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

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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.

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

Taiwan Government encourages installation of Flood Gates

In one of National Solidarity Party's press statement released after Singaporeans experiencing frequent flooding in Singapore, we have recommended the PAP government to consider subsidizing individual households and small businesses who are adversely affected by the floods. However, PAP government has not responded, neither did the main stream media dare to publish anything about it.

It seems that not only the British government has implemented the flood gate installation program, even the Taiwanese government has praised the effectiveness of such implementation of the flood gates.

After the big disastrous flooding caused by typhoon Morakot last year, the Taiwanese government responded by coordinating the installation of flood gates:

Morakot Relief and Reconstruction
Reconstruction Council: Government will coordinate installation of floodgates to boost flood prevention in disaster areas

Publication Date：08/27/2009
Deputy Executive Director Chern Jenn-chuan of the Southern Office of the Morakot Post-Disaster Reconstruction Council said August 27 that in order to improve flood-prevention capabilities of people in disaster areas, Premier Liu Chao-shiuan had directed the Construction and Planning Agency (CPA) of the Ministry of the Interior to provide full subsidies for installation of floodgates in Linbian and Jiadong townships. The CPA shall also oversee local government polling of township residents as soon as possible concerning their willingness to erect floodgates. As long as residents are willing, the CPA shall call on existing contract floodgate vendors to complete installation within seven days.

Chern went on to explain that Linbian and Jiadong are low-lying areas of Pingtung County, so the public in these rural townships should remain on high alert before the water has fully receded in order to cut post-disaster risks. He stressed that Premier Liu has instructed that comprehensive disaster response preparations be completed at both the central and local government levels to reduce future disaster damage or losses.

(Source: Southern Office, Morakot Post-disaster Reconstruction Council, Executive Yuan, August 27, 2009)

I sincerely hope that the PAP government will respond positively for the benefits of Singaporeans who are affected by such flash floods. The following is the news from Taiwan:

馬：高市退回防水閘門 補助 很可惜

* 2010-09-26
* 中國時報
* 【呂素麗、張立勳／綜合報導】

　馬英九總統昨日下午到災情慘重的高雄文藻外語學院巡視，他說，防洪不外乎是「外水不越堤防，內水不入家門」，他大力推崇防水閘門是「小兵立大功」，曾在台北市防洪上發揮極大效果，他強調，「高雄市安裝防水閘門比例不高，還把中央補助的八千萬元退回，很可惜！」

　馬英九總統是在聽取文藻外語學院簡報淹水災情之後，當著高雄市長陳菊、國民黨高雄市長參選人黃昭順及多名官員的面前，突然「數落」高雄市安裝防水閘門比例不高，令人感覺暗藏選戰機鋒。

　在場的陳菊基於禮貌，不便打斷總統致詞而未立即回應，但私下對此表示，防水閘門確實對防水有幫助，可是不具強迫性，市府不能勉強要求市民一定要裝設。她說，過去高雄市民對安裝不踴躍，未來市府願檢討並將鼓勵民眾增設防水閘門，一起來防災。

　馬英九在巡視時表示，這次颱風雨量超大，六小時下了六十公分的水上來，很難不淹水，而文藻大淹水主要是愛河的水進來，校園的水又排不出去所致。

　馬英九相當推崇防水閘門，他舉台北市為例，他說，台北市淹水淹怕了，「久病成良醫」，知道如何防水，其中以防水閘門效果最好，他當市長時，鼓勵市民安裝防水閘門，有八成安裝後很滿意；這次凡那比颱風，行政院已決定動用第二預備金，補助一半安裝防水閘門的費用，希望民眾多安裝。

　他指出，去年莫拉克颱風後，中央特別從預算一千二百億元中撥出十五億元補助縣市政府做防水閘門，屏東縣做了一萬一千多件、高雄縣做了一萬件，但高雄市只做了一千一百十二件，花了七百萬元，還把沒花完的八千萬元退還給中央，他覺得很可惜。

　根據教育部統計，凡那比颱風造成七百五十三所學校受損，災損共九億一千四百多萬元，高雄市占了三億多元，其中又以文藻外語學院及高雄大學最嚴重，災損各為一億六千萬元及一億二千萬元，兩校都在災後停課一周，下周一才恢復上課；立委黃昭順建議教育部，專案處理補助兩校的災損。

　馬英九總統昨日下午也前往高雄縣仁武工業區和永安漁會關心受災情況，高雄縣長楊秋興向馬總統提出治水計畫，在阿公店溪、典寶溪與曹公圳等水系，預計施做十三座滯洪池，包含土地與工程費用，總計約九十億。

　黃昭順則提議，永安地區淹水狀況不同，希望淹水補助標準降至卅公分，但礙於現行法令不可行，馬總統則表示，研議是否修法幫助凡那比颱風受災戶。

Working Poor

About nine years ago, Jame Gomez was talking about "New Poor" in Workers Party's various rallies. But after nine years down the road, many people are talking about "Working Poor". i.e. It is no longer "New" but just as any other average guy or gal in the work force who are now considered as "Poor".

What has happened throughout this period that created this Working Poor phenomenon? The widening gap of income inequality caused by Globalization as well as ultra-capitalism has taken its toll on the middle class in all societies. The changing of labour conditions also caused a great diminishing middle class in many societies, including Singapore.

Karl Marx has predicted the eventuality of the diminishing middle class which will create social class struggle within an economy, if Capitalism is allowed to go to the fullest extreme and unregulated or checked.

This is especially so in Singapore when our country is just a little red dot on Earth. There will always be "Cheapest, Fasterest, Betterest" labour else where who are willing to come to work in Singapore. There are billions of people on Earth and Singapore only need a few millions of them.

What it would mean to Singaporeans is that without proper checks and control, each and everyone of us could be replaced by some other "Foreign Talents". Our wages will be forever suppressed or stagnant, which is the case right now. In spite of wonderful Economic Growth, the real income of the working class has stagnated in the past 10 years. Some even face depression of wages and some, worst, retrenched and face either structural unemployment or simply underemployment. Thus, our Working Poor emerges.

The problems of Working Poor will continue to deteriorate in the years to come in Singapore. Without a proper social safety net, we will face more Singaporeans being displaced by the "Cheapest, Fasterest, Betterest" Foreign Labour. Wages will continue to be suppressed while cost of living will continue to rise, mainly due to higher rental charges.

Standards and quality of living will go down while cost of living goes up.

Jobs is no longer a problem; Jobs that pay enough to sustain decent livelihood will be the main problem. It is under such circumstances that places like Hong Kong and Malaysia are setting minimum wages for their vulnerable group of workers.

The widening income gap is the main concern that this PAP government has refused to acknowledge. If this is allow to carry on, social tension will mount. What will become of Singapore? I really don't want to imagine.

But here are some key indications:

1) Singaporeans can no longer afford a decent HDB flat. It takes two income earners to take up a 30 years mortgage to pay for a decent HDB flat. Singaporeans may need to pay a 35 years or even 40 years mortgage if things carry on like this.

2) There will not be enough CPF savings for retirement for 80% of Singaporeans.

3) Singaporeans will have no retirement at all and will have to work until the day they die. This is what PAP and the Main Stream Media trying to "mentally condition" Singaporeans into believing that working until death is "NORMAL" or even "GOOD FOR YOU".

4) There will be more people living in poverty when they get older. Well, new definition of poverty will emerge.

5) Social instability. There are already ground grumbles and whispers of great discontent on the ground. If this carries on without proper social safety net being set up, I really don't dare to imagine what will happen in the near future.

Goh Meng Seng

Casino levy to be RAISED after the elections?

Yesterday, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan released some startling statistics. According to media reports, more 1 million visits to the casino have been made by Singaporeans in the past 7 months.

Based on these numbers, it is obvious that the bulk of the record profits reported by the casinos are being earned from Singaporeans rather than foreigners.

As an immediate stop gap measure, the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) has issued directives to stop the casino from engaging in activities that encourage Singaporeans to visit the casinos. These include free shuttle rides to the casinos and media releases that showcase big winnings by gamblers.

In the longer run, it is obvious that these stop gap measures will have only a limited impact . There are more than 1 million visits to the casino in the past 7 months are made by Singaporeans. It appears the exiting levy ($100 per 24 hours and $2000 per year) is NOT having the desired effect of deterring Singaporeans from visiting the casino.

WILL THE LEVY BE RAISED AFTER THE ELECTIONS ARE OVER?

If there are no plans to raise the levy, Minister Balakrishnan should state this clearly.

If the number of Singaporean gamblers continues to surge and we start seeing a large number of broken families due to problem gambling, we can then hold Minister Balakrishnan accountable for having failed to manage the social problems of the casinos.

I am also interested to know some of the unpublished figures to determine the extend of the impact of Casinos on Singaporeans:

1) What is the total number of visits by foreigners to the casinos within the same period of time? This figure is important for us to assess on whether these casinos are “successful” in attracting MORE foreigners than Singaporeans. The KPI for this success is for every local Singaporean patrons, the casinos should attract 4 foreign patrons (20-80 ratio).

2) I would like to know the number of Singaporean who have signed up the $2000 yearly membership. On top of that, I also want to know the breakdown of the number of visits by Singaporeans, including those holding the $2000 membership. Eg. How many visited the Casino only once in the 7 months. How many visited twice, three times, four times…. etc. This is to determine the social impact of the Casinos on Singaporeans.

I believe MCYS has all these data and it is time to do a review on the casinos.

There are still problems of Casinos providing rolling credits (Casino operators basically turn into money lenders!) and not stating clearly the odds of each different games. But I guess we will have to do it one at a time as it seems that Minister Balakrishnan may not be able to cope with too many things simultaneously.

Goh Meng Seng

No Race-based Politics in Singapore?

During the launch of NSP Malay Bureau last Saturday, a Malay reporter asked me whether NSP is moving towards "race based politics" with the launch of this Malay Bureau.

My instantaneous response is, "Aren't we living in a political system full of race based politics and policies already?"

Coincidentally, MM Lee was reported talking to foreign correspondent about how Singapore will fall into "race based politics" if we to allow more political liberalization.

Let me get this clear here, Singapore under PAP's rule, has already been engaging race based politics all this while! From the HDB racial quota rule, GRC system to setting up of Mendaki, Sinda, CDAC, all these are race-based politics. Although PAP's Rajaratnam has written the National Pledge on "regardless of race, language or religion", but that is all "Highfalutin ideals" in PAP's eyes!

And the truth is, the ideal of cultivating a "Singapore Singaporean" has been subtly put off because of the recognition of the racial fundamentals of various ethnic groups in Singapore. That is why PAP starts putting up the HDB racial quota rule, set up racially based Mendaki, Sinda and CDAC... etc.

GRC is set up precisely because in PAP's eyes, "minority candidates" (I do not like to use the word minority at all) could not win a single ward seat because of the assumption that the Chinese would be biased and vote according to racial lines. This is in spite of the fact that BOTH PAP's and Opposition's Malays, Indians and candidates of other races have won elections for decades!

These changes are initiated basically because PAP realized that it has somewhat lost some support of the Malay and Indian communities back in the 1980s electoral contests. It wasn't a problem for the 1960s or the 1970s. But when Mr. JB Jeyaratnam started to break PAP's total monopoly of power in 1982 by-elections, PAP started to play the race cards. The high concentration of “minority votes” was considered as one of the prime reason why opposition parties in the 1980s were able to score well. Thus the HDB racial quota rule sets in. GRC was set up. Eventually, racially based organizations like Mendaki, Sinda and CDAC were set up as well.

Thus, I cannot understand how opposition parties could be insinuated as the ones who will go into "race based politics" when PAP has already covered all these racial aspects!

The truth is, any politicians or political parties will not survive politically if one is to concentrate on a single racial issue! This is basically because by being singular racially based, you will lose the support of other races. The ONLY WAY for a political party to win the elections is by winning the TRUST OF ALL RACES!

This is why PAP has gone into multiple race-based system with the set up of Mendaki, Sinda and CDAC. Yes, these are race based, but they are multiple race-based.

Should we be worried about anyone going into race-based politics? Singular race based politics? Apparently not. That would be the most stupid thing for a politician to do. He will not get support from the other races at all! How could he be taken seriously?

I believe most Singaporeans nowadays, regardless of race, language and religion, would not buy that kind of racial rhetoric even from people of their own race. We are an open society with citizens who are exposed to the outside world. We may be concerned about issues that are particularly important to our own racial community but that does not mean that we will go all out to encroach into other races' space.

There are still social or even political problems which are specific to different races. This is something we cannot avoid. This is why any political parties who are serious in the long term political development of Singapore, will have to address it in an open manner. We cannot just pretend differences in race don't exist. But we must always bear in mind that we need to apply fairness and critical considerations in a just and balanced manner to all problems face by different races.

PAP has jealousy guarded itself as the only party that could deal with race based politics in Singapore. Anybody who dares to challenge this position would normally face "demolition" from its leaders. Jufrie and Tang Liang Hong are those special cases for us to examine closely. Incidentally, both of them represented the same opposition party, Workers Party at different point of time. One would wonder how could two "accused" racial (i.e. Malay and Chinese) chauvinists ever serve the same party at all.

Strategically speaking, such deliberate racial divides enhanced by the present the race based political setting, would require any political parties to convince each and every Singaporeans of all different races that they could well represent their interests in parliament, in a balanced way. It is not a simple task to accomplish especially so when PAP has deliberately set the OB markers for all other opposition parties from touching "race based issues" while itself dominates the race based agenda.

As the leader of NSP, I feel the need to address such challenges. Forming the Malay Bureau is my first step towards establishing a party which will be seen as a multi-racial party which will take all views from all races into considerations. NSP must be seen to be the other party which is able to take care of all races in helping them to mitigate or voice out their concerns in parliament in a balanced and responsible way. If I could, I would like to form the Indian Bureau for NSP if I could get critical mass of Indian Singaporeans to join us as well.

The point I want to make here is that, don't be frighten by PAP's scare tactic on "race based politics". As long as a political party is responsible in dealing with all race based issues in a balanced, fair and just manner, there is nothing wrong to be all inclusive in our approach of forming Malay and Indian Bureaus, just like PAP forming Mendaki, Sinda and CDAC.

There might be competing ideas among different races. But I think we should have the wisdom to resolve such differences while working towards our common interests as a Nation.

NSP is definitely not going into a narrow path of singular race based platform. In fact, I asked the reporter one simple question, NSP has always been seen as a "Chinese party" in the past. Won't the formation of the Malay Bureau actually diffuse such racially based perception once and for all? Won't it be seen as more racially balanced if we have Malay Bureau as well as Indian Bureau in NSP? How could we be perceived as "race based" political party when we are in fact moving towards in building a multi-racial political party platform?

If anyone wants to accuse NSP of being race-based party, they should reconsider us as "multi-race based" party.


Goh Meng Seng

National Solidarity Party plans to field some 30 candidates in next GE

Media Conference Brief

1) This is the official launch of Malay Bureau of National Solidarity Party.

2) This is to provide a platform for Singaporeans to gather and discuss on issues important to the Malay community.

3) It also allows issues pertinent to the Malay community to be heard in proper public discourses so as to achieve better understanding among Singaporeans and racial harmony.

4) It also provides a platform for passionate and dedicated Malay Singaporeans to participate in Singapore’s electoral politics meaningfully and contribute to the political development of Singapore.

5) Ms Nor Lella Mardiiiah Binte Mohamed will head the Malay Bureau while Mr. Syafarin Sarif will be the Secretary. They will be the key appointment holders leading a core team including Mr. Ramli as Organizing Secretary, Mr. Yadzeth as Treasurer and Abdul Mr. Salim as Assistant Secretary.

6) With the formation of this Malay Bureau, NSP is ready and determined to send our first Malay candidate into parliament, whether as MP or NCMP.

7) NSP is now confident to achieve its initial target of fielding 20 candidates in the coming elections with this formation of Malay Bureau.

8) We are now working towards fielding 30 candidates as we are now expecting more Malay potential candidates to join us.

9) As long as anyone who has the passion to serve, has the right attitude towards politics as the means of public service and the ability to be the effective voice of the people, we welcome them to join us.

Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party

Broken promises of Casino?

I have wanted to write about this issue earlier but couldn't get the appropriate "evidence" in time. But it seems that the PAP has taken a step faster than me this time round.

When PAP decided to build these two Casino Resorts (yes, I refuse to fool my readers on the true nature of these resorts by calling them "Integrated Resorts"), they have declared openly that these Casino Reports' primary targets are foreigners/tourists.

However, it seems that Casino operators do not agree with the government at all. This brochure from Resort World is distributed ALL ROUND ISLAND. It provides shuttle bus schedules which covers North South East West and Central.



If we take a good look inside this brochure, we will find a total of 19 pick up points all over Singapore being served by this FREE SHUTTLE BUS service. There are two full pages of DETAILED schedule:



Some may think that there is nothing wrong for Resort World to provide free shuttle service for Singaporeans who want to visit the Universal Studio. But wait, take a closer look at the time scheduled. On normal weekdays, the last bus leaving from most "terminal" bus stop is at 10pm while returning shuttle bus service also ends at about 10pm. However, during week days, the Universal Studio closes at 7pm!

During weekends or public holidays, the timing is even more absurd: last shuttle bus ends at 12am in some places while others ends after 2am! So who do these FREE SHUTTLE BUSES serve? Apparently, only the Casino operates 24 hours!



The above are all documented evidences I have gathered. Marina Sands also provides Free Shuttle Service but I do not have the details. But Sands has the advantage of situated right next to the MRT station.

It is obvious that the Free Shuttle Bus service is aimed at local Casino patrons. Resort World seems to take the fastest step to "rectify" the situation by declaring that all Free Shuttle Bus service to the heartlands will stop with immediate effect. Is this a sign of self confession even before MCYS completes its "investigation"?

Well, does the fault lies only on the Casino operator?

It is unimaginable that the authority didn't know about all these scheduled free shuttle bus services at all. First of all, license needs to be issued to these buses to ferry the public. To run such scheduled service round island at different intervals, it will need at least 10 buses for these 5 zones. Did LTA know about such service?

The Free Shuttle Bus service has been running for quite a few months. (I first heard about it in May.) Brochures have been distributed island wide. There is even signboard tied on lamp posts at the respective pick up point!
Photo from Channel News Asia Website

How could such an extensive operations escape the ears and eyes of this government? It actually takes months to react to it?

I am not too sure how the new law created specially for governing Casino operators say about those operators who breach rules on marketing the Casino to local patrons. But I think it is important for the PAP to keep up to its words that these two Casino Resorts are marketing aggressively to local population.

This Free Shuttle Bus service is just the tip of the iceberg. I was told that personalized letters to individuals have been sent to market the Casino. I was even told that credit card holders or some VIPs were given special privileges for visiting the Casino. Are they allowed to do all these local marketing?

Casino gambling is a vice, no matter what. While we ban advertising for things like cigarettes, why should such vice be allowed to be marketed to the people? Besides, PAP has reiterated that such Casino Resorts are meant for Foreigners and Tourists but it seems that this is not the case at all!

I am a staunch Anti-Casino person. I have delivered a speech back in 5 March 2005 to reason why Casino is bad for Singapore. The PAP has claimed that the successful casino in the world has 80% foreign patrons with only 20% local gamblers. But in Singapore, we have seen that the gamblers in casino here consists of 60% of local gamblers! But yet, they are still marketing the casino to local population!

Apparently, the Casinos have broken their promise of focusing on foreign gamblers. They are not keeping to their own term of success, attracting 80% of foreigners but instead, concentrating on marketing to local population!

The other area of problem is the huge amount of credits that the casino operators could grant to its patrons. We just realize that one Singapore businessman has lost $26milloin to the Casino. This is mainly because the Casino is all willing to grant credit to this man, almost unlimited credit.

I was told that as long as you could put up a $50k deposits, you could possibly get credit terms from the Casino!

My question is this, do Casino operators have any finance license to grant such big loans to its patrons? Are the present laws adequate to cope with such extensive loans or credits given by the Casinos? If Casino is allowed to grant such huge amount of loans/credits to its patrons, then it is apparent that it will become a big money lender as well! Shouldn't it be made to abide to existing finance law?

Most importantly, will PAP do something about it?

Goh Meng Seng

BE RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE PLEASE!

1. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong has finally conceded what the National Solidarity Party (NSP) has been saying all along: that the government’s liberal immigration policy was poorly thought out, and has had an adverse impact on housing plans. In his comments reported by The Straits Times on 7 September 2010, SM Goh offers the implausible excuse that the government was “caught by surprise”.

2. Given that the government sets quotas on the number of foreign workers to be let in to the country every year, it is ridiculous for the government to claim that it was caught flat footed by a sudden surge in immigrants.

3. Mr Mah has said as early back as 2007 that Singapore is planning for a 6.5 million person population within the next 20 years. Apparently, as a Cabinet Minister, Minister Mah is well aware of the direction that this government is heading to. It is thus inexcusable for HDB, under Minister Mah’s charge, not to respond accordingly to the intended population plan. Minister Mah will have to be made accountable for such mismanagement of the housing planning by HDB.

4. SM Goh and the NSP are in complete agreement over one point: the National Development Ministry, helmed by Mr Mah Bow Tan, is the Ministry that should bear the responsibility for the housing bubble that resulted from this surge in immigrants.

5. On the other hand, NSP is doubtful of PAP’s policy of increasing the population size to 6.5million. The falling total fertility rate (TFR) of native Singaporeans means that the government’s race towards the 6.5 million figure will be spearheaded by a further influx of foreigners. Despite the government’s packaging of the 6.5 million figure as a “planning parameter”, Singaporeans will be justified in demanding reassurance given that previous planning parameters have been exceeded, as SM Goh concedes.

6. Singaporeans across almost every demographic have borne the brunt of this poorly thought out policy: low wage workers have seen their incomes decline as foreign workers depress wages, while at the other end young middle income couples have seen public housing continue to rise beyond their means. Every Singaporean taking public transport has seen the reality of a public transport infrastructure bursting at its seams.

7. In light of all of the above, the NSP calls on the government to urgently revise the 6.5 million person population target downwards, and commission an inter-Ministry study with the purpose of accounting to Singaporeans regarding how housing, transport, and social infrastructure can continue to be assured.

8. The NSP also reiterates our stand that new HDB flats should be sold at cost price to citizens. HDB should also consider selling new flats to PR at market price so to ease the demand due to unusual increase in PR population.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary-General,
National Solidarity Party
On behalf of the National Solidarity Party
8 September 2010

NSP RECOMMENDS AFFORDABLE SHORT-TERM SOLUTIONS TO FLASH FLOOD

It has flooded again today, NSP empathize with Singaporeans who have been suffering from these floods which seemingly has become a norm nowadays.

Following our recent call for the government to commission a Committee of Inquiry to look into the recently frequent flash floods, the National Solidarity Party (NSP) has researched into possible short-term solutions to alleviate the problem of flooding temporarily for those who are affected. NSP recommends a combination of three affordable and practical measures that the government can implement quickly as a short-term solution to minimise the threats from future flash floods.

The three short-term measures are: flood alarm system, “Floodgate” and submersible pump.

An effective Integrated Flood Alarm System (IFAS) consisting of Short Message Service (SMS), localized siren and broadcast warnings should be put in place. The government should open up a website for those residents and workers in flood-prone zones who would want to be warned of flash floods via SMS to register themselves there. Whenever a flash flood occurs, the nearest neighborhood police post should deploy personnel to sound off a unique siren around the affected area. Lastly, radio and television broadcast warnings should also be given to drivers and motorists.

We have researched for a relatively cheap, portable and viable “Floodgate” which may help residents and businesses to prevent flooding damaging their properties whenever the need arises. The British Minister, Huw Irranca-Davies, responsible for flood response has made recommendation of the product featured by British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). This product had effectively prevented flooding in business and residential premises where it was deployed. Huw Irranca-Davies, had promised to inject government funding to supply it to Britain’s flood-prone areas. Costing as little as S$700 each, Floodgates may be easily installed into, and removed from, standard doors. We also hope that the PAP government could provide funding for residents and businesses to acquire such cheaper alternative to help alleviate the pain caused by these floods. More details on the product could be found at http://www.floodgate.ltd.uk

Lastly, submersible pumps may be distributed to residents and businesses in flood-prone zones. They can be used to pump flooding water out of their premises if all things fail. The Civil Defense or another defense unit should also be equipped, and deployed, with heavy-duty submersible pumps that are able to channel flooding water into a nearby unblocked drain, river, or reservoir, or the sea.

NSP empathizes with residents and businesses of their pain in coping with these flooding which seems to become a norm after PUB has turned 90% of Singapore into water catchment area. The damages of the few past flooding have surpassed ten million dollars and we believe it will continue to go up.

While NSP believes that the government still needs to commission a Committee of Inquiry to look into long-term solutions, it believes that the above-recommended short-term measures can and should be implemented immediately with government funding in order to safeguard the interests and safety of the residents and businesses in our flood-prone zones.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party

国民团结党：别遗弃任何人

国民团结党对人民行动党只对现有的战备军人表彰而对以往对我国国防和稳定做出贡献的老兵置之不理感到震惊。

行动党可以轻易地说这钱不太重要。但行动党并不了解如此刻意的把老兵之置于这奖励表彰制度之外已经伤了他们的感情，而这并是那$9000的奖励可弥补的伤害。

当总理宣布会对每一位战备军人付与$9000以表彰他们为国家的贡献时，很多新加坡人都为执政党能正视人们对国家的牺牲感到非常高兴。就算我们当中有一些会得到比较少的表扬金，我们也可理解这是政府对我们象征式的奖励。

然而，我们万万没想到行动党会把两三代的老兵给完全忽略掉！这批四十岁以上的男性公民肯定会对如此对待感到气愤。这是不是意味着当人们因老了而再也没有“利用价值”时，这国家就会遗弃他们，对他们以往的贡献完全置之不理吗？这也暴露了行动党那种以实用主义治国的冷酷无情。

不要遗弃任何人。这是军官训练营所提倡的精神，也是国民团结党所坚持的。行动党也附和这口号，但它并没真正履行它自己所提倡的信仰。

国民团结党秘书长
吴明盛

NSP: Leave No Man Behind

From Mr. Brown...

Like many Singaporeans, NSP is shocked to learn that the PAP is only giving due recognition to present NSmen while ignoring those past NSmen who have contributed to the safety and stability of this country.

It is easy for the ruling party to say that it is not just about the money. However, the exclusion of those NSmen in Mindef Reserve from such rewarding system has hurt their feelings more than the mere $9000 in question.

When the Prime Minister mentioned about this hand out of $9000 to NSmen, many Singaporeans are happy and glad that the PAP has not forgotten of the sacrifices and contributions that Singaporeans have made towards this country. Even though some of us may not get the full amount eventually, but at least it is a token of appreciation by the government that matters.

However, we do not expect the PAP to miss out a whole two or three generations of older male Singaporeans who have completed their full cycle of National Service. This leaves a bitter taste in them and it seems to indicate that once they have passed their “useful” time to the Nation, the PAP will just abandon them aside. Such move betrays the cold, clinical pragmatism of PAP rule. It also makes us wonder whether PAP will abandon all of us when we become old and incapable to contribute to the country in time to come!

Leave no man behind. This is what NSP believes in as what the Officer Cadet Course would teach all leaders of SAF. This is also the mantra of PAP but it just doesn’t really practise what it preaches.


Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party

NSP: Response to PM Lee's Nation Day Rally Speech

We are glad to hear the Prime Minister addressing the various key problems that we have been raising for the past one year in his National Day Rally speech.

However, at closer examination, we have the following key points to make:

$60 billion for MRT infrastructure over 10 years

1. Where would the government get the funding of $60B from?

2. Will the PAP government increase the GST to 10% or raise other taxes to get additional funding? Will the public transport fares increase to finance this expenditure?

3. Will the PAP government keep to the promised time frame of 10 years? The PAP government has delayed various important infrastructure projects, like the building of hospitals as well as the Downtown line, which have resulted in the increased cost of construction. Will the PAP government promise to keep to the budget of $60B instead of allowing it to balloon out of control, just like what happened to the YOG budget?

Measures to keep Housing Affordable

1. We are very confused by the various contradictory signals that the PAP ministers have sent within these few months:

a. Late last year, Minister Mah Bow Tan claimed that housing was still affordable, and that the influx of immigrants was not a main factor causing the rise in resale prices. But now the Prime Minister has acknowledged that the influx of new immigrants has contributed to the rise in resale prices.

b. When Minister Mah put up the first few measures in March 2010 to curb rising resale prices, some Singaporeans questioned the inadequacy of such measures. Minister Mah defended his ministry’s decision and said no other measures would be necessary. But just 5 months down the road, Minister Mah has introduced more drastic measures to curb property prices.

c. In March 2010, Minister Mah claimed that the supply of flats was more than sufficient to meet any surge in demand. However it seems that his ministry must now go into overdrive to ramp up the supply of BTO flats.

d. In March 2010, Minister Mah raised the minimum occupation period for resale flat owners who take bank loans from 1 year to 3 years. Barely a few months later, the ministry is now further pushing it up to 5 years. It seems that HDB is unable to provide any policy stability at all.

e. On 26 June 2010, MM Lee said there probably isn’t any property bubble. But now, Minister Mah admits that a property bubble is in the making.


2. In December 2009, after admitting to being “caught off guard”, Minister Mah reassured us of the ministry’s ability to keep this problem of “unexpected” rise in property prices in check. Yet the contradictions as noted above clearly signal that his ministry continues to lose sight of the severity of the problem.

3. The latest drastic measures have caused unwarranted shocks to the whole system. Those who have based their purchases of HDB flats or private properties on the past policies will face great financial losses. The frequent policy changes will erode investor’s confidence in the government’s competency in dealing with such problems.

4. As long as there isn’t any fundamental change in the pricing mechanism of new HDB flats and the increasing demand of new migrants (Permanent Residents) is not effectively met by other means, we do not see how prices for both new and resale HDB flats can become affordable. NSP reiterates our stand that new HDB flats should be sold at cost price to citizens. HDB should also consider selling new flats to PR at market price so to ease the demand due to unusual increase in PR population.

Immigration Policy

1. We do not think that the Prime Minister understands the real problems caused by the huge influx of foreign labour on the ground.

2. PM Lee has raised the example of coffeeshop owners unable to find Singaporeans who are willing to work until 12a.m. and thus they need to employ foreign workers. But the truth is, to ask workers to work 14 hours or more in a day is an act of exploitation. The labour law should be applied equally on both local and foreign workers. We cannot allow employers to exploit foreign workers just because Singapore workers are unwilling to be exploited.

3. We also notice that there are firms putting up recruitment advertisement which discriminate against either Singapore citizens or races. The liberal FT policy that the PAP government has adopted is partly to be blamed for this discrimination of local Singapore citizens by businesses. This practice has to be stopped and NSP urges the government to set up Commission of Equal Opportunity and setting laws to outlaw discriminatory employment practices.

4. PM Lee has ignored the severity of the depression of wages of both middle and lower income earners due to the influx of foreign labour. There is no mention of any concrete plans to deal with this problem.

5. PM Lee may think that foreign labour will help to create jobs for Singaporeans but the reverse is also true. Many Singaporeans’ jobs have been displaced by foreign labour. The problem is so severe that engineers and managers are now becoming taxi drivers. We have invested lots of money in the education of our citizens but such displacement of jobs of foreign labour has effectively made our investment wasted. Here again, there is no mention of any concrete plans to deal with this problem by PM Lee.

6. Raising workers’ levy alone will not help much in preventing engineers and professionals being displaced by foreign labour. Raising workers’ levy will not prevent exploitation of foreign workers nor save jobs for citizens.

7. Last but not least, this liberal immigration policy has caused a serious problem of income disparity within our society. Wages of both middle and lower income earners have been depressed while some have basically lost their jobs and face underemployment or even unemployment. The widening of income gap and the diminishing of middle class are great concerns to social stability but the Prime Minister has not addressed it either.

Conclusion

Although we feel that the Prime Minister has put up a very good pre-election National Day Rally speech but we still find that the solutions that his government has provided are generally inadequate.

We must bear in mind that all the problems and issues addressed by the Prime Minister are mostly the result of oversight by the various ministries under the charge of the respective ministers. All these problems are not new and have been raised by many people including NSP over the year. These problems could be long anticipated as it is the direct result of PAP government’s deliberate policy of opening the floodgates for foreign workers and migrants to come to Singapore. These “caught off guard” ministers should be responsible and made accountable for their deficiencies.

We also note that the Prime Minister did not resorted to giving out goodies or red packets to citizens as a populist tactic to win support. We would be impressed if PAP decides to abandon its past undesirable election tactic and choose to contest the elections based on its policy views, ideas and plans instead. We would be even more impressed if PAP could put up the boundary report way before the impending general elections. It will open up a new era of healthy political competition and engagement for Singapore.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party

Avoidance of Income Disparity...

Some reporter ask me what I would like to hear from PM Lee's speech and whether those key problems of Housing, Public Transport, Healthcare, floods...etc. Of course, whether PM will give out goodies.

My take is this, the problems of Housing, Public Transport, Healthcare and floods are not simple issues that could be resolved within a short period of time. The fact is, mistakes and oversights have been made by various ministries with regard to the explosive growth in population due to PAP's own FT policy. Whatever he says will not take effect immediately and solve the problems in a short period of time. Thus, most probably he will avoid them.

PAP is just too used to giving out goodies prior to GE since GCT time. Such "populist vote buying exercise" has been entrenched. I would be pleasantly surprised if LHL decided to go into GE without giving out goodies. That would mean Singapore politics will take a turn for a better change in which political contests are based on contest on ideas and strength, instead of pork barrel and vote buying politics. But I guess even if the LHL wanted that way, his party colleagues would not agree. They are just too used to such pork barrel and vote buying politics that they will pressure their leadership to continue doing it. Else, they will feel insecurity and not confident of holding their grounds.

I would want the PM to address the vanishing middle class which result in the worsening of income disparity. When PAP MPs took the signs of engineers turning into taxi driver as a consolation, this is where the problem will explode. Retail stores targeting the middle class have suffered and withdrawn in size. This is a BAD SIGN. We will end up with two extreme polar income earners which will create social tension in the mid and long term. This situation is worsen by the influx of foreign labor which displace the middle class workers or depressing their wages.

These are important issues that could not ignore. But it seems that PAP's economic discourse has always avoid this important issue altogether.

Any students of economics who study Capitalist by Karl Marx would know that such income disparity will eventually result in class struggle and instability. I just hope that our Nation would face this severe problem of income disparity with an open mind and try to resolve it before it is too late.

Goh Meng Seng

转载：新加坡今夜无人做梦？

淡马锡评论

作者：新加坡文献馆

庚寅年农历七月初某夜，一群生话在虚无缥缈之境的新加坡白羽大仙，在各自的空中楼阁就新加坡之梦喃喃自语。

一个说：新加坡是个没有梦想的社会，因为新加坡迅速发展，也变化得快，国人忙于自我鞭策，所以没有追梦的心思。

一个说：新加坡人为了追求物质而产生许多现实顾虑，所以敢于追梦的人不多。

一个说：一次行差踏错会毁了一生的大半积蓄，所以做个好梦只是一种奢望。

一个说：天有不测风云，国家应该爱钱，因为钱可以解决问题。把时间全放在追钱，所以无暇追梦。

一个说：为五斗米折腰的人，钱仅够花用，没有储蓄自然也没有追梦的的奢侈。

一个说：平日无所事事的富二代，爱怎么挥霍就怎么挥霍，有了这样的梦幻生活又何需织梦？

一个说：凡夫俗子生活在金钱矛盾之间，追梦只是另一个梦想罢了，所以斯人无梦。

这些神仙教诲是说：新加坡凡人应该脚踏实地，循规蹈矩的工作，奇思妙想有违务实原则，会危害社会安宁，不利国家经济发展。

时值新加坡45国庆之际，有人说，有了李光耀于是就有了新加坡；这是典型的新加坡痴人说梦。

新加坡人的新加坡历史现实是，有了华惹之梦，有了华校学生之梦，以及有了华印职工之梦所共同滋生的反殖民运动，才历经磨难塑造了一个独立的新加坡。

在这段反殖历史过程中许许多多各个民族的爱国人士，为了追求独立的理想而卖命流血的付出了沉重个人代价，这其中李光耀并非先行者，亦不是付出牺牲代价的受难者，但却是最终的利益收割者。史料上，李光耀的反殖反英事迹是相对的有限。

当年的时代精神就是新加坡人争取独立之梦。如果当年的新加坡年青人没有那种强烈筑梦的意愿与能耐，或许，到了今天新加坡还是米字旗飘扬，国人高歌天佑女皇。

回顾历史，培植与巩固新加坡两大经济支柱之一的本土经济体系，就是得益于南洋先驱的开荒之梦。

清代末叶的鸦片战争之后，天灾人祸使到中国南方的农村经济破产，人民被迫过蕃谋生，离乡背井的先辈就是靠自力更生白手起家。无可置疑的，南洋华社的政治与经济资本就是来自这群先驱的创业致富之梦。

追根究底，新加坡今天的种种成就是来自早年南洋先驱的愚公移山之梦，以及二战后，新加坡年青人的反殖民运动之梦的共同成果。饮水思源，这就是新加坡建国的根本之源。

显然的，追梦是成就新加坡的不可或缺的人文精神元素。

那么，何以在50年李光耀政权之后却会变成‘新加坡是个没有梦想的社会’？

首先，美国梦之所以历久长青是因为美国文化核心价值观的尊重人权和民主精神，都始终受到严峻的宪法保护。在三权分立的政治体制内，个人可以海阔天空去追求与实践自已的梦想。

但是，新加坡在一党专政下，宪法保障有名无实因为法规可以随时任意的修订，甚至于取消。在政权领导政府的格局下，依法执法可以轻易变质为以法凌人。自由环境激励自由思维，当社会丢失了思维空间，个人也就丢失了梦想空间。

其次，美国梦扎根于西方文明的以人为本的精神。这种人文精神突破了神权与封建的政治约束。人于是有了满足欲望的梦想，经济活动就是源于人的欲望无穷。在小政府格局下，个人享有相对大的经济自由，这个流动性极大的社会空间允许个人凭着自已的天赋和勤奋去主动的力争上游。

然而，按李光耀政治思维，人的劳动力只是一个生产因素，所以人只不过是一个经济数据。当人民沦为国家经济生产机器的齿轮之后，个人只能被动的依附着机器转动。

在新加坡的大环境里，个人主动性是不受到鼓励的，甚至于会受到严峻惩罚，因为主动性会破坏政府制定的社会规律，就象在机器里不听使唤，不依规律运作的齿轮是要被替换掉的。

当新加坡人被剥夺了生命的主动性，也就丧失了自我思考的能力，没有了思想，又何来会有欲望去编织新加坡梦？

其三，美国梦除了追求金钱财富的物质文化之外，也追求科学，知识和艺木等精神文化上的超越。

前不久，一名官二代说：务实新加坡人的生活目标是注重一份好工作，追求高素质的医疗和教育，以及满足于干净和安全的生话环境。在国庆晚宴上一名高官亦指出，新加坡人的人生目标应该是：好事业，舒适生话，多生育，关怀与慈善。

新加坡统治阶级所弘扬的是以物质生活为主要考量的狭隘人生观。这种思维下的新加坡只会走向一个缺乏精神文明的物质社会：追求舒适生话是否就是过着神戶牛式的生活？神戶牛是生活在一个很干净，安全，舒适，关怀与医疗照料周到，以及有古典音乐为伴的优质生活环境里。

狭隘的人生观带来没有实质内涵的社会行为。国庆期间有人劳师动众并浪费宝贵资源去创造可乐喷泉的世界记录。同样是虚荣心作祟，新加坡以外包伎俩去争取竞技场上的荣誉。但是，比赛的真实意义並非是为了锦标，而是鼓励个人超越自我的体能与精神界线。

想当然儿，一个有精神文明的高雅社会是不会有这种沽名钓誉的不诚实社会行为。

当一个政府只剩下唯有用钱去解决问题的途径，那么，这一个政府必然是已经处在黔馿技穷的困境。这种了无生机的一潭死水又如何滋生，并且激励人民去追求科学，知识和艺术等精神文化上的超越？

不是吗，吹皱的一池春水才能触动心弦，撩人遐思，令人想入非非？

新加坡从一个有追梦意识的先驱精神社会，演化到如今的一个没有梦想的社会。这种社会文明往后倒退发展的情况确实是一个非常可悲的景象。

社会文明退化的问题事关重大；这并非是一个人的面子，或者是一个政党的荣誉，而是一个国家的未来前程。

当先驱开荒的竞争精神被独裁霸权的垄断精神取代，当爱国精神被爱銭精神取代，新加坡不就己经失去了两个十分宝贵的建国人文元素？

当银行业失去了谨慎与诚实的人文元素之后，霸林就是毁在爱銭的无能之手。雷曼亦是毁于爱銭的欺骗之手。

危言耸听？这乃是前车之鉴。当领导的唯利是图蔚然成为上行下效的不良风气，一个栋梁不正的构筑必然是要坍塌的。

还会有人关心这个病态的新加坡社会吗？

新加坡的聪明人是制度下的既得利益者，他们已经生活在纸醉金迷的梦幻世界里，宛如庄周梦蝶，他们已经无法分辩真实与虚幻，再也体会不到外边的世界是什么模 样；他们对新加坡社会的病态无知无觉。对这群制度的塑造与执行者而言，新加坡社会是完美无瑕的，新加坡制度是值得他人借鉴。

新加坡的奴才和他们的主子同流合污，奴性使然，他们丧失了体恤与同情弱者的慈悲之心。奴才对社会的病态未必是无知无觉，可惜的是已经麻木不仁；入鲍鱼之肆，久而不闻其臭。对这群制度的守护者而言，新加坡社会虽然未必尽善尽美，但是，新加坡制度还是值得他人借鉴。

新加坡的傻子是制度的反对者与制度的受害者。他们努力的，即便受尽了惩罚的苦楚，还是坚毅的要挖掘制度的墙脚，要在制度的墙上开天窗，让外边的艳阳天驱散阴霾，让外边的清新空气冲刷乌烟瘴气。

在 新加坡社会的这三种人群里，聪明人已经在春梦里醉生梦死，再也无需追梦寻梦。奴才干了为虎作伥的勾当，夜晚做的都是恶梦，也就不会有心思去追梦。或许，在 新加坡只有儍子才会去追梦导梦。他们憧憬新加坡的明天会更美好，人人都可以自由自在的表达自已的信念，凭着本身的才华去追逐与实践自已的美梦，让梦想成 真。

新加坡今夜无人入梦？您呢？您有梦吗？

YOG Spending in perspective...

PAP government is spending $387,000,000 for YOG which Singaporeans have shown very little interest. They even need to FORCED students to volunteer in the event while giving them TERRIBLE FOOD!

On the other hand, there are many problems which the PAP is very reluctant to spend money to solve. The recent flooding needs to be solved but at an UNKNOWN cost which the PM said would be TOO HIGH.

ON top of that, PAP government has refused to provide to many less privileged Singaporeans. They have refused 50% of applicants for public assistance.

This $387million was spent to host 5000 athletes and officials for YOG. This means on average, S$77400 was spent for each of the 5000 guests. This could have lasted 5000 citizens who are on public assistance of $360 for almost 18years!

It is time for us to re-examine the priorities of the PAP government. Why would they be willing to spend hundreds of millions on an event which very few Singaporeans are interested in while become a miser unwilling to spend in improving or helping the lives of Singaporeans at large?