refuses to realign its economic growth model for the coming decade, we will forever face the critical problems raised above.
A responsible government should take the welfare of our citizens at heart in longer terms instead of engrossing itself in populist policies which may temporarily alleviate unhappiness on the ground but are totally unhelpful in solving our longer term structural problems.
Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party
Afternote: I have some feedback, including from my wife, that some of the technical things are difficult to understand. Especially the part in bold.
The logic is this, the Finance Minister Tharman claims that in order to continue to have real income growth, we need GDP to grow continuously. But the question is, by this logic, how could we have HIGHER REAL INCOME growth with LOWER GDP growth? He was talking about 30% REAL INCOME GROWTH FOR EVERYONE! But, in spite of the fact that we had HIGHER average GDP growth in the last decade of 4%-6%, the real income growth for BOTH 20 percentile and 50 percentile is far lesser than 30%. He then projected that we will have LOWER GDP growth for the next decade at 3% to 5% but expect REAL INCOME growth to be HIGHER! On top of that, with the present economic growth model the real income growth is going to be unequal and income disparity will widen. It is really impossible to have EQUAL real income growth for everybody. It is really an amazing contradiction or simply MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Budget 2011 - Back to Basics
Many Singaporeans are expecting "BIG ANG BAO" (Red Packets filled with money) from the government for this year's Budget because this is an "Election Year". How big is big? $1000? $2000? Some even suggested $3000!
I have no problem if such cash handouts are given with full sincerity to help Singaporeans to cope with runaway cost of living. But if this is another exercise of "Fix Opposition and buy votes", I would be very disappointed that we have not progressed nor matured at all politically.
But what matters most for Singapore at this juncture is that the ruling party has "gone astray" from basics and fundamentals of governance. When the ministers' pay is tied to some "KPI" which includes GDP growth as the main component as well as the salary scale of those top earners in Singapore, it will inevitably create the mindset of "Growth at ALL COST". The widening of Income Disparity would not be the top concern of this government because what matters most would be how much the top income earners would grow!
The appropriate way of pegging the salary of ministers would be pegging it at different percentages at different percentile of the income of Singaporeans. eg. 500% of 10th percentile + 400% of 20th percentile + X% of 30th percentile +....+5% of 90 percentile. Maybe it could also include GDP growth in per household capital instead of GDP growth alone. Only such KPI will make the ministers more focus on "Quality Balanced Growth" in GDP as well as the plight of the lower income earners!
By now, Singaporeans should realize that it is actually quite easy to push for high GDP growth. Just introduce vice like casino gambling, just increase enormous amount of foreign workers in a short time and just give huge preferential packages to foreign MNCs to set up shops here. Never mind if the MNCs are providing more QUALITY jobs for Singaporeans or not or whether casino gambling will erode work ethics and cause irreversible damage to our social fabrics or not.
The side effects of such "Growth at all cost" strategy has finally reached a boiling state. All warnings sounded previously about inflation, run away prices of HDB flats, overcrowded public transport and hospitals etc.
Some may wonder why would inflation be blamed on this "Growth at all cost" strategy? There are already analysis on the internet which touched on the impact of "non-tradable" goods and services on inflation. Non-tradable goods and services refer to things that we could not get from importation. These include land, health services, barber service, taxi service, supermarket/market etc.
The sudden rapid increase in population would have caused great demands on various goods and services, both tradable and non-tradable. Singapore could well import as many food and other products from other places to meet such demands. Most of the inflation on tradable goods are due to factors beyond the government's control. eg. Food and commodities. They could well increase the strength of Singapore dollars via foreign exchange intervention to offset most of such inflation.
But for non-tradable goods and services, there is no way we could meet the sudden increase in demand by a spur in our mismanaged population growth. Especially rental for commercial space has been pushed up significantly, worsen by the fact that retail space has been more or less monopolized by a cartel of big GLCs.
For critical services like hospital healthcare, it is really an eye opening when our restructured hospitals were so strained by the spike in demands, they are still going around the world to promote their "medical tourism"!
There a lot of problems with the economic situation in Singapore right now but the source of problem is only one: the misadventure of wrong economic direction. If we do not solve this root problem, we will be stuck with all these problems of high inflation, shortage of housing, medical care, public transport... for years to come.
It is time for the PAP government to go back to the basics. There is nothing wrong with a slower growth with higher growth in income per capital for Singaporeans. There is nothing wrong to cut down cheap foreign labour substitutes which take our jobs and suppress our wages.
It is only when the direction of Economic policy is changed, the companies in Singapore will react accordingly to raise productivity in view of higher labour cost.
It is only when PAP government review the need of the Casino resorts, we will always be threaten by the huge social impacts which these vice activities brought upon our nation.
I would like to see the PAP government address this very important issue for this coming budget instead of dealing with "ineffective medicines" to address all the ills created by their previous economic policy.
Goh Meng Seng
I have no problem if such cash handouts are given with full sincerity to help Singaporeans to cope with runaway cost of living. But if this is another exercise of "Fix Opposition and buy votes", I would be very disappointed that we have not progressed nor matured at all politically.
But what matters most for Singapore at this juncture is that the ruling party has "gone astray" from basics and fundamentals of governance. When the ministers' pay is tied to some "KPI" which includes GDP growth as the main component as well as the salary scale of those top earners in Singapore, it will inevitably create the mindset of "Growth at ALL COST". The widening of Income Disparity would not be the top concern of this government because what matters most would be how much the top income earners would grow!
The appropriate way of pegging the salary of ministers would be pegging it at different percentages at different percentile of the income of Singaporeans. eg. 500% of 10th percentile + 400% of 20th percentile + X% of 30th percentile +....+5% of 90 percentile. Maybe it could also include GDP growth in per household capital instead of GDP growth alone. Only such KPI will make the ministers more focus on "Quality Balanced Growth" in GDP as well as the plight of the lower income earners!
By now, Singaporeans should realize that it is actually quite easy to push for high GDP growth. Just introduce vice like casino gambling, just increase enormous amount of foreign workers in a short time and just give huge preferential packages to foreign MNCs to set up shops here. Never mind if the MNCs are providing more QUALITY jobs for Singaporeans or not or whether casino gambling will erode work ethics and cause irreversible damage to our social fabrics or not.
The side effects of such "Growth at all cost" strategy has finally reached a boiling state. All warnings sounded previously about inflation, run away prices of HDB flats, overcrowded public transport and hospitals etc.
Some may wonder why would inflation be blamed on this "Growth at all cost" strategy? There are already analysis on the internet which touched on the impact of "non-tradable" goods and services on inflation. Non-tradable goods and services refer to things that we could not get from importation. These include land, health services, barber service, taxi service, supermarket/market etc.
The sudden rapid increase in population would have caused great demands on various goods and services, both tradable and non-tradable. Singapore could well import as many food and other products from other places to meet such demands. Most of the inflation on tradable goods are due to factors beyond the government's control. eg. Food and commodities. They could well increase the strength of Singapore dollars via foreign exchange intervention to offset most of such inflation.
But for non-tradable goods and services, there is no way we could meet the sudden increase in demand by a spur in our mismanaged population growth. Especially rental for commercial space has been pushed up significantly, worsen by the fact that retail space has been more or less monopolized by a cartel of big GLCs.
For critical services like hospital healthcare, it is really an eye opening when our restructured hospitals were so strained by the spike in demands, they are still going around the world to promote their "medical tourism"!
There a lot of problems with the economic situation in Singapore right now but the source of problem is only one: the misadventure of wrong economic direction. If we do not solve this root problem, we will be stuck with all these problems of high inflation, shortage of housing, medical care, public transport... for years to come.
It is time for the PAP government to go back to the basics. There is nothing wrong with a slower growth with higher growth in income per capital for Singaporeans. There is nothing wrong to cut down cheap foreign labour substitutes which take our jobs and suppress our wages.
It is only when the direction of Economic policy is changed, the companies in Singapore will react accordingly to raise productivity in view of higher labour cost.
It is only when PAP government review the need of the Casino resorts, we will always be threaten by the huge social impacts which these vice activities brought upon our nation.
I would like to see the PAP government address this very important issue for this coming budget instead of dealing with "ineffective medicines" to address all the ills created by their previous economic policy.
Goh Meng Seng
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Honest Talk on Race
It was a tiring but fruitful week right after the Chinese New Year celebration. National Solidarity Party Malay Bureau has successfully conducted its first Malay Reflection Forum on 11 Feb 2011. We have learned quite a number of things through this forum.
The other forum was conducted by James Gomez on 12 Feb 2011 touching on racial discrimination and a preview of his report on the UN Rapporteur visit to Singapore.
In both forums, we had honest talks over racial issues. From religion, social, culture (pop culture), education to job discrimination etc. Yes, we can. We can hold public talk, honest talks over such "taboo" racial issues.
In the NSP Malay Reflection Forum, the very first response from the participants was about "Freedom of Expression" with regards to racial issues, or just issues which the Malay community face in their daily lives. Nobody wants to talk about it, in a constructive way.
We also talk about job discrimination. My take is that while Singapore, as a multi-cultural society, has taken upon Meritocracy as the core value of our system, the government should not get into systematic discrimination. The various talks by the leader of the ruling party about what race cannot hold what jobs is least helpful to enhance the bonds between Singaporeans of all races. It is not helpful for them to declare "We are not ready to have an Indian Prime Minister" or "We cannot have Malays as machine gunners, air force pilots, generals" etc. My position is that we need to set up an Equal Opportunity Commission to look into discriminative practices in employment. As a Chinese, the so call "majority", I also feel discriminated when job advertisements open declare that "PR and Foreigners preferred"!
In the forum conducted by James Gomez, the issue about HDB Ethnic Quota was raised again by the well known human rights lawyer M Ravi. He has asked me about this question back in TOC Face to Face forum in December 2010 and my answer didn't satisfy him. Thus this issue was raised again.
My stand is that the HDB Ethnic Quota should stay but it could be modified or relax by have a range of not more than 50% for "minority races" and not more than 85% of Chinese in any precincts. It doesn't sound good to human rights activists who will still maintain that this is "discriminative" rules which disadvantaged the minority races in terms of lower sales values of their flats etc.
I have explained that congregation and segregation of different races will not do us good. An Australian couples whom I met have praised Singapore's HDB Ethnic Quota because of their experiences back in Australia. In Australia, when left alone, the various different races congregate and segregate themselves. Racial tension increased due to such setting.
As a student from a SAP school which is predominantly a "Chinese school", I have experienced first hand how racist stereotyping could arise when a single race congregates together.
Thus, I have to make the difficult political stand to keep the HDB Ethnic Quota in a modified form, to cushion the impact on the minority races. Of course there are both people who agree and disagree with me on this issue. I would agree to disagree.
Issues on Thaipusam and MM Lee's remarks on the Malay community were raised as well, by Mr. M. Ravi. Well M. Ravi has, unconsciously and unintentionally, made a "racist remark" or "racist stereotyping" that Chinese are racist and that, opposition members have not raise objection to these issues.
I have to correct him again. My colleagues, especially Syafarin, who are present at the forum, would have known that I was very upset about the new rules on Thaipusam as well as the remarks made by MM Lee in the new book. I explained that I have issued a statement on behalf of NSP AFTER Thaipusam. I would be putting my party and members AT RISK if I issue a statement BEFORE Thaipusam and any riot happened during that event, the ruling party may take the opportunity to detain us under ISA for "inciting racial riot"! It is a political judgment I have to make.
Having been through these two forums, I must say that all these were discussed in a rational and civil way. I think one of the greatest achievement we have made is to prove to the authorities that sensitive racial issues could be debated, discussed in a very calm and civil way. We have matured intellectually as a people and there is nothing too taboo to be discussed or debated in public forums.
Goh Meng Seng
Saturday, February 05, 2011
Reservist as an Officer
I have just completed my annual In Camp Training (ICT) in January and I guess many of the Mindef people are waiting for my usual reports on this blog with regards to the ICT.
It is always good to meet up with old buddies and men. However, many of them will MR (i.e. completing their NSmen cycle of 7 High Keys and 3 low keys or going to pass 40 years old). But some officers have completed more than 7 High Keys (ICT more than 5 days is considered to be 1 High Key) and some like me, are 40 years old or above, are still serving.
Ever since Mindef announced the changes made to the 13 year cycle to 10 year cycle, there are confusions among the officers. Many officers thought that they will only need to finish 7 High Keys and 3 Low Keys and they could MR. This is not true. Officers are liable for reservist training UP TO 50 YEAR OLD.
But some officers are "lucky" that they MR together with their units; especially those "mono-intake" infantry or Guards units way before 40 years old. Thus the confusion was deepen when logistic officers who are in "evergreen units" like mine are required to serve way beyond 7 High Keys and 40 years old.
This disgruntlement is primarily due to poor manpower planning of succession. At the end of each and every of my ICT, the discussion on succession planning always dominates the meeting. Succession planning for officers as well as key NCO postings like CSM, CQ etc is pretty weak. Officers with special technical skills like signal officers are lacking.
Even for my position, MTO (Motor Transport Officer) is lacking. I was sent for two courses during my reservist, both about 2 to 3 weeks each. These are supposedly to be considered as High Keys but it seems that there are rumors courses attended during reservist period are not considered as High Keys! This created much unhappiness on the ground and if Mindef did not come clear on this issue, we will find less officers willing to attend prolonged courses like mine.
Two to three weeks off from our normal work routine to attend military courses are big sacrifices to NSmen officers. It would be unfair to them that all these time spent are not going to be considered as High Key ICT.
Such treatment will aggravate the succession plan for Officers. i.e. If no Officers are willing to attend courses, how could they take on the roles of their predecessors?
Quite a number of officers (as well as warrant officer) in my unit have completed more than 7 High Keys. Some of them chose to sign on as Rovering key appointment holders. Their dedication to National Service is really commendable.
But I think it is unfair for other officers who have completed the needed 7 High Keys and who have reached 40 years old and above to be made to stay just because of the failure of succession planning by the S1 or G1.
Service Officers should be treated fairly as the Combat Officers. If Combat Officers could MR even before they reach 40 years old, why should Service Officers made to stay on beyond 7 High Keys and 40 years old? Such unfair treatment is going to affect the morale of the Service Officers.
I am raising this problem not because my fellow officers in my unit are complaining nor unwilling to serve. We treasure our comradeship and companionship. But in this highly competitive job market, people are worried about their jobs being taken away by FTs who do not pose such disruptions to the company's work routine. Whether we are Officers or men, we face the same constrains and competition on the job front.
The additional problems we officers face when we are serving above 40 years old is IPPT. For any servicemen, you are required to take the IPPT even when you are 40 years old and above. However, we have to take the FFI (a medical check up to certify fit for IPPT) every year. Sometimes, the FFI may drag due to additional medical check up needed. By the time the FFI is done, the window left for IPPT will be very limited.
After going through all the trouble of FFI, we are required to take only THREE stations for the IPPT. This is pretty ironic.
Most reservist officers who serve beyond 40 years old are service officers (logistic officers) like me. Our main role is to provide combat service support to the frontline troops. We are not required to go on physically strenuous combat missions but most of the time, we do a lot of planning on logistics deployment. i.e. We are using more brain power than muscles to complete our missions.
Thus it is kind of inconvenient irony that we are still put through the hassles of FFI and IPPT. The main risk in taking IPPT after 40 years old lies in the 2.4km running. There is totally unnecessary for service officers to take such risks especially so when they are already serving unfairly more than Combat officers.
Personally I am most willing to serve up to 50 years old if the hassles of FFI and IPPT are taken off. Almost all my men in my unit know I am "the opposition man" but I always tell them, even opposition man can be a good soldier. It is a kind of National Education by example that opposition members can be "deadly patriotic" too.
I hope Mindef, especially G1 has to come out and clarify certain things for officers, especially for logistic officers who need to attend courses. I also hope that succession planning for logistic units should be done properly by G1 so that most logistic officers would be treated equally as their combat counterparts. Last but not least, the requirement of IPPT for those NSmen officers above 40 should be reviewed or scrapped totally (especially for logistic officers).
Goh Meng Seng
Afternote: BTW, I am very sorry that I may have caused some anxiety within my unit's admin.
This article is specifically written for higher authority (i.e. G1 & Mindef) to reconsider their policy directions and not meant to doubt the efficiency and effectiveness of my unit's administration.
The key issues here is about fair treatment to Service Officers vs Combat Officers, as well as the redundancy of the IPPT requirement for those NSmen who are above 40.
Imagine that every year you are required to go through the hassle of medical check up and ended up with a watered down IPPT (i.e. required to do 3 stations instead of 6). It really doesn't make economic and practical sense to me.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
NSP Press Statement: We Are Singaporeans united as one irrespective of politics, religion or culture
The party is disappointed to read recent news report on what Minister of Home Affairs Shanmugam’s comments on Thaipusam as well as Minister Mentor Lee’s recent comments on Malay community as the main hindrance to social integration in Singapore. The politics of Division, Distraction to ensure PAP political dominance should have no place in political discourse in Singapore.
We feel that the strict enforcement of law on Thaipusam is totally unwarranted. Singaporeans have evolved as one people in spite of the diversities in race and cultural heritage. We have enhanced our understanding and tolerance to various cultural and religious celebrations as well as practices in almost all aspects of our lives. For almost four decades, Singaporeans have no problems in living with all sorts of “noisy” religious-cultural celebrations.
If the law is to be strictly applied and enforced on all activities and procession, we would have ended up with Chinese lion-dragon dance without drums and gongs, Malay traditional marriage without gendengs, Thaipusam without drums and cheers, Christmas without chorals played along Orchard Road and Chingay procession without all those “noisy” performances and music played on floats. Rules on festive noise-making should be determined by weighing upon inter-racial tolerance and strengthened civil society, through open consultation instead of administrative fiat by the minister concerned.
MM Lee’s comments on race and religion in “Hard Truths” are totally unwarranted and somewhat out of touch with the sensibilities and feelings of a younger and more cosmopolitan generation. In general, our party’s observation is that Singaporeans of all races have no issue with eating on the same table or for that matter halal food served and eaten at different tables even at the same event. Resistance to inter-racial marriages is on the decline even though there are some Singaporeans, just like MM Lee, who are still unable to accept and remain resistant to their children marrying to spouses of other races. However, such resistance to inter-racial marriages is NOT UNIQUE to Muslims alone just as MM Lee has made known his own resistance to it as well.
On the contrary, it seems to us that the ruling party is the biggest hindrance to social integration in Singapore. It has constantly reminded Singaporeans of the racial divides wherever possible. It has reminded voters that an Indian cannot be Prime Minister even when the candidate is proven to be the better choice. This is contrary to the system of Meritocracy which PAP has always emphasized on.
PAP has also used the excuse of the inability of minority candidates in winning an election against Chinese candidates to push for the GRC system. On the contrary, historical facts have shown that many PAP Malay and Indian candidates have won against Opposition Chinese candidates and the late JB Jeyaratnam has won in Anson against PAP’s Chinese candidate as well.
We believe that most Singaporeans are moderates in every race and religion. We believe that they share our core values as well as frustration at PAP’s aggressive FT policy which caused problems on jobs, housing, transport and healthcare.
We would want to urge the PAP to focus on these problems instead of sidetracking to sensitive racial issues so as to divide, distract and attempt to ensure its political dominance.
Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party
We feel that the strict enforcement of law on Thaipusam is totally unwarranted. Singaporeans have evolved as one people in spite of the diversities in race and cultural heritage. We have enhanced our understanding and tolerance to various cultural and religious celebrations as well as practices in almost all aspects of our lives. For almost four decades, Singaporeans have no problems in living with all sorts of “noisy” religious-cultural celebrations.
If the law is to be strictly applied and enforced on all activities and procession, we would have ended up with Chinese lion-dragon dance without drums and gongs, Malay traditional marriage without gendengs, Thaipusam without drums and cheers, Christmas without chorals played along Orchard Road and Chingay procession without all those “noisy” performances and music played on floats. Rules on festive noise-making should be determined by weighing upon inter-racial tolerance and strengthened civil society, through open consultation instead of administrative fiat by the minister concerned.
MM Lee’s comments on race and religion in “Hard Truths” are totally unwarranted and somewhat out of touch with the sensibilities and feelings of a younger and more cosmopolitan generation. In general, our party’s observation is that Singaporeans of all races have no issue with eating on the same table or for that matter halal food served and eaten at different tables even at the same event. Resistance to inter-racial marriages is on the decline even though there are some Singaporeans, just like MM Lee, who are still unable to accept and remain resistant to their children marrying to spouses of other races. However, such resistance to inter-racial marriages is NOT UNIQUE to Muslims alone just as MM Lee has made known his own resistance to it as well.
On the contrary, it seems to us that the ruling party is the biggest hindrance to social integration in Singapore. It has constantly reminded Singaporeans of the racial divides wherever possible. It has reminded voters that an Indian cannot be Prime Minister even when the candidate is proven to be the better choice. This is contrary to the system of Meritocracy which PAP has always emphasized on.
PAP has also used the excuse of the inability of minority candidates in winning an election against Chinese candidates to push for the GRC system. On the contrary, historical facts have shown that many PAP Malay and Indian candidates have won against Opposition Chinese candidates and the late JB Jeyaratnam has won in Anson against PAP’s Chinese candidate as well.
We believe that most Singaporeans are moderates in every race and religion. We believe that they share our core values as well as frustration at PAP’s aggressive FT policy which caused problems on jobs, housing, transport and healthcare.
We would want to urge the PAP to focus on these problems instead of sidetracking to sensitive racial issues so as to divide, distract and attempt to ensure its political dominance.
Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Elaboration on answers to Housing Issues @ TOC Forum
I was invited to be one of the panelists at TOC end of year event, Face-to-Face Forum on 16 Dec 2010. Housing issues became one of the hottest again.
Due to time constrains, I have given key points and short answers to the questions asked. I would like to elaborate further here on what I have said during the forum.
The first question asked was whether HDB should be privatized. My first response is that it should not. HDB is part of a socialist Land Reform program. Due to scarcity of land in Singapore, it is important for us to avoid land hogging by a small group of landlords while the masses and future generations suffer. The fall of the ancient feudal systems was basically due to the income and wealth inequality partly exaggerated by the unequal distribution of land.
Thus it is important for the government to act as an arbitrator in making sure that land can be recycled over generations for public usage like housing. The 99-year leasehold HDB flats are part of this scheme to maintain sustainability of land usage across generations. Privatizing HDB will not do us good. It will most probably result in higher prices for HDB flats due to the profit maximizing nature of a private entity.
The second question about HDB is on what will happen to those who have paid hefty prices for their HDB flats but now I am advocating lower HDB prices. I explained that the HDB has two market segments. First, we have the NEW HDB flat market and second, the resale market. The government, via HDB, is the sole monopoly of supply in the NEW HDB flat market. The demand comes from citizens only. The resale market is basically a free market where sellers are those who own HDB flats (both PRs and Citizens) and buyers from both PRs and citizens as well.
The government has FULL CONTROL over the New Flat market as the monopoly. It should sell these flats at cost to Singaporeans as I have explained earlier that our forefathers have sacrificed their land for the development of this Nation. It is the unwritten social contract that the government in return should take care of Singaporeans' basic public housing needs.
On the other hand, the government should not meddle or distort the resale market, which is a free market by giving grants to first timers. This is a bit "counter-intuitive" which results in people calling it a "radical view" but it is not!
The rational is very simple. Just taking an analogy of a fireman trying to put out a fire. Will he add oil to the fire? Obviously not. If there is a pipe leaking oil to the fire, what will he do? Obviously, it is to stop the leakage.
Money and easy credit are just like fuel to the fire of high prices. Giving grants to first timers to buy resale flat is an act of market distortion to increase the demand of resale market. There are a few implications:
1) The present system is such that the NEW HDB flats prices are pegged at the resale market prices. It is naturally for the government to want to maintain a high Resale prices.
2) The grants given to first timers have to come from somewhere. i.e. from the higher prices of New HDB flats. At the same time, resale levy is charged on those who sold their flats and apply for new flats.
3) It is basically a scheme that goes round about, self-feeding itself to maintain or push up the prices of HDB flats, both resale and new HDB flats.
4) Such grants coupled with easy credit and low interest rates will encourage more young couples to OVER COMMIT themselves. If these young couples, in spite of low interest rate of 1.5% or less from private banks need to commit 30 years loans to buy their resale flats, they will be in trouble if interest rates rise in future! That will become Singapore's Subprime!
My proposal of a new system is:
1) Sell NEW HDB flats at cost.
2) Don't meddle in the free resale market by removing the grants.
Many youngsters may scream at the second point. I would advise them to take a step back and ponder. The proposal is a package. New young couples will have a far CHEAPER OPTION of having their first new HDB flat when it is sold at cost.
After you get your first HDB flat at CHEAP price, it will provide you a good financial position to get your resale HDB flat later on. My concern now is that too many young couples are over committing themselves by going for resale HDB flats. This will add financial burden to the new families and in the end, you may not have enough finances to have babies.
It is also an important thing to show to young couples that it is more worthwhile to buy NEW HDB flats with a big difference in the prices. If young couples are to be lured into resale HDB flats with the HDB grant and resulting in over committing themselves, a 30 years mortgage loan starting at low interest rate but going up later one, most people will be forced to sell their flats for retirement in the end!
However, I also caution that our only HDB flat is OUR HOME and SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED AS INVESTMENT. A HOME is not something you can sell off that easily. Each and every corners of your HOME are embedded with the collective memories of your family members.
I am asked about how I am going to make such "unpopular" idea to Singaporeans. I just replied, we just have to make it "popular". We should be careful about politicians trying to sell you GREED and be populist. My generation as well as my father's generation has been hoodwinked by PAP's sales of GREED through "ASSET ENHANCEMENT SCHEME". Who suffers in the end? My generation, the younger generation as well as future generations.
Two years ago, nobody would have thought that the campaign on HDB issues would be fruitful. Nobody believes that I could convince so many people that the HIGH HDB PRICES IS BAD FOR THEM. Nobody sees the bad points of 30-year mortgage for HDB flats. With the help of the online media, blogs and networking tools, we have managed to get the message viral. Many people are talking about the ills of the 30-year mortgage. I strongly believe that I can go a step further to bring forth my point about my "instinctively unfavorable" or even "politically incorrect" policy views that this is the best way for Singapore's future generations.
Of course, for those who have committed at high HDB prices, I just have to remind them that it is PAP who makes them suffer with such bad policy. Look on the bright side. Just like many people of my generations who were caught in the late 1990s property boom and subsequent bust, as long as we treat our flat as our HOME, whether the price went up or down, it didn't affect us, even when we became negative asset holders. On top of that, in my proposal, the resale market will be allowed to grow on its own. In the long run, the HDB resale prices will still grow although in a relatively slower pace.
One sensitive HDB issue was raised by M Ravi on the ethnic quota. It is a well-known fact that ethnic quota restrictions affect the minority races adversely.
I went a bit further to say that the present restriction may have impact on ethnic economy. Look at Tampines. It has a bigger proportion of Malay community of 24%. Tampines has the most number of Muslim coffeeshops as compared to other places. There are even shops selling Malay traditional clothing. A critical mass congregation of the minority ethnic group will provide more opportunities for their ethnic entrepreneurs to strive.
Thus in my view, I have no problem with any precincts or groupings with less than 50% composition of the minority races. Why not more than 50%? If the minority race becomes the majority composition of a precinct, that would mean statistically, it has become a big outlier!
I have not mentioned the lower band. My proposal is to have a band, instead of a tight rule of 25%. The band will range from 15% to 45%. It also means that the Chinese majority race cannot exceed 85% of the composition in any precincts.
Many people would suggest to get rid of the ethnic quota once and for all. I do not favor that but instead, take a progressive step towards that aim. I have spoken to foreign visitors from Australia, Sri Lanka and other places on Earth and they admire our racial policies in this aspect. It is something that we may have taken for granted for all this while. But a relax of such rules may foster better ties and lessen the price that any ethnic groups may suffer as the result of the ethnic quota rule.
I hope that these elaborations on my comments and responses given during the TOC Face to Face Forum will provide more insight into the policy rationale behind them.
Goh Meng Seng
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
行不通的公共组屋政策
尽管组屋价格还是需要以30年房贷才能让国人买得起，国家发展部长马宝山还是坚持政府组屋还是“负担得起”。但他最近还提起几个有意思的观点。
在这些观点当中，他似乎刻意的把之前所说的“卖屋养老”的话给收回了。他说许多人也许不必卖屋降级来维持退休生活。
我之前已经在我党报悉数这“卖屋养老”计划根本行不通，更非是一个可持续的选择。
我现在就解释为什么这高屋价政策在“资产提升”的掩护下成为行动党的蓄意执行的政策方针。
以高房价解决人口老化问题
自1980年代初起，行动党就意识到它在70年代执行的“两个就够了”政策是大错特错，而这政策将促使人口史无前例的迅速老化。在做了人口统计规划预算后，执政党便发觉公积金政策可能无法持续的给老化的人口提供足够的退休资金。
为公积金户口提供稳定回报作为国人的养老金是政府的责任。如果有能力工作的人越来越少而向公积金提钱的退休人士越来越多的话，这情况会促使公积金局造成现金周转的压力。这问题将随着时间而逐渐严重。
维持高屋价的“好主意”就是为了解决人口老化带来的种种问题而构思出来的。以下是这计划的详细的论述：
1）如果新加坡人在公积金户头里有较少的储蓄的话，政府就无需承担太大的利息负担。也就是说，政府就可把资助人口老化的养老金的责任推卸掉。
2）但是将来老人的生活由谁来担当呢？30年的房贷肯定会逼使多数新加坡人卖屋养老的！只要让政府组屋价格持续上升，这一些未来的退休人士就可在高屋价的环境中卖屋“提取退休金”！这不就解决了他们养老金的问题了吗！
卖屋养老计划的影响和冲击
这过于简单的想法将会有几个影响。所有的现象都对新加坡人不利，反而对政府有利。
1）政府可从以高屋价把政府组屋卖给公民中得利。与此同时政府也无需拿出任何钱给以任何津贴。
2）首要调整就是提高地价。建屋局会在账目上承担赤字，因为它必须向土地局（两个部门同样隶属于国家发展局）以市价买地。我们必须认清土地局因运用土地征用法令强行以超低价收了私地而成了最大地主，拥有垄断权来制定地价。
3）所有卖地所得都直接进入储备金。这也就是为什么我们的储备金会自1980年起迅速增长。
4）政府减少了在公积金给以的利息反而从借给组屋买者的贷款中赚取利息。这也意味着新加坡人不只要承担高屋价的负担，除此之外还要承担房贷的利息。
5）如果这计划要能持续下去，房价就必须随时间大幅度飙升。要不然，整个的制度就会垮了。
影响
很明显的政府是这计划的既得利益者。它推卸了为老化人口提供资金的责任。它基本上把这责任以高屋价政策转嫁给下一代。与此同时，它却从中得利而把这利益转入储备金里头，使执政党看来能干。除此之外，它还从房屋借贷利息里获利。
政府的获利就是人民的失利。建屋发展局是新组屋市场的唯一供应者而它也是从房屋借贷中收取利息。
这政策将对这一代以高价买组屋和往后世世代代的新加坡人。这一代以30年房贷买屋子的人将会被逼卖屋养老。下一代的新加坡人就必须承担更高的屋价，因为这是政策方向以便这一代人可以筹足养老金！
行不通的政策
从长远看来，这计划根本是无法持续下去的。原因显而易见。如果要保住那一些新加坡人放进房子的钱的购买力的话，他们房子未来的价钱就必须要盖过利息和30年里的通货膨胀。
但是工人的工资通常只能以通货膨胀的速度增长。这也就是为什么我们在这二十年间已经面对工资的增长大幅度落后于政府组屋价钱的增长率的情况。
资料源自 singaporemind.blogspot.com
从1990至2009年间，工资只翻了一番，但是组屋的价钱却翻了四番！在这期间，房贷也因此从15年增长至30年。如果这形势持续下去，我们的后代也许就必须
会面对40或50年的放贷才能买得到政府组屋！
这能行得通吗？
这是两个矛盾的政策目标。这一方，如果要卖屋养老计划成功的话，房价的飙升必须超越薪金的涨幅。但是在另一方，我们又要世世代代的新加坡人“负担得起”房子，那么房价的涨幅就不能超越薪金的涨幅！我们怎么可能同时达到这两个矛盾的目的？
再说没有人能保证房价能以这速度飙升。在这人口老化的前提，二手房屋的供应将会增加而需求量反而会因年轻人的数目少而减少。这就会致使房价承受下跌的压力。
新加坡人必须彻底的了解这“卖屋养老”对我们这一代与后代所带来的严重后果。
最新的报告显示新加坡的房贷已经占了我们经济所有贷款的51%。这比香港的20% 还要高！如果房地产市场崩溃的话，整个金融体系将会承担超重的坏账！
一个经济体系不能把过多的资金投入像房地产一样的无生产力的资产上。如此会剥夺了需要资金来创业的国人。这也会使整个金融体系过度暴露于能使我们的财富瞬时间化为乌有的泡沫经济里。
日本，爱尔兰或甚至美国的经验显示金融体系过度暴露于潜向于泡沫的房地产将会摧毁整个经济体系。日本自从1990年代的泡沫经济引爆后，至今还是无法重新振作起来！
政治上，对大众推销贪婪是最有效的手段但是这也会致使对我们后代无法扭转和弥补的伤害。要说服人们高屋价是对他们不利是非常艰难的。我已等了很久才等到这适当的时机来试图以我在这些年里对此课题深入研究的知识来尝试解释这政策祸害的来龙去脉。我恳请那一些认同我的看法的读者能帮我把这重要讯息传达给你的亲朋好友们。
这祸害子孙后代的政策必须被制止，否则我们的后代会因我们的不理不睬而受害。
在这些观点当中，他似乎刻意的把之前所说的“卖屋养老”的话给收回了。他说许多人也许不必卖屋降级来维持退休生活。
我之前已经在我党报悉数这“卖屋养老”计划根本行不通，更非是一个可持续的选择。
我现在就解释为什么这高屋价政策在“资产提升”的掩护下成为行动党的蓄意执行的政策方针。
以高房价解决人口老化问题
自1980年代初起，行动党就意识到它在70年代执行的“两个就够了”政策是大错特错，而这政策将促使人口史无前例的迅速老化。在做了人口统计规划预算后，执政党便发觉公积金政策可能无法持续的给老化的人口提供足够的退休资金。
为公积金户口提供稳定回报作为国人的养老金是政府的责任。如果有能力工作的人越来越少而向公积金提钱的退休人士越来越多的话，这情况会促使公积金局造成现金周转的压力。这问题将随着时间而逐渐严重。
维持高屋价的“好主意”就是为了解决人口老化带来的种种问题而构思出来的。以下是这计划的详细的论述：
1）如果新加坡人在公积金户头里有较少的储蓄的话，政府就无需承担太大的利息负担。也就是说，政府就可把资助人口老化的养老金的责任推卸掉。
2）但是将来老人的生活由谁来担当呢？30年的房贷肯定会逼使多数新加坡人卖屋养老的！只要让政府组屋价格持续上升，这一些未来的退休人士就可在高屋价的环境中卖屋“提取退休金”！这不就解决了他们养老金的问题了吗！
卖屋养老计划的影响和冲击
这过于简单的想法将会有几个影响。所有的现象都对新加坡人不利，反而对政府有利。
1）政府可从以高屋价把政府组屋卖给公民中得利。与此同时政府也无需拿出任何钱给以任何津贴。
2）首要调整就是提高地价。建屋局会在账目上承担赤字，因为它必须向土地局（两个部门同样隶属于国家发展局）以市价买地。我们必须认清土地局因运用土地征用法令强行以超低价收了私地而成了最大地主，拥有垄断权来制定地价。
3）所有卖地所得都直接进入储备金。这也就是为什么我们的储备金会自1980年起迅速增长。
4）政府减少了在公积金给以的利息反而从借给组屋买者的贷款中赚取利息。这也意味着新加坡人不只要承担高屋价的负担，除此之外还要承担房贷的利息。
5）如果这计划要能持续下去，房价就必须随时间大幅度飙升。要不然，整个的制度就会垮了。
影响
很明显的政府是这计划的既得利益者。它推卸了为老化人口提供资金的责任。它基本上把这责任以高屋价政策转嫁给下一代。与此同时，它却从中得利而把这利益转入储备金里头，使执政党看来能干。除此之外，它还从房屋借贷利息里获利。
政府的获利就是人民的失利。建屋发展局是新组屋市场的唯一供应者而它也是从房屋借贷中收取利息。
这政策将对这一代以高价买组屋和往后世世代代的新加坡人。这一代以30年房贷买屋子的人将会被逼卖屋养老。下一代的新加坡人就必须承担更高的屋价，因为这是政策方向以便这一代人可以筹足养老金！
行不通的政策
从长远看来，这计划根本是无法持续下去的。原因显而易见。如果要保住那一些新加坡人放进房子的钱的购买力的话，他们房子未来的价钱就必须要盖过利息和30年里的通货膨胀。
但是工人的工资通常只能以通货膨胀的速度增长。这也就是为什么我们在这二十年间已经面对工资的增长大幅度落后于政府组屋价钱的增长率的情况。
资料源自 singaporemind.blogspot.com
从1990至2009年间，工资只翻了一番，但是组屋的价钱却翻了四番！在这期间，房贷也因此从15年增长至30年。如果这形势持续下去，我们的后代也许就必须
会面对40或50年的放贷才能买得到政府组屋！
这能行得通吗？
这是两个矛盾的政策目标。这一方，如果要卖屋养老计划成功的话，房价的飙升必须超越薪金的涨幅。但是在另一方，我们又要世世代代的新加坡人“负担得起”房子，那么房价的涨幅就不能超越薪金的涨幅！我们怎么可能同时达到这两个矛盾的目的？
再说没有人能保证房价能以这速度飙升。在这人口老化的前提，二手房屋的供应将会增加而需求量反而会因年轻人的数目少而减少。这就会致使房价承受下跌的压力。
新加坡人必须彻底的了解这“卖屋养老”对我们这一代与后代所带来的严重后果。
最新的报告显示新加坡的房贷已经占了我们经济所有贷款的51%。这比香港的20% 还要高！如果房地产市场崩溃的话，整个金融体系将会承担超重的坏账！
一个经济体系不能把过多的资金投入像房地产一样的无生产力的资产上。如此会剥夺了需要资金来创业的国人。这也会使整个金融体系过度暴露于能使我们的财富瞬时间化为乌有的泡沫经济里。
日本，爱尔兰或甚至美国的经验显示金融体系过度暴露于潜向于泡沫的房地产将会摧毁整个经济体系。日本自从1990年代的泡沫经济引爆后，至今还是无法重新振作起来！
政治上，对大众推销贪婪是最有效的手段但是这也会致使对我们后代无法扭转和弥补的伤害。要说服人们高屋价是对他们不利是非常艰难的。我已等了很久才等到这适当的时机来试图以我在这些年里对此课题深入研究的知识来尝试解释这政策祸害的来龙去脉。我恳请那一些认同我的看法的读者能帮我把这重要讯息传达给你的亲朋好友们。
这祸害子孙后代的政策必须被制止，否则我们的后代会因我们的不理不睬而受害。
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Unsustainable Policy : HDB
Minister Mah Bow Tan has continued to claim that HDB flats are "affordable" inspite of the 30 years mortgage. He has however, made a few interesting points lately.
One of the points he made has somewhat RETRACTED from his earlier position that it is alright to have high HDB prices because we could "monetize" or sell our HDB flats for retirement. He said that we may not need to sell our flats and downgrade for retirement.
I have explained why selling flat for retirement is NOT A WORKABLE and SUSTAINABLE OPTION at all.
Before I talk about why this scheme of "selling flat for retirement" is not sustainable in the long run, I would like to address the basic fundamentals of why such HIGH HDB PRICES under the guise of "asset enhancement" is the deliberate policy direction of PAP government.
High Property Prices to solve Aging Population Problems
Since early 1980s, PAP has suddenly realized that their aggressive "TWO IS ENOUGH" policy is flawed and it would create unprecedented acceleration of an aging population. By doing a demographic projection, it would mean that the CPF scheme may not be sustainable in providing adequate retirement financing for this aging population.
The burden of providing retirement financing lies on the government to give constant returns to CPF account holders. If less and less people are going to work in the work force while more and more people are going to withdraw their CPF money in future, it would create cashflow pressures on CPF. This problem will aggravate in time to come.
The brilliant idea of maintaining high HDB flat price comes about to solve a lot of these problems derived from aging population. The followings are the reasoning:
1) If Singaporeans have less savings in CPF, the government won't be burdened by interest payment to the account holders. i.e. the government will wash its hands off from retirement financing of an aging population.
2) How or who will finance the future retirees then? A 30 year mortgage plan will DEFINITELY force Singaporeans to sell their flats for retirement! This is basically because their CPF accounts will have very little amount of funds left! By allowing HDB prices to increase, these future retirees could well "withdraw" their "retirement funds" by selling off their HDB flats at high prices! This would solve their retirement financing!
Impact of HDB flat for Retirement Financing
Such simplistic thinking will have a few impacts. All of these impacts are unfavorable to Singaporeans but very favorable to the Government.
1) The Government could benefit from selling HDB flats at high prices to citizens and they no longer need to fork out money for any subsidies. All so call subsidies are basically on paper accounting, market subsidies.
2) The first adjustment is to raise land prices. HDB, on paper, is in deficits because it has to buy land from SLA (both under Ministry of Development) at market prices. Please note that SLA has become the biggest land owner in Singapore through forceful acquisition of private land with monopoly power to determine prices.
3) All proceeds from Land Sales go directly into the reserves and that is why our reserves grow at rapid rate since 1980s.
4) The government earns interests, instead of paying interests, from making loans to HDB buyers. This also means that while Singaporeans are paying higher HDB prices using almost all their CPF monies and they are also incurring mortgage interests.
5) The prices of HDB flats MUST increase substantially over time in order for this scheme to be sustainable. If not, the whole system will collapse.
Implications
What are the implications?
Apparently, the government benefited the most from such scheme. It relinquishes its responsibility of providing retirement financing for an aging population. It basically transfers this burden to the future generations in terms of HIGHER HDB PRICES. It MAKES PROFITS from these higher HDB prices which transferred into reserves which make them look good. On top of that, it makes money from interests collected from HDB buyers
What the government gains will be what the citizens will lose. HDB is the MONOPOLY of the new HDB flat market and it is also the lender who earns interests from all outstanding loans.
What the government gains will be what the citizens will lose. HDB is the MONOPOLY of the new HDB flat market and it is also the lender who earns interests from all outstanding loans.
Unsustainable
This model is NOT sustainable in the long run. The reason is pretty clear. In order to preserve the purchasing power of the amount of money Singaporeans have put into their HDB flats, the future price of their flats has to increase tremendously to cover the interest cost as well as inflation throughout the 30 years period.
However, wages of the working class will normally grow at the rate just enough to cover inflation. That is why we are witnessing this impact of wages lagging behind HDB price growth for the past two decades. From the following graph prepared by Lucky Tan .
Wage doubled while HDB prices grow by FOUR folds during the period from 1990 to 2009. It corresponds to the increase in the mortgage payment period from 15 years to 30 years. In time to come, our future generations may have to pay for a 40years or even 50 years mortgage for just a decent HDB flat
Is this sustainable?
There are CONFLICTING policy objectives. On one hand, in order for the scheme of utilizing high HDB prices as a means for retirement financing, we need HDB prices to outstrip wage growth but in order to maintain "AFFORDABILITY" for all generations, we need to maintain the price increase according to wage growth! How could these CONFLICTING policy targets be met simultaneously?
Nobody can guarantee property prices will grow forever at such rapid rate. With an aging population, demand will be lower while supply will be increasing due to the increasing number of elders trying to sell their flats. This will have downward pressure on relative prices.
This is really an ill-thought out HDB-retirement scheme by the PAP government. This scheme benefits only the present government by alleviating its burden to provide for the retirement funding needs for the citizens while benefiting from all the higher HDB prices and interests earned from loans to HDB owners. This is in the expense of Singaporeans both present and future.
Almost all present Ministers will not be around in 30 years time to take responsibility for the effects of their policies. It is important for Singaporeans to understand the great implications of this HDB-retirement scheme upon our present generations as well as future generations.
I have come to this realization of this scheme ever since PAP started to embark the so call "Asset Enhancement Scheme" back in early 1990s. I have written a number of articles in protest of this scheme but many Singaporeans were overwhelmed by the immediate gain of paper capital gains. There were even Singaporeans trying to capitalize on the sudden increase in their flat value by upgrading or multiple upgradings. In the whole process, they committed higher and higher debts.
The latest report has indicated Singapore's housing debt has constituted more than 51% of total loans from our financial loans! This is even higher than Hong Kong's 20%! We will be doomed if there is a property crash! The whole financial system will be burden with unperforming loans!
An economy cannot invest too much of its financial resources in assets like properties which are not "productive" for the economy. If the property sector takes up too much of the financial resources of the economy, it will crowd out resources for financing investments by our local entrepreneurs. It would also mean that the financial sector would be over-exposed to a potential bubble which would wipe off our wealth when it bursts.
Experiences from Japan, Ireland and even US have shown that over-exposure of the financial sector to the bubble-prone property sector will destroy the economy. Japan has hardly recover from its collapse of economy due to property bubble since 1990s!
It is up to every Singaporeans to judge on whether what I write here make any sense. It is easy to sell greed to the masses but it will create irreversible damage to our future generations. It is not easy to convince people that high property prices are BAD for them. I have waited this long for the opportune time to explain what I have learned throughout these years. I urge every reader who agrees with my views to help me to spread this message to your friends and relatives.
This unsustainable and potentially damaging HDB-retirement scheme must be stopped and ceased else our future generations will suffer in vain for our inaction.
Goh Meng Seng
One of the points he made has somewhat RETRACTED from his earlier position that it is alright to have high HDB prices because we could "monetize" or sell our HDB flats for retirement. He said that we may not need to sell our flats and downgrade for retirement.
I have explained why selling flat for retirement is NOT A WORKABLE and SUSTAINABLE OPTION at all.
Before I talk about why this scheme of "selling flat for retirement" is not sustainable in the long run, I would like to address the basic fundamentals of why such HIGH HDB PRICES under the guise of "asset enhancement" is the deliberate policy direction of PAP government.
High Property Prices to solve Aging Population Problems
Since early 1980s, PAP has suddenly realized that their aggressive "TWO IS ENOUGH" policy is flawed and it would create unprecedented acceleration of an aging population. By doing a demographic projection, it would mean that the CPF scheme may not be sustainable in providing adequate retirement financing for this aging population.
The burden of providing retirement financing lies on the government to give constant returns to CPF account holders. If less and less people are going to work in the work force while more and more people are going to withdraw their CPF money in future, it would create cashflow pressures on CPF. This problem will aggravate in time to come.
The brilliant idea of maintaining high HDB flat price comes about to solve a lot of these problems derived from aging population. The followings are the reasoning:
1) If Singaporeans have less savings in CPF, the government won't be burdened by interest payment to the account holders. i.e. the government will wash its hands off from retirement financing of an aging population.
2) How or who will finance the future retirees then? A 30 year mortgage plan will DEFINITELY force Singaporeans to sell their flats for retirement! This is basically because their CPF accounts will have very little amount of funds left! By allowing HDB prices to increase, these future retirees could well "withdraw" their "retirement funds" by selling off their HDB flats at high prices! This would solve their retirement financing!
Impact of HDB flat for Retirement Financing
Such simplistic thinking will have a few impacts. All of these impacts are unfavorable to Singaporeans but very favorable to the Government.
1) The Government could benefit from selling HDB flats at high prices to citizens and they no longer need to fork out money for any subsidies. All so call subsidies are basically on paper accounting, market subsidies.
2) The first adjustment is to raise land prices. HDB, on paper, is in deficits because it has to buy land from SLA (both under Ministry of Development) at market prices. Please note that SLA has become the biggest land owner in Singapore through forceful acquisition of private land with monopoly power to determine prices.
3) All proceeds from Land Sales go directly into the reserves and that is why our reserves grow at rapid rate since 1980s.
4) The government earns interests, instead of paying interests, from making loans to HDB buyers. This also means that while Singaporeans are paying higher HDB prices using almost all their CPF monies and they are also incurring mortgage interests.
5) The prices of HDB flats MUST increase substantially over time in order for this scheme to be sustainable. If not, the whole system will collapse.
Implications
What are the implications?
Apparently, the government benefited the most from such scheme. It relinquishes its responsibility of providing retirement financing for an aging population. It basically transfers this burden to the future generations in terms of HIGHER HDB PRICES. It MAKES PROFITS from these higher HDB prices which transferred into reserves which make them look good. On top of that, it makes money from interests collected from HDB buyers
What the government gains will be what the citizens will lose. HDB is the MONOPOLY of the new HDB flat market and it is also the lender who earns interests from all outstanding loans.
What the government gains will be what the citizens will lose. HDB is the MONOPOLY of the new HDB flat market and it is also the lender who earns interests from all outstanding loans.
Unsustainable
This model is NOT sustainable in the long run. The reason is pretty clear. In order to preserve the purchasing power of the amount of money Singaporeans have put into their HDB flats, the future price of their flats has to increase tremendously to cover the interest cost as well as inflation throughout the 30 years period.
However, wages of the working class will normally grow at the rate just enough to cover inflation. That is why we are witnessing this impact of wages lagging behind HDB price growth for the past two decades. From the following graph prepared by Lucky Tan .
Wage doubled while HDB prices grow by FOUR folds during the period from 1990 to 2009. It corresponds to the increase in the mortgage payment period from 15 years to 30 years. In time to come, our future generations may have to pay for a 40years or even 50 years mortgage for just a decent HDB flat
Is this sustainable?
There are CONFLICTING policy objectives. On one hand, in order for the scheme of utilizing high HDB prices as a means for retirement financing, we need HDB prices to outstrip wage growth but in order to maintain "AFFORDABILITY" for all generations, we need to maintain the price increase according to wage growth! How could these CONFLICTING policy targets be met simultaneously?
Nobody can guarantee property prices will grow forever at such rapid rate. With an aging population, demand will be lower while supply will be increasing due to the increasing number of elders trying to sell their flats. This will have downward pressure on relative prices.
This is really an ill-thought out HDB-retirement scheme by the PAP government. This scheme benefits only the present government by alleviating its burden to provide for the retirement funding needs for the citizens while benefiting from all the higher HDB prices and interests earned from loans to HDB owners. This is in the expense of Singaporeans both present and future.
Almost all present Ministers will not be around in 30 years time to take responsibility for the effects of their policies. It is important for Singaporeans to understand the great implications of this HDB-retirement scheme upon our present generations as well as future generations.
I have come to this realization of this scheme ever since PAP started to embark the so call "Asset Enhancement Scheme" back in early 1990s. I have written a number of articles in protest of this scheme but many Singaporeans were overwhelmed by the immediate gain of paper capital gains. There were even Singaporeans trying to capitalize on the sudden increase in their flat value by upgrading or multiple upgradings. In the whole process, they committed higher and higher debts.
The latest report has indicated Singapore's housing debt has constituted more than 51% of total loans from our financial loans! This is even higher than Hong Kong's 20%! We will be doomed if there is a property crash! The whole financial system will be burden with unperforming loans!
An economy cannot invest too much of its financial resources in assets like properties which are not "productive" for the economy. If the property sector takes up too much of the financial resources of the economy, it will crowd out resources for financing investments by our local entrepreneurs. It would also mean that the financial sector would be over-exposed to a potential bubble which would wipe off our wealth when it bursts.
Experiences from Japan, Ireland and even US have shown that over-exposure of the financial sector to the bubble-prone property sector will destroy the economy. Japan has hardly recover from its collapse of economy due to property bubble since 1990s!
It is up to every Singaporeans to judge on whether what I write here make any sense. It is easy to sell greed to the masses but it will create irreversible damage to our future generations. It is not easy to convince people that high property prices are BAD for them. I have waited this long for the opportune time to explain what I have learned throughout these years. I urge every reader who agrees with my views to help me to spread this message to your friends and relatives.
This unsustainable and potentially damaging HDB-retirement scheme must be stopped and ceased else our future generations will suffer in vain for our inaction.
Goh Meng Seng
Friday, December 10, 2010
The Battle of Tampines
Yes, I know, I am supposed to write about the unsustainable policies of PAP. But the Straits Time's constituency report on Tampines is just too interesting to be missed.
I have made a comment on The Online Citizen Facebook with regards to Minister Mah's column on TodayOnline and it is as follows:
I have written an article entitled "Basis of Meritocracy: Competency and Accountability" for the next issue of NSP North Star. This is to address the second part of the campaigning. I will put up this article in January 2011.
It is interesting to note from the ST report that "about half" in Tampines support PAP. To me, it actually means LESS THAN HALF supported PAP because if the figures are that great, it would have reported "MORE THAN HALF" supported PAP. This is in spite of the fact that 28 out of 30 don't "blame" Minister Mah.
It is also interesting to note the fact that the question of affordability of HDB flats is "no longer there": i.e. apparently, EVERYONE, including PAP supporters, has accepted that affordability of HDB FLATS IS AN ISSUE. This is a vast different from two years ago whereby people would pour scorn on me for raising high HDB prices as an issue.
The strange part is this: according to Mah Bow Tan's write up on Today, he is open to debate about HDB issues. I have requested a live debate with Miniister Mah but till now, no response from him just yet.
It is also interesting to note that Minister Mah has shifted his position subtly from his earlier assertion that "you could sell your flat for retirement" to "most probably you don't need to sell your flat and downgrade for retirement" because they have "savings, CPF" etc... BUT WAIT! With a 30 years mortgage payment to the max, how much money would an ordinary folk has in his CPF when he reach 60 years old? Well maybe the million dollar paid minister would have lots of other assets and savings, but for an ordinary folk, this is DEFINITELY NOT THE CASE!
The blatant truth is, with a HDB flat to be liable for a 30 years mortgage, Singaporeans would be FORCED to sell their flat and downgrade for their retirement financing!
It is quite surprising that after I have declared that Minister Mah's HDB policy is TOTALLY NOT SUSTAINABLE in the long run, he insisted that to remain "SUSTAINABLE" he needs to keep the present pricing policy! Scarcity of land is the reason he cited. But as I have mentioned before, this is NOT an issue when all LAND sold by the government comes with a 99 lease!
Minister Mah also claims that there is "hefty subsidies" for HDB flats. It is already a well known fact that HDB only gives "discounts" NOT ACTUAL SUBSIDIES to buyers. In fact, they overpriced the land which they have acquired DIRT CHEAP from Singaporeans. Then, they give discounts based on that price!
Contrary to what Minister Mah's assertion, pricing new HDB flats at COST WILL NOT COMPROMISE the BUDGET. This is basically because whatever revenue they gained via LAND SALES, go straight into the reserves, not the Budget revenue! Thus, by cutting down the price of the LAND sold to HDB will NOT compromise the BUDGET at all!
The Battle of Tampines is about the future of our children. It is also about defending our core values of Meritocracy, especially so when we are pay the HIGHEST SALARY in the world to our ministers.
Goh Meng Seng
I have made a comment on The Online Citizen Facebook with regards to Minister Mah's column on TodayOnline and it is as follows:
Two years ago, before TOC went into the homeless issue and I banging on the unaffordability of HDB flats, many people think that HDB under MBT is great. When I first started the fire on HDB issue coupled with my minister-specific strategy aiming at MBT Tampines, many people say I am crazy. They reasoned that Tampines has the best flats which is appreciating, why would they want to vote for someone who tell them their flats are too high a price?
I am glad that after one and a half year of banging on housing issues with the help of New Media blogs and websites like TOC (and Temasek Review), we manage to change people's mind and get this very important point across. So much so that even hardcore PAP supporters have to admit that high HDB prices are a grave concern.
We have successfully completed half of the mission of political education, raising issue like Housing into hot topic. Now, according to ST, there are still 28 out of 30 who thinks MBT shouldn't be blamed for this HDB blunders. The other half of the mission is to convince voters that we must safeguard MERITOCRACY as our CORE VALUE by voting out those ministers who have screwed up.
I have written an article entitled "Basis of Meritocracy: Competency and Accountability" for the next issue of NSP North Star. This is to address the second part of the campaigning. I will put up this article in January 2011.
It is interesting to note from the ST report that "about half" in Tampines support PAP. To me, it actually means LESS THAN HALF supported PAP because if the figures are that great, it would have reported "MORE THAN HALF" supported PAP. This is in spite of the fact that 28 out of 30 don't "blame" Minister Mah.
It is also interesting to note the fact that the question of affordability of HDB flats is "no longer there": i.e. apparently, EVERYONE, including PAP supporters, has accepted that affordability of HDB FLATS IS AN ISSUE. This is a vast different from two years ago whereby people would pour scorn on me for raising high HDB prices as an issue.
The strange part is this: according to Mah Bow Tan's write up on Today, he is open to debate about HDB issues. I have requested a live debate with Miniister Mah but till now, no response from him just yet.
It is also interesting to note that Minister Mah has shifted his position subtly from his earlier assertion that "you could sell your flat for retirement" to "most probably you don't need to sell your flat and downgrade for retirement" because they have "savings, CPF" etc... BUT WAIT! With a 30 years mortgage payment to the max, how much money would an ordinary folk has in his CPF when he reach 60 years old? Well maybe the million dollar paid minister would have lots of other assets and savings, but for an ordinary folk, this is DEFINITELY NOT THE CASE!
The blatant truth is, with a HDB flat to be liable for a 30 years mortgage, Singaporeans would be FORCED to sell their flat and downgrade for their retirement financing!
It is quite surprising that after I have declared that Minister Mah's HDB policy is TOTALLY NOT SUSTAINABLE in the long run, he insisted that to remain "SUSTAINABLE" he needs to keep the present pricing policy! Scarcity of land is the reason he cited. But as I have mentioned before, this is NOT an issue when all LAND sold by the government comes with a 99 lease!
Minister Mah also claims that there is "hefty subsidies" for HDB flats. It is already a well known fact that HDB only gives "discounts" NOT ACTUAL SUBSIDIES to buyers. In fact, they overpriced the land which they have acquired DIRT CHEAP from Singaporeans. Then, they give discounts based on that price!
Contrary to what Minister Mah's assertion, pricing new HDB flats at COST WILL NOT COMPROMISE the BUDGET. This is basically because whatever revenue they gained via LAND SALES, go straight into the reserves, not the Budget revenue! Thus, by cutting down the price of the LAND sold to HDB will NOT compromise the BUDGET at all!
The Battle of Tampines is about the future of our children. It is also about defending our core values of Meritocracy, especially so when we are pay the HIGHEST SALARY in the world to our ministers.
Goh Meng Seng
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
建屋局违背社会契约 祸害子孙后代
I have just written a Chinese article on the ills of HDB policy which is not sustainable. I will be reconstructing this article into English article soon as part of my promise of posting on the unsustainable policies of PAP government.
Goh Meng Seng
建屋局违背社会契约 祸害子孙后代
在建国初期，百业待兴。行动党在成为执政党后，便积极使用土地征收法，强制以超低价格向各个大小地主征收土地以便供国家发展。为了补偿这一些新加坡人为国家发展所做出的牺牲，政府与人民达成了不明文规定的社会契约，那就是政府会为人民提供优质廉价，甚至是受津贴的公共住屋。
政府把永久地契的土地以超低价格征收回来，然后以99年地契的组屋出售给人民，这种社会主义的土地改革和建制对于我们世世代代新加坡人的住屋需求提供了保障。如果没有我们先辈对土地的牺牲，我们千千万万的同胞和我们的后代便没法有足够的住屋了。
政府也从这以超低价格征收土地中得益良多。到目前为止，政府已从征收廉价土地中累积超过80%的国土！我国几千亿的储备金中，有一大部份是买卖土地的收益！这也就是为什么政府有责任和义务为世世代代的国人提供廉价组屋。我们也不期望政府亏钱，但至少必须以成本价提供住屋给国人。就算要从组屋用地赚点利息回报，它也必须以合理的计算法计算土地价格给建屋局。
政府与建屋局在建国初20年里的确履行了它对这社会契约的义务和责任。我们的父辈的确以廉价的价格向建屋局买到了组屋。我们父辈能以少过15年的按揭买到他们心仪的房子。这基本上解决了国人的住屋需求。
但是一踏入1990年代，行动党却以“资产增值”为利诱，说服国人组屋升值是好事，积极发展组屋转售市场，更以“组屋翻新”为竞选伎俩。但是新组屋价格也悄然地猛涨两三倍以上！以往行动党所依赖的“组屋津贴”政治资本逐渐站不住脚了。在反对党议员屡次挑战这“组屋津贴”的神话后，行动党才婉转的以“市场津贴”搪塞。说穿了，这“市场津贴”也只是从市场给以“折扣”而已。行动党政府还是从买组屋中牟利。关键就在土地价格的制定上。
新加坡土地有限，政府又是最大的地主。政府基本上垄断了土地市场的供应。从经济常理看来，土地价格在这种情况下肯定会随着时间以超过经济和国民平均薪金成长的速度飙升！
这也就反映在组屋价格与国民中间收入增长日益扩大的差距。从1990至2009的统计看来，国民中间收入只增长了一倍而组屋转售价竟然升超过三倍！由于新组屋是以市场转售价给以折扣，所以新组屋也应该升了三倍或更多！如果是以1980年代为基准的话，那这差距肯定会更大！
Source: Data compiled by Lucky Tan, http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/
这扩大的差距也反映在按揭年限逐渐的延长上。我们父辈只须15年或更低的按揭，在1990年代买组屋的我这一代就需付上20年的按揭。到了这世纪初至今，我们的新一代就必须给30年的按揭奴役了！
如今这30年房屋贷款将使我们年轻国人无法有足够钱在老时养老！如果他们30岁结婚，要到60岁才能把房贷还清！他们还能有多少公积金储蓄来养老？如果按照马宝山部长的说法，组屋可是“投资”，我们能卖房子养老，那么我们不是要祈求房价能一直勇往直前，继续往上狂升吗？姑且不谈这种期望屋价不断上涨的妄想是否不切实际，但是试想想，要是真是如此，我们的子孙后代是不是要付上更长的按揭才能买到组屋吗？40年还是50年按揭？如果让行动党政府继续如此搞下去的话，我们的子孙后代便须付出沉重的代价！
吴明盛
Goh Meng Seng
建屋局违背社会契约 祸害子孙后代
在建国初期，百业待兴。行动党在成为执政党后，便积极使用土地征收法，强制以超低价格向各个大小地主征收土地以便供国家发展。为了补偿这一些新加坡人为国家发展所做出的牺牲，政府与人民达成了不明文规定的社会契约，那就是政府会为人民提供优质廉价，甚至是受津贴的公共住屋。
政府把永久地契的土地以超低价格征收回来，然后以99年地契的组屋出售给人民，这种社会主义的土地改革和建制对于我们世世代代新加坡人的住屋需求提供了保障。如果没有我们先辈对土地的牺牲，我们千千万万的同胞和我们的后代便没法有足够的住屋了。
政府也从这以超低价格征收土地中得益良多。到目前为止，政府已从征收廉价土地中累积超过80%的国土！我国几千亿的储备金中，有一大部份是买卖土地的收益！这也就是为什么政府有责任和义务为世世代代的国人提供廉价组屋。我们也不期望政府亏钱，但至少必须以成本价提供住屋给国人。就算要从组屋用地赚点利息回报，它也必须以合理的计算法计算土地价格给建屋局。
政府与建屋局在建国初20年里的确履行了它对这社会契约的义务和责任。我们的父辈的确以廉价的价格向建屋局买到了组屋。我们父辈能以少过15年的按揭买到他们心仪的房子。这基本上解决了国人的住屋需求。
但是一踏入1990年代，行动党却以“资产增值”为利诱，说服国人组屋升值是好事，积极发展组屋转售市场，更以“组屋翻新”为竞选伎俩。但是新组屋价格也悄然地猛涨两三倍以上！以往行动党所依赖的“组屋津贴”政治资本逐渐站不住脚了。在反对党议员屡次挑战这“组屋津贴”的神话后，行动党才婉转的以“市场津贴”搪塞。说穿了，这“市场津贴”也只是从市场给以“折扣”而已。行动党政府还是从买组屋中牟利。关键就在土地价格的制定上。
新加坡土地有限，政府又是最大的地主。政府基本上垄断了土地市场的供应。从经济常理看来，土地价格在这种情况下肯定会随着时间以超过经济和国民平均薪金成长的速度飙升！
这也就反映在组屋价格与国民中间收入增长日益扩大的差距。从1990至2009的统计看来，国民中间收入只增长了一倍而组屋转售价竟然升超过三倍！由于新组屋是以市场转售价给以折扣，所以新组屋也应该升了三倍或更多！如果是以1980年代为基准的话，那这差距肯定会更大！
Source: Data compiled by Lucky Tan, http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/这扩大的差距也反映在按揭年限逐渐的延长上。我们父辈只须15年或更低的按揭，在1990年代买组屋的我这一代就需付上20年的按揭。到了这世纪初至今，我们的新一代就必须给30年的按揭奴役了！
如今这30年房屋贷款将使我们年轻国人无法有足够钱在老时养老！如果他们30岁结婚，要到60岁才能把房贷还清！他们还能有多少公积金储蓄来养老？如果按照马宝山部长的说法，组屋可是“投资”，我们能卖房子养老，那么我们不是要祈求房价能一直勇往直前，继续往上狂升吗？姑且不谈这种期望屋价不断上涨的妄想是否不切实际，但是试想想，要是真是如此，我们的子孙后代是不是要付上更长的按揭才能买到组屋吗？40年还是50年按揭？如果让行动党政府继续如此搞下去的话，我们的子孙后代便须付出沉重的代价！
吴明盛
Monday, November 29, 2010
Sustainability is the KEY ISSUE
Straits Time reporter called me up today to ask me about PM Lee's speech made on PAP's congress on Sunday. My first response is that the Prime Minister is just executing what he has said in last General Eections 2006. (Watch the above video). He will always look for ways to "buy support" and this announcement of "goodies" for the Election year 2011 will definitely be viewed as "buying support".
What make it worse is that the main bulk of the increased government revenue, as hinted by PM Lee who pointed out the increase in tourists due to the casino resorts, comes from casino-related taxes. I would have to agree with Ngiam Tong Dow that the ruling party has gone "astray" and its policies lack moral bearings.
I would prefer all these collections from such "immoral source" be used to reform our Healthcare Insurance system as well as providing more subsidies to Education, especially for the vulnerable group.
I was asked on whether such goodies in the coming Budget would affect my party's (NSP) performance in the coming elections. I said whether my party win or lose, it is just a democratic process. I am more concerned about how voters make their choices. If such goodies could actually "buy them over" by the ruling party then it would be a very setback for Singapore's democratic progress. The key issue of any General Elections should not lie on how much "Red Packet" the ruling party is going to give you, not even about how much HDB upgrading is at stake.
I said categorically that A GREAT POLITICIAN SELLS HIS VISION FOR THE FUTURE, NOT PORK BARREL. Voters should look beyond immediate gains or goodies handed out and look at the policies that will affect their future and their future generations.
One example I cited for GE2006 is that PAP didn't tell voters that they were going to increase GST from 5% to 7% in spite of me asking them openly in my rally speech for them to state clearly whether they are going to increase GST from 5% to 7% and then 10%. But we know that immediately after GE2006, the Prime Minister declared that GST would be raised "to help the poor"! However so far, we have not seen any concrete programs that utilize this increased revenue to help the poor! On the contrary, we have seen the increase of Singaporeans forced to live on beaches, collecting card boards and living in poverty! (For reference, please read this link.)
The Health Minister Khaw has tried to clarify during GE2006 that the means testing for healthcare would not take place that "soon" but it just kicked in just about a year later!
I was asked about PM Lee's mention of issues for next GE, particularly immigration, housing, helping low-wage workers and a sense of disorientation among Singaporean due to rapid changes in the society. I would say that all these are just "symptoms" of the KEY PROBLEM/illness of PAP's policies. The KEY PROBLEM is SUSTAINABILITY.
From politics, immigration, minimum wage, housing, retirement financin (CPF), transport to healthcare, PAP's policies are not sustainable at all in the long run. I have touched on politics in my other postings here with regards to Post LKY era and I will not repeat.
I will break down other issues into different posts on my blog for the coming days and weeks, all talking about the sustainability of these policies.
While PAP thinks that First Class candidates means top bankers, lawyers and other elites as their core, I believe that good candidates are those who have the passion to serve, who believe that politics is all about public service and those who can deliver the voices of the people into the parliament.
I have told the reporter that NSP is not going to sell HATRED in the coming GE as it was the norm for opposition to talk bad about PAP. We are going to sell our policy views on the sustainability for our Nation and future generations.
Just watch this space.
Goh Meng Seng
Sunday, November 28, 2010
What does "Freak Election Results" mean?
Well, this is definitely not an alien phrase for all of us. PAP has been talking about it for donkey years and this phrase has been raised again recently.
RP SG Kenneth gave a good rebuttal on "Freak Election Results": “How could it be a freak result if it is the will of the people?”
Yes, how could PAP ever think of such term? Does it mean that the people are "freak" to vote in opposition to replace PAP? How could the will of the masses be considered as "FREAK"?
Well, some PAP supporter has put it another way, when "freak" opposition members who have character flaws are voted into parliament, then it is considered as "freak election results". Sound good right? But wait, why would the masses vote someone who are "freak" with character flaws into parliament in the first place? What would these PAP supporters call them?
In democratic countries in the world, politicians who lost their elections, will just bow out, thank his supporters and respect the will and choice of the people. No matter how seemingly "unjust" the results could be. The following is the "DEFEAT SPEECH" by the President of Democratic Progressive Party of Taiwan after she lost her elections yesterday.
Opposition parties have not mentioned about "Freak Election Results" when we know there are people who vote for PAP out of fear.We can lose elections but we must not lose our character. Never blame the voters, least accusing that as "Freak Election Results" because it is a disrespectful insult to the voters. Although we might have lost an elections, but we must win back applause and respect.
I initially thought that those who proclaim "Freak Election Results" are just Sore Losers. Only Sore Losers will make hell lot of noise when they lose, just like our childhood friends who will cry father cry mother when they lost a game or two.
But on second thought, there is more to it. It may really be a "Freak Election Results" because the ruling party has become so FREAK that Singaporeans will just abandon them. Maybe this is the real reason for "Freak Election Results" to happen.
Goh Meng Seng
RP SG Kenneth gave a good rebuttal on "Freak Election Results": “How could it be a freak result if it is the will of the people?”
Yes, how could PAP ever think of such term? Does it mean that the people are "freak" to vote in opposition to replace PAP? How could the will of the masses be considered as "FREAK"?
Well, some PAP supporter has put it another way, when "freak" opposition members who have character flaws are voted into parliament, then it is considered as "freak election results". Sound good right? But wait, why would the masses vote someone who are "freak" with character flaws into parliament in the first place? What would these PAP supporters call them?
In democratic countries in the world, politicians who lost their elections, will just bow out, thank his supporters and respect the will and choice of the people. No matter how seemingly "unjust" the results could be. The following is the "DEFEAT SPEECH" by the President of Democratic Progressive Party of Taiwan after she lost her elections yesterday.
Opposition parties have not mentioned about "Freak Election Results" when we know there are people who vote for PAP out of fear.We can lose elections but we must not lose our character. Never blame the voters, least accusing that as "Freak Election Results" because it is a disrespectful insult to the voters. Although we might have lost an elections, but we must win back applause and respect.
I initially thought that those who proclaim "Freak Election Results" are just Sore Losers. Only Sore Losers will make hell lot of noise when they lose, just like our childhood friends who will cry father cry mother when they lost a game or two.
But on second thought, there is more to it. It may really be a "Freak Election Results" because the ruling party has become so FREAK that Singaporeans will just abandon them. Maybe this is the real reason for "Freak Election Results" to happen.
Goh Meng Seng
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
The Contest in Tampines against Mah Bow Tan and ...
The above picture shows a major event coming up in Tampines on 21 Nov 2010. Tree planting, Neighbourhood Renewal Programme and free Dinner etc. The intriguing thing about this poster is on the left bottom corner where it states Guest of Honour as Mr. Masagos, the newly promoted minister of state for Education and Home Affairs. The distinguished guests include all other MPs of Tampines except Minister Mah Bow Tan, the anchor minister of Tampines GRC.
As there is a hint here that MBT may not be standing in Tampines, I have told a ST reporter that PAP or Minister Mah should make clear whether he is still standing in Tampines or any other place else because I will follow him. PAP has claimed that they take GE as the "contest of ideas" and I would like to contest MBT's or PAP's idea of public housing as investment.
If MBT is to retire from politics, which is more probable than moving to other GRC or SMC, then such intentions should be made known so that I could contest such idea of Public Housing against future Minister of National Development.
Of course, I hope that it is just coincidental that MBT is out of town and unable to attend the above mentioned event on 21 Nov 2010.
Many people tend to think that Tampines is a "sweet ground" to contest for the next GE. However, in reality, Tampines is traditionally a "hard ground" for opposition parties. The main reason is that more than 32% of Tampines flats are 5 room flats, executive flats, condominium or landed properties. (refer to data released by Department of Statistics in 2000).
Although Mah Bow Tan is one of the rare PAP members/ministers who have lost an election before (in Potong Pasir 1984) but he is definitely not a pushover. It is precisely the fact that he has tasted bitter defeat that he is exceptional careful in cultivating his own turf in Tampines. Choosing one of the hardest ground in Singapore is one of the first step to ensure better chances of defence against challengers. A typical HDB estate would have only 9%-15% of 5 room flats/ condominium. (eg. Ang Mo Kio estate has about 9%) Tampines is one of the very few HDB estates with such high percentage of 5 room or higher flats.
Intriguingly, a couple of opposition parties begin to be interested in Tampines GRC or rather, contesting against Mah Bow Tan AFTER NSP has set the fire on the HDB issues since 2008/9. I was tasked by my party to take over the responsibility to form a team to contest in Tampines and I have formulated the Minister-specific strategy since then. Most people in opposition parties are not very keen in contesting in Tampines basically because of the higher middle-upper class mix in Tampines, which is traditionally viewed as more supportive of PAP generally. Truly so, Tampines has NEVER been a "hot spot" since its inception.
NSP has been contesting in Tampines GRC for the past elections. NSP has been contesting in Tampines GRC since its inception in 1988, except for 1997 GE whereby it was a walkover for PAP. In 2001 and 2006 GEs, NSP candidates stood in Tampines GRC under the SDA banner.
Thus, while I am not surprised at SDA declaration on Berita Harian as well as SDP's assertion of interests that they want to contest in Tampines GRC, I am sadden by the fact that they have disregarded NSP's continuous political effort in Tampines GRC for the past two decades. Especially so when NSP has successfully turned Tampines GRC from a "traditionally cold spot" into a "hot spot" via various deliberate strategic moves made in the past two years. Unfortunately the bees will definitely be attracted to the honey.
I sincerely hope that SDA and SDP should reconsider their position so to avoid multi-corner fight in Tampines GRC. I think in general, Singaporeans do not wish to see multi-corner fights at this instance. However, if all rational reasoning fails, I am prepared for the worst scenario as well.
Goh Meng Seng
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
HDB 50 Years: From Affordable to Struggle
Note: This is the article which I wrote that Minister Mah Bow Tan is trying to "rebut" in his weekly column in Today newspapers. This article first appear on NSP newspaper, North Star, which we have sold thousands and thousands in various parts of Singapore.
Goh Meng Seng
HDB is celebrating its 50 years of existence recently and has started a round island exhibition of its past achievements. It has even come up with a two part TV series on Channel News Asia to glorify its past achievement. For the first 20 years or so, from 1960 to 1980, HDB has done a relatively impressive job of providing cheap public housing for the majority of Singaporeans.
However, we must recognize the fact that without the Land Acquisition Act that empowered the PAP government to acquire land from many small and medium land owners at dirt cheap prices, it would not be possible for HDB to redistribute these lands in terms of cheap public housing to the masses. Without the sacrifices made by all these land owners, the PAP government would not be able to acquire up to 80% of land in Singapore at an unimaginably low prices.
Thus, it would not be complete to talk about HDB’s achievement of housing more than 80% of Singaporeans without looking at the power given to the government via the Land Acquisition Act as well as the enormous sacrifices made by many land owners in the past. The Land Acquisition Act and HDB are the pillars of the socialist land reform tool that is aimed solve the problem of inadequate housing for the masses. The government has the privilege and power to forcefully acquire land from many land owners at dirt cheap prices but it also has the social obligation to redistribute these lands to the masses via HDB by providing cheap public housing.
The enormous amount of past PAP’s political capital is derived from the success of such land reform effort to provide cheap public housing at REAL SUBSIDIZED prices to the masses. When the late Minister Teh Cheang Wan (who has committed suicide after corruption probe) tried to explain about affordability of the new increased prices of HDB in a news article published in Straits Time 1981, he has put up an impressive chart of the breakdowns of costing for the various HDB flats. The costing includes construction and land costs. The selling prices were based on these costing in which different amount of REAL COST SUBSIDIES were given. Most of the time, the subsidies stated were more than the land cost stated.
It is almost impossible for us to know the present costing of any HDB flats built in modern days, least REAL COST SUBSIDIES if any. The pricing mechanism of HDB’s new flats has been changed drastically, from cost based pricing to resale market based pricing. HDB claims that it is giving “MARKET SUBSIDIES” when it prices the new HDB flats at a discount from the resale market prices. I guess I could also tell my customers that they are getting “MARKET SUBSIDIES” from me when I give them some discount on the products they buy from me, this is in spite of the fact that I am still earning a profit from the sales.
If the prices of new HDB flats are based on the resale market prices, wouldn’t it be in the interests of HDB and the PAP government that the prices in resale market to be kept high so that they could sell their new HDB flats at higher prices?
This pricing mechanism is flawed. On the surface, it is supposedly based on “market forces” but could such market force price the flats in accordance to the general affordability of the people? The answer is obviously no. Such pricing mechanism will only capture the availability of liquidity and demand that is created by population growth. It cannot represent the actual “affordability” as it could not reflect real income growth as well as general inflation rate.
In recent years, the prices of the HDB resale market are heavily influenced by:
1. The increase in demand caused by the influx of foreign migrants who became Permanent Residents (PRs).
2. The excess liquidity that brought in by these PRs.
3. The shortage of new HDB flats due to HDB’s inability to forecast accurately the demand of housing
due to the rapid population growth.
All these factors have nothing to do with the real income growth and affordability of Singaporeans. In fact, it is not difficult to realize that over time, HDB prices have outstripped income growth in the past decades.
During my father’s generation, a family with only one income could possibly pay off its HDB mortgage loan within 10 years. For my generation, we could only pay off our HDB mortgage loans with two incomes of husband and wife. For our present and next generation, they could only afford their new HDB flat with a 30 years mortgage paid by two income earners! It is very obvious from this general observation that HDB prices have outstripped our wages at least by two times.
Minister Mah Bow Tan whose Ministry in charge of HDB has tried very hard to prove the affordability of HDB by using all sorts of statistics. It has used an inherently bias Median Household Income of HDB flat applicants as well as statistical data comparison between income growth and HDB resale price growth for the period of 1999 to 2009. This comparison is totally inadequate. We should look at the comparison of income versus HDB resale prices for the period of 1990 till 2009 instead. This is the most appropriate comparison because the PAP government started its “Asset Enhancement Scheme” in early 1990s.
Although the data is incomplete due to the lack of data for the period from 1991 to 1994, but it is very obvious to us that the HDB Resale Price Index has outstripped Median Household Income growth by 200%. I shall also quote the analysis from Lucky Tan’s blog:
1. From 1990 to 2009, RPI rose to 442 (442% of the base year) but household income rose only to 211 (211% of the base year) i.e. income rose at roughly half the rate property rose over a 20 year period. The RPI was only 34.1 in 1990, today it is 154 i.e. a HDB flat today is 4.5 times the price 20 years ago but household income is only 2.1 times.
2. You will notice the big jump from 1990 to 1995 when the RPI rose from 34.1 to 101.9. That jump occurred just after CPF was liberalised for housing in 1991. During that period household income only went up by 36% but HDB price almost tripled. CPF basically went from funding retirement to funding
home purchases.
The conclusion is very obvious. Due to the fact that HDB prices have outstripped income growth for the past 20 years, it is inevitable that we will be shortage of funds for retirement since almost all of our CPF funds are being used to pay the 30 years mortgage for our flats.
Minister Mah Bow Tan and PAP leaders have not denied the fact that with the present HDB prices which need a 30 years mortgage payment, Singaporeans would have shortage of retirement funds in CPF. CPF would have failed its mission in providing savings for comfortable retirement of most Singaporeans. In fact, Minister Mah has suggested a way out of this situation: Monetize your HDB flats to finance your retirement. It is a very nice sounding way of saying you need to sell off your flats for your retirement!
It is really a cruel suggestion to all hard working Singaporeans who have worked so hard for more than 30 years of their life to sell their flats and lower their quality of live for their retirement just because the cheapest HDB housing in town during their time has sucked up almost all of their CPF contributions which left little for their retirement.
HDB has started out as a good socialist tool for land reform and redistribution. However it seems that half way down the road, it has totally diverted from its original humble but important objective of providing cheap public housing.
It has developed into a monster that overpriced basic housing which results in it cannibalizing on Singaporeans’ retirement funds. If we do not stop the PAP government’s Minister Mah from perpetuating this policy direction of high HDB prices, we would be supporting his plan to get Singaporeans to sell off their HDB flats for retirement in future!
Is this some big achievement for HDB to brag about for its 50 years existence?
Goh Meng Seng
HDB is celebrating its 50 years of existence recently and has started a round island exhibition of its past achievements. It has even come up with a two part TV series on Channel News Asia to glorify its past achievement. For the first 20 years or so, from 1960 to 1980, HDB has done a relatively impressive job of providing cheap public housing for the majority of Singaporeans.
However, we must recognize the fact that without the Land Acquisition Act that empowered the PAP government to acquire land from many small and medium land owners at dirt cheap prices, it would not be possible for HDB to redistribute these lands in terms of cheap public housing to the masses. Without the sacrifices made by all these land owners, the PAP government would not be able to acquire up to 80% of land in Singapore at an unimaginably low prices.
Thus, it would not be complete to talk about HDB’s achievement of housing more than 80% of Singaporeans without looking at the power given to the government via the Land Acquisition Act as well as the enormous sacrifices made by many land owners in the past. The Land Acquisition Act and HDB are the pillars of the socialist land reform tool that is aimed solve the problem of inadequate housing for the masses. The government has the privilege and power to forcefully acquire land from many land owners at dirt cheap prices but it also has the social obligation to redistribute these lands to the masses via HDB by providing cheap public housing.
The enormous amount of past PAP’s political capital is derived from the success of such land reform effort to provide cheap public housing at REAL SUBSIDIZED prices to the masses. When the late Minister Teh Cheang Wan (who has committed suicide after corruption probe) tried to explain about affordability of the new increased prices of HDB in a news article published in Straits Time 1981, he has put up an impressive chart of the breakdowns of costing for the various HDB flats. The costing includes construction and land costs. The selling prices were based on these costing in which different amount of REAL COST SUBSIDIES were given. Most of the time, the subsidies stated were more than the land cost stated.
It is almost impossible for us to know the present costing of any HDB flats built in modern days, least REAL COST SUBSIDIES if any. The pricing mechanism of HDB’s new flats has been changed drastically, from cost based pricing to resale market based pricing. HDB claims that it is giving “MARKET SUBSIDIES” when it prices the new HDB flats at a discount from the resale market prices. I guess I could also tell my customers that they are getting “MARKET SUBSIDIES” from me when I give them some discount on the products they buy from me, this is in spite of the fact that I am still earning a profit from the sales.
If the prices of new HDB flats are based on the resale market prices, wouldn’t it be in the interests of HDB and the PAP government that the prices in resale market to be kept high so that they could sell their new HDB flats at higher prices?
This pricing mechanism is flawed. On the surface, it is supposedly based on “market forces” but could such market force price the flats in accordance to the general affordability of the people? The answer is obviously no. Such pricing mechanism will only capture the availability of liquidity and demand that is created by population growth. It cannot represent the actual “affordability” as it could not reflect real income growth as well as general inflation rate.
In recent years, the prices of the HDB resale market are heavily influenced by:
1. The increase in demand caused by the influx of foreign migrants who became Permanent Residents (PRs).
2. The excess liquidity that brought in by these PRs.
3. The shortage of new HDB flats due to HDB’s inability to forecast accurately the demand of housing
due to the rapid population growth.
All these factors have nothing to do with the real income growth and affordability of Singaporeans. In fact, it is not difficult to realize that over time, HDB prices have outstripped income growth in the past decades.
During my father’s generation, a family with only one income could possibly pay off its HDB mortgage loan within 10 years. For my generation, we could only pay off our HDB mortgage loans with two incomes of husband and wife. For our present and next generation, they could only afford their new HDB flat with a 30 years mortgage paid by two income earners! It is very obvious from this general observation that HDB prices have outstripped our wages at least by two times.
Minister Mah Bow Tan whose Ministry in charge of HDB has tried very hard to prove the affordability of HDB by using all sorts of statistics. It has used an inherently bias Median Household Income of HDB flat applicants as well as statistical data comparison between income growth and HDB resale price growth for the period of 1999 to 2009. This comparison is totally inadequate. We should look at the comparison of income versus HDB resale prices for the period of 1990 till 2009 instead. This is the most appropriate comparison because the PAP government started its “Asset Enhancement Scheme” in early 1990s.
Although the data is incomplete due to the lack of data for the period from 1991 to 1994, but it is very obvious to us that the HDB Resale Price Index has outstripped Median Household Income growth by 200%. I shall also quote the analysis from Lucky Tan’s blog:
1. From 1990 to 2009, RPI rose to 442 (442% of the base year) but household income rose only to 211 (211% of the base year) i.e. income rose at roughly half the rate property rose over a 20 year period. The RPI was only 34.1 in 1990, today it is 154 i.e. a HDB flat today is 4.5 times the price 20 years ago but household income is only 2.1 times.
2. You will notice the big jump from 1990 to 1995 when the RPI rose from 34.1 to 101.9. That jump occurred just after CPF was liberalised for housing in 1991. During that period household income only went up by 36% but HDB price almost tripled. CPF basically went from funding retirement to funding
home purchases.
The conclusion is very obvious. Due to the fact that HDB prices have outstripped income growth for the past 20 years, it is inevitable that we will be shortage of funds for retirement since almost all of our CPF funds are being used to pay the 30 years mortgage for our flats.
Minister Mah Bow Tan and PAP leaders have not denied the fact that with the present HDB prices which need a 30 years mortgage payment, Singaporeans would have shortage of retirement funds in CPF. CPF would have failed its mission in providing savings for comfortable retirement of most Singaporeans. In fact, Minister Mah has suggested a way out of this situation: Monetize your HDB flats to finance your retirement. It is a very nice sounding way of saying you need to sell off your flats for your retirement!
It is really a cruel suggestion to all hard working Singaporeans who have worked so hard for more than 30 years of their life to sell their flats and lower their quality of live for their retirement just because the cheapest HDB housing in town during their time has sucked up almost all of their CPF contributions which left little for their retirement.
HDB has started out as a good socialist tool for land reform and redistribution. However it seems that half way down the road, it has totally diverted from its original humble but important objective of providing cheap public housing.
It has developed into a monster that overpriced basic housing which results in it cannibalizing on Singaporeans’ retirement funds. If we do not stop the PAP government’s Minister Mah from perpetuating this policy direction of high HDB prices, we would be supporting his plan to get Singaporeans to sell off their HDB flats for retirement in future!
Is this some big achievement for HDB to brag about for its 50 years existence?
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Dawn of Post-LKY era
I have spoken about Post-LKY era in several occasions over the last few years and I have just done that on the day Mrs. Lee Kuan Yew died, 9 September 2010. When I heard that news, it immediately struck upon me that we are walking right into Post-LKY without any adequate preparation at all.
The loss of his beloved wife at this ripe old age of 87 would have great impact on his health and well being, especially so when he has just been admitted into hospital for chest infections.
When I watch him speak at his wife's funeral, reading his eulogy painfully with a barely audible voice and head facing down most of the time, I suddenly felt very sorry for him. The once one of the best political orators in this region, has suddenly lost his flare and magical touch. The severely wounded old lion may not roar again. I still hope that he would have a speedy recovery from both his illness and grief.
Someone has a lively discussion with me about Post-LKY era and declare that "LKY doesn't matter at all". I said, "But the fact that we are using LKY as the indication in Post-LKY era discussions truly reflects the fact that his political life is an important part of Singapore's history!"
Although Mr. Lee Kuan Yew is still alive, but death to everyone, including all of us, is certain, just a matter of when. With due respect to MM Lee, for the benefits of Singapore, we will have to examine all the possibilities carefully so that we could prepare ourselves, the Nation, for a smooth transition into Post-LKY era.
There are many questions of uncertainties with regard to Post-LKY era:
1) Will LKY's legacy outlive his passing?
2) Can the present social-economic-political model sustain in the long run?
3) Will there be power struggle within PAP? If so, will political instability occur?
4) Will both foreign and local investors maintain their confidence in our country's stability?
5) Will Singapore's political hegemony continue to strive?
The ultimate question is, will Singapore be better or worse off without Mr Lee Kuan Yew and how could we maintain or develop our political system thereafter?
In human history, particularly Chinese ancient and modern history, the passing of an Emperor or a political Strongman will always trigger off power struggle within the system. eg. The death of Chairman Mao Zhe Tong is the prime example how the power vacuum leads to intense power struggle. Luckily for China, Chairman Mao during his last breaths, has done the right thing of reinstating Deng Xiao Peng so that the Gang of Four could not extend their political atrocities by capturing power.
In Singapore's context, one may think that all is fine since Mr Lee Hsien Loong has become the third generation Prime Minister in Singapore. However, from all observations made so far, the undercurrent of power struggle is quite eminent.
It is only natural for any organizations to have different cliques or factions, especially so for political parties no matter how big or small they are. The most important thing is to find the balance whereby all factions could compromise and work together for the bigger picture. However, when there is a change in the dynamics between the factions due to the diminishing or total absence of a strongman like MM Lee, it will initiate fresh round of struggle to find the new balance of interests and power among them. Whether we like it or not, such realignment of power balance will take place.
In my opinion, for the sake of the country, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew should retire from active politics in either the form of total withdrawal from contest for the coming GE or just become a backbencher. This is to allow the Nation and all social, political and economic sectors to get used to a system without Strongman LKY. We need such gradual transitional period to cushion off the impact of the uncertainties arise from Post-LKY era.
Post-LKY era will pose great challenges as well as opportunities for the country as a whole. Post-LKY era will practically mean the end of strongman politics in Singapore. Many countries in the world have gone through such transition. eg. Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and even China etc.
The common phenomenon of Strongman politics in many countries during last century is basically due to the Post War impact whereby strong leadership is needed for the initial phase of stability, recovery and rebuilding from the devastating effects of World War II and the political uncertainty imposed by Cold War. However, most of the countries have walked out of the need of Strongman politics and many of them are working towards a more open and democratic political system.
Whether Singapore will follow the footsteps of these countries in embarking on the journey of developing a more open and democratic political system suitable for Singapore's context will depend largely on voters, not merely the ruling party alone.
It is a world trend for such political transition to happen because the model of political hegemony is NOT SUSTAINABLE in the long run. We should ensure the transition from Strongman politics to democratic development to be in a controlled and smooth manner.
Concurrently, we should reexamine on the kinds of political models we want for Post-LKY era. This should be done with the interests of our future generations instead of the usual narrowly defined interests of the ruling party.
MM Lee has once said that if the "opposition party" wins the elections twice consecutively, Singapore will be doomed. The basic reason why he comes to that conclusion is that the present political system is designed in such a way that a lot of power has been CENTRALIZED to give the ruling party absolute control. There is practically little SEPARATION of POWER to talk about, least, any meaningful checks and balance system. It is basically a system that is designed to entrenched the system of power hegemony.
However, MM Lee may have forgotten that the main threat of "dooming" Singapore may not come from any opposition party winning the elections but rather a corrupt group of politicians evolving out of PAP itself! The PAP may be seen as relatively clean by world standards but NOBODY can guarantee that this will forever be so and PAP will never be led by corrupt leaders in future!
I really hope that we will not face turbulent time ahead in Post-LKY era. If that happens, it would also mean that Mr Lee Kuan Yew has failed to build a sustainable system that could outlive his own legacy. There is still time, no matter how little it is, for MM Lee to do what is right for Singapore.
MM Lee should initiate and oversee the fundamentals of a better and more democratic political system to be established before he retires from Singapore politics. Nobody else in PAP has such political clout to do it except him.
He should institutionalize the independence of the Elections Department and fair play in our elections.
1) Gerrymandering and pork barrel politics should be outlawed.
2) A form of Proportional Representation should be adopted.
3) Independence of the press and government establishments like People's Association should be established.
4) All political parties should be given equal access to Government resources and funding to enhance healthy competition.
5) Political Donations Act should be amended to allow political parties to solicit funds.
6) Freedom of speech should be further institutionalized so that political parties or politicians could air their views freely in the context of public interests.
7) Freedom of information access to government statistics and data should be made available for enhancing political debates.
8) Intimidation or use of coercion on political opponents through government agencies, institutions or GLCs should be outlawed. No one should be intimidated or persecuted for his political beliefs and involvement.
There may be more things to be done but it would be a good start with the above mentioned. There is an urgency for him to do so else Singapore will fall and become the victim of intense power struggle within his own party after his passing. That would be a sad Post-LKY era the entire Nation will face in time to come.
Goh Meng Seng
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Condolences to Mr. Lee Kuan Yew & Mr. Lee Hsien Loong
I pay a visit to the Wake of Mrs. Lee Kuan Yew today with a few party colleagues including Steve Chia and Nor Lella to offer my deepest condolences and sympathy to Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and their families.
I have given a short statement to Radio 95.8 on the importance of the support of a capable spouse, a soul mate for people who are involved in politics and public service. The lonely road on pursuing our political dreams will be much bearable with the support of our soul mates in our lives. I am fortunate to have my soul mate who has provided strong moral support all these years and I empathize the great grief of MM Lee losing his soul mate. My sympathy and condolences to him and wishing him speedy recovery from his present illness.
Goh Meng Seng
Monday, October 04, 2010
Long term coalition cannot be based on anti-PAP or anti-LKY sentiments
The following is a very good report written by Donaldson Tan of News Asia Republic on the Elections Forum organized by SFD.
“A team building process cannot be based on a common enemy. It is not sustainable over the long term, ” Mr Goh Meng Seng told participants at a public workshop on electoral reform organised by Singaporeans For Democracy (SFD). “What will happen [to Opposition unity] when LKY dies or when PAP looses half its support?” This reply was a response to a question from the floor on Opposition unity. Mr Goh is the Secretary-General of the National Solidarity Party (NSP) and a panelist at the workshop. The 40-year-old politician was elected to the top post at NSP this February.
He told participants that PAP practises confrontational politics because of its historical baggage with colonialism and communism. As such, it is not unusual for PAP to treat Opposition politicians as troublemakers. This mindset is not sustainable. “You must first believe that the Opposition is part of the government, but plays a different role,” Mr Goh told the participants.
The ‘troublemaker’ mindset is evident in the Political Donation Act. Total anonymous donation to political parties cannot exceed S$5,000 a year. This limit is hardly enough to cover a year’s rent of office space for the political party. To make matters worse, the Singapore Land Authority does not permit residential spaces (e.g. HDB flat) to be used for conducting political activities. Yet, MPs can rent void deck space of HDB flats for political outreach. Moreover, PAP MPs enjoy a discount when they rent the HDB void deck space through the People’s Association.
This constraints political competition in Singapore. Mr Goh pointed out that political competition is good for the state. This is why political parties in Hong Kong and Taiwan enjoy state funding as long as the parties can win votes above a particular threshold. Perhaps Singapore should do the same to allow the current political system to be more balanced. Political parties are agent of change, but change still must come from the electorate. The electorate has to believe in fairness in the political system.
In Singapore, the elected MP is not given funds to set up an office in his constituency. In Hong Kong, the elected representatives and town councillors receive state funding to pay for the office rent and staff salaries for the operation of his office. In comparison, Singapore is very primitive. Opposition MPs have to meet their constituents in the HDB void deck. Certain constituents require privacy when meeting their MP but this is not possible if the Opposition MP has no office space.
Mr Goh also shared his concern that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had refused to call for by-election in response to the news that Dr Balaji Sadasivan, a MP of the Ang Mo Kio GRC, had passed away from Colon Cancer. The Prime Minister’s rationale is that the remaining MPs in the same GRC can take on his roles and responsibilities. Mr Goh pointed out that a MP has 2 roles: (1) serve the constituents; and (2) debate in parliament. “How can anyone simply replaces another MP to debate in parliament?” he said.
He opined that the problem of by-election can be circumvented by proportional representation. In proportional representation, by-election can be circumvented more fairly as it allows the party to internally select a new representative to take over the vacated MP post. While it may not be fair to aspiring MPs who are alive, proportional representation is more inclusive. For example, proportional representation allows LGBT interest to become an election agenda, unlike the current situation, whereby first-past-the-post system restricts General Election candidates to campaign along mainstream issues. After all, LGBT members are still members of society.
Mr Goh also raised another concern relating to the GRC – race politics. The Election Department requires the certification of race of General Election candidates of minority race. This certification is not permanent. It is only valid for one General Election, so candidates have to be re-certified at every General Election. “Does your race change over time” asked Mr Goh. According to Mr Goh, the reason for the certification of minority race is to inform PAP how many wards the Opposition will be contesting. The Election Department reports to the Prime Minister’s Office. Moreover, it creates the perception among minority race candidates that the opposition political parties need them because of their race and not their individual merits such as integrity and political acumen.
Last but not least, Mr Goh touched on the conduct of General Election by the Elections Department. He noted that Singapore does not have a fixed date for General Election, thus there is no incentive for the Elections Department to release periodically a report on electoral boundaries. The Elections Department does not brief partisan players on electoral procedures. This includes issues such as what counts as a voided vote and how votes are counted. The Elections Department needs to beef up in this aspect.
The Elections Department is also in charge of venue booking during General Election campaign period. Rallies are important for opposition parties as they are the only means for an Opposition political party to access masses during the campaign period. “Singapore has a very primitive way for the Opposition to book rally venues. People has to start queuing up the night before [outside the Elections Department],” said Mr Goh. Online booking of venues is so prevalent today. Mr Goh noted that the ruling party benefits from the current set-up as it can easily mobilise a lot of people to queue, unlike any of the Opposition political parties.
There were 2 other panelists – Mr Chia Li Tik (Secretary-General of the Socialist Front) and Dr James Gomez (Executive Director of SFD). Film maker Martyn See was the workshop moderator. The workshop, titled SFD Election Consultation, was held at Post Museum on 2 Oct 2010 (Saturday) from 1500 to 1800. There were 50 participants in total. The 3 panelists had campaigned together as candidates under the Workers’ Party in the 2001 General Election.
“A team building process cannot be based on a common enemy. It is not sustainable over the long term, ” Mr Goh Meng Seng told participants at a public workshop on electoral reform organised by Singaporeans For Democracy (SFD). “What will happen [to Opposition unity] when LKY dies or when PAP looses half its support?” This reply was a response to a question from the floor on Opposition unity. Mr Goh is the Secretary-General of the National Solidarity Party (NSP) and a panelist at the workshop. The 40-year-old politician was elected to the top post at NSP this February.
He told participants that PAP practises confrontational politics because of its historical baggage with colonialism and communism. As such, it is not unusual for PAP to treat Opposition politicians as troublemakers. This mindset is not sustainable. “You must first believe that the Opposition is part of the government, but plays a different role,” Mr Goh told the participants.
The ‘troublemaker’ mindset is evident in the Political Donation Act. Total anonymous donation to political parties cannot exceed S$5,000 a year. This limit is hardly enough to cover a year’s rent of office space for the political party. To make matters worse, the Singapore Land Authority does not permit residential spaces (e.g. HDB flat) to be used for conducting political activities. Yet, MPs can rent void deck space of HDB flats for political outreach. Moreover, PAP MPs enjoy a discount when they rent the HDB void deck space through the People’s Association.
This constraints political competition in Singapore. Mr Goh pointed out that political competition is good for the state. This is why political parties in Hong Kong and Taiwan enjoy state funding as long as the parties can win votes above a particular threshold. Perhaps Singapore should do the same to allow the current political system to be more balanced. Political parties are agent of change, but change still must come from the electorate. The electorate has to believe in fairness in the political system.
In Singapore, the elected MP is not given funds to set up an office in his constituency. In Hong Kong, the elected representatives and town councillors receive state funding to pay for the office rent and staff salaries for the operation of his office. In comparison, Singapore is very primitive. Opposition MPs have to meet their constituents in the HDB void deck. Certain constituents require privacy when meeting their MP but this is not possible if the Opposition MP has no office space.
Mr Goh also shared his concern that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had refused to call for by-election in response to the news that Dr Balaji Sadasivan, a MP of the Ang Mo Kio GRC, had passed away from Colon Cancer. The Prime Minister’s rationale is that the remaining MPs in the same GRC can take on his roles and responsibilities. Mr Goh pointed out that a MP has 2 roles: (1) serve the constituents; and (2) debate in parliament. “How can anyone simply replaces another MP to debate in parliament?” he said.
He opined that the problem of by-election can be circumvented by proportional representation. In proportional representation, by-election can be circumvented more fairly as it allows the party to internally select a new representative to take over the vacated MP post. While it may not be fair to aspiring MPs who are alive, proportional representation is more inclusive. For example, proportional representation allows LGBT interest to become an election agenda, unlike the current situation, whereby first-past-the-post system restricts General Election candidates to campaign along mainstream issues. After all, LGBT members are still members of society.
Mr Goh also raised another concern relating to the GRC – race politics. The Election Department requires the certification of race of General Election candidates of minority race. This certification is not permanent. It is only valid for one General Election, so candidates have to be re-certified at every General Election. “Does your race change over time” asked Mr Goh. According to Mr Goh, the reason for the certification of minority race is to inform PAP how many wards the Opposition will be contesting. The Election Department reports to the Prime Minister’s Office. Moreover, it creates the perception among minority race candidates that the opposition political parties need them because of their race and not their individual merits such as integrity and political acumen.
Last but not least, Mr Goh touched on the conduct of General Election by the Elections Department. He noted that Singapore does not have a fixed date for General Election, thus there is no incentive for the Elections Department to release periodically a report on electoral boundaries. The Elections Department does not brief partisan players on electoral procedures. This includes issues such as what counts as a voided vote and how votes are counted. The Elections Department needs to beef up in this aspect.
The Elections Department is also in charge of venue booking during General Election campaign period. Rallies are important for opposition parties as they are the only means for an Opposition political party to access masses during the campaign period. “Singapore has a very primitive way for the Opposition to book rally venues. People has to start queuing up the night before [outside the Elections Department],” said Mr Goh. Online booking of venues is so prevalent today. Mr Goh noted that the ruling party benefits from the current set-up as it can easily mobilise a lot of people to queue, unlike any of the Opposition political parties.
There were 2 other panelists – Mr Chia Li Tik (Secretary-General of the Socialist Front) and Dr James Gomez (Executive Director of SFD). Film maker Martyn See was the workshop moderator. The workshop, titled SFD Election Consultation, was held at Post Museum on 2 Oct 2010 (Saturday) from 1500 to 1800. There were 50 participants in total. The 3 panelists had campaigned together as candidates under the Workers’ Party in the 2001 General Election.
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Singaporeans For Democracy Elections Forum
I will be speaking at the Elections Forum organized by Singaporeans For Democracy (SfD)
Date: 2 October 2010
Time: 3-6pm
Venue: Post Museum,107+109 Rowell Road S209033 (directions)
I will touch on mainly three aspects of the electoral system here.
1) The Electoral Process
2) Unreasonable rules
3) Alternative System
All are welcomed.
Goh Meng Seng
Date: 2 October 2010
Time: 3-6pm
Venue: Post Museum,107+109 Rowell Road S209033 (directions)
I will touch on mainly three aspects of the electoral system here.
1) The Electoral Process
2) Unreasonable rules
3) Alternative System
All are welcomed.
Goh Meng Seng
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
