We were at Bendemeer market selling our North Star this morning. Someone called up the NEA to come down and check on us. While I keep asking the two nice officers to carry out their duties to summon us and I would admit to selling our papers, they did not take action. NEA under Dr Yaacob should spend more time to check the longkang for debris instead of disturbing opposition parties...
This problem about "illegal hawking" for opposition parties when they go for their ground work and sell their newspaper/newsletter must be solved once and for all.
SDP has tried to apply "hawking license" to sell their papers Democrats before but application was rejected. Most likely nobody in NEA dares to grant that kind of license to opposition parties.
So I would urge NEA to DO THE RIGHT THING, carry out their duties and summon all of us. We will not pay for the summon. We prefer to go to court and go to jail and let the whole world see how PAP government is set to deter opposition parties to carry out their political work on the ground.
Fine all opposition party members, including Mr. Low TK for "illegal hawking". Let's settle this issue once and for all. But in spite of my constant persuasion to the officers to summon us, they have refused and walk away. I actually feel very sorry for them. Someone has sabo them and burn their weekend. Calling their office and sending them down for nothing!
I will let NEA knows where we are going to conduct our "illegal hawking" next Sunday in advance and hope that they carry out their duties properly.
Goh Meng Seng
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Press Statement on recent Floods
I have been in self-imposed retreat for quite a while now. I intended to stay off my blog and the media just for a little longer but it seems that this unbearable reoccurring of floods around the island has forced me to cut short my peaceful retreat. I have issued the following Press Statement on behalf of NSP:
Setup A Committee of Inquiry to look into improving drainage & weather warning system
NSP shares the frustration and disappointment of many Singaporeans whose lives have been severely disrupted by the reoccurring floods in recent days.
The Ministry of Environment and Water Resources under Minister Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim has reportedly spent billions in improvement works on the various canals on this island. However it seems that the situation seems to have little, marginal improvement over the years.
In 2009, when flood hit Bukit Timah, Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim has claimed that it is a once in 50 year happening. We know that this is pure exaggeration as flash floods were happening quite often in that area in the 1970s and 1980s. But since 1990s, millions, if not billions have been spent on improvement works on the Bukit Timah Canal and we would expect floods of such magnitude should be a thing of the past.
On 16 June 2010, Orchard Road was flooded, causing millions of dollars of damage to private properties and businesses. The ministry under Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim has given the excuse of debris blockade.
Today, floods appear again, not only in Orchard Road and Bukit Timah, but in various places around Singapore. What could be the excuse then?
Back in 1999, an article in New Paper has once boasted that Orchard will never flood because of the Stamford Canal. It was said that it will take a COMBINATION of hide tide and 100mm of rainfall within an hour to flood Orchard. But since the Marina Barrage has been built, high tide should not be the main issue here anymore. Could the Marina Barrage be the main issue then?
The first incidence of flooding in Bukit Timah could be excused as Act of God. The second flood in Orchard Road could be excused on the blame of debris. How about the third one? Isn’t it too much of an excuse for such floods to keep reoccurring? Could it be too much of a coincidence that such floods occur after the Marina Barrage has been built?
We hope that the government would form an Independent Committee of Inquiry on this matter. This committee should consist of people who have the expertise to review the whole drainage system in Singapore. Singaporeans should deserve better accountability from the highly paid minister and civil servants instead of resigning to praying to heaven for not flooding Singapore.
On top of that, we would also like to urge the authority and the Committee of Inquiry to look into the possibility of implementing a colour coded weather warning system. This is necessary to reduce the risks of people being exposed to adverse weathers like heavy rains and floods. A Red code rain weather warning would mean that young kids will not have to attend kindergarten while a Black code rain weather warning would mean that all classes in schools should stop. This should reduce the risk of young children being endangered by adverse weather.
Singaporeans want the government to ACT NOW to resolve and improve the drainage as well as weather forecast systems. We hope that the PAP government would respond promptly to this call.
Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General of the 13th CEC
Setup A Committee of Inquiry to look into improving drainage & weather warning system
NSP shares the frustration and disappointment of many Singaporeans whose lives have been severely disrupted by the reoccurring floods in recent days.
The Ministry of Environment and Water Resources under Minister Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim has reportedly spent billions in improvement works on the various canals on this island. However it seems that the situation seems to have little, marginal improvement over the years.
In 2009, when flood hit Bukit Timah, Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim has claimed that it is a once in 50 year happening. We know that this is pure exaggeration as flash floods were happening quite often in that area in the 1970s and 1980s. But since 1990s, millions, if not billions have been spent on improvement works on the Bukit Timah Canal and we would expect floods of such magnitude should be a thing of the past.
On 16 June 2010, Orchard Road was flooded, causing millions of dollars of damage to private properties and businesses. The ministry under Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim has given the excuse of debris blockade.
Today, floods appear again, not only in Orchard Road and Bukit Timah, but in various places around Singapore. What could be the excuse then?
Back in 1999, an article in New Paper has once boasted that Orchard will never flood because of the Stamford Canal. It was said that it will take a COMBINATION of hide tide and 100mm of rainfall within an hour to flood Orchard. But since the Marina Barrage has been built, high tide should not be the main issue here anymore. Could the Marina Barrage be the main issue then?
The first incidence of flooding in Bukit Timah could be excused as Act of God. The second flood in Orchard Road could be excused on the blame of debris. How about the third one? Isn’t it too much of an excuse for such floods to keep reoccurring? Could it be too much of a coincidence that such floods occur after the Marina Barrage has been built?
We hope that the government would form an Independent Committee of Inquiry on this matter. This committee should consist of people who have the expertise to review the whole drainage system in Singapore. Singaporeans should deserve better accountability from the highly paid minister and civil servants instead of resigning to praying to heaven for not flooding Singapore.
On top of that, we would also like to urge the authority and the Committee of Inquiry to look into the possibility of implementing a colour coded weather warning system. This is necessary to reduce the risks of people being exposed to adverse weathers like heavy rains and floods. A Red code rain weather warning would mean that young kids will not have to attend kindergarten while a Black code rain weather warning would mean that all classes in schools should stop. This should reduce the risk of young children being endangered by adverse weather.
Singaporeans want the government to ACT NOW to resolve and improve the drainage as well as weather forecast systems. We hope that the PAP government would respond promptly to this call.
Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General of the 13th CEC
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Dr. Goh Keng Swee - A Singapore Giant
The following is an article by Corporate Observer:
Dr Goh Keng Swee: A S'pore giant
by admin , May 14, 2010, 1000hrs
By Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@corporateobserver.com.sg
SINGAPORE (May 14, 2010) - The man behind Singapore's stellar economic growth- masterminding its economic and industrial policies, among his endless list of contributions, as the republic came into its own following independence - died today at the age of 91 after a long battle with illness.
Dr Goh Keng Swee (1918 - 2010)
Born in Malacca, Dr Goh Keng Swee - dubbed as the "economics wizard" and an alumni of the London School of Economics - was Singapore's former Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) who also helmed the finance, defence and education ministries in his 25-year political career.
One of the founding fathers of Singapore and widely seen as its economic architect, Dr Goh retired from politics in 1984 and had shied away from the public eye. From the country's early days, Dr Goh saw the economic imperative of the Singapore society - a central tenet of governance until today.
Dr Goh's trenchant thinking on Singapore's economy continues to influence present-day policymakers.
He once noted: "For us in Singapore, the road to greater wealth is through thrift, enterprise and hard work. The road to stability lies in prudence and foresight in prosperity, and patience and fortitude in adversity. In the swinging age of the new economies, all this sounds old fashioned and Victorian. No doubt it is, but I think it is unrealistic to expect that doctrines worked out for developed economies, when foreign trade forms a relatively small part of the GNP, would apply in their entirety to the exceptional situation that is ours."
He was responsible for setting up many of Singapore's key government agencies, including the Economic Development Board and the Defence Science Organisation, and oversaw the creation of the Singapore Armed Forces and the Jurong Industrial Estate. His legacy also includes policies such as compulsory conscription for male Singaporeans above 18 years old; the Gifted Education Programme; and streaming and religious education in schools.
The 1979 "Goh Report" greatly influenced the development of Singapore's education system - Dr Goh's idea of streaming, in particular, was conceptualized to provide different curriculum and rate of teaching to children of different abilities but the implementation on the ground, especially in the later years, had strayed from the vision.
When Dr Goh was appointed chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Board of Commissioner of Currency in 1980, he took measures to promote Singapore as an international financial centre - making amendments to three major financial regulations: the Banking Act, the MAS Act and the Finance Companies Act. During the 1985 recession, he acted to stop the downward slide of the Singapore dollar.
Another former DPM, Dr Tony Tan, paid tribute to Dr Goh in an issued statement. Dr Tan is the executive director of Government Investment Corporation of Singapore (GIC) - which was set up with Dr Goh's "pivotal" inputs and based on his "resolute belief in the need to protect and grow the hard-earned wealth of Singaporeans continues to influence the GIC community", said Dr Tan.
Dr Tan added: "Today, the idea of the Sovereign Wealth Fund seems natural, but Dr Goh's focus on reserve management was rare among countries in his time. Dr Goh's farsightedness and fortitude laid the foundation for the development of GIC as stewards of Singapore's foreign reserves."
Apart from having a keen mind for numbers, Dr Goh also appreciated the value of music and leisure - he set up the Singapore Symphony Orchestra and the Jurong Bird Park. Inspired by a free-flight aviary he visited in Rio de Janeiro during a World Bank Meeting, Dr Goh wanted to build the bird park in Jurong - he saw the place as more than an industrial zone - as an outlet for Singapore families to escape from the urban life.
Dr Goh's prudence in maximising Singapore's limited resources was reflected in his personal life in which his legendary parsimony is well-documented.
His wife had previously recounted to this writer how Dr Goh would bring soap flakes and wash his own clothes on official visits overseas. Once, when Dr Goh was hospitalised, he even chided his wife for being a "wastrel" when she took a piece of tissue paper from the box. Dr Goh, his wife said, would carefully tear a piece of tissue paper into half - keeping the other half in his pocket for later use.
A BELIEVER
A rabid saver himself, Dr Goh was behind the setting up of POSB Bank - which had waived the minimum sum required by other banks - to help lower income Singaporeans build up their savings.
For all his penchant for hard-nosed economics, Dr Goh could never reconcile the idea of paying high salaries for public officers, including ministers. When it was announced that the British forces would withdraw from the Suez Canal in the late 1960s, Dr Goh knew it would impact the thousands of workers working in the British military bases in Singapore. He called the Accountant General into his room and told him, "We have to cut civil service pay, go and work it out, starting with me."
When he was offered the post of deputy chairman of MAS following his retirement from politics, Dr Goh was offered the same pay that he was drawing as DPM. He asked to be paid half the amount.
A firm believer in meritocracy, one of Dr Goh's greatest fears for Singapore is that it could become an "old boys' club".
He once said: "In advanced societies, it is not so much open nepotism which is to be feared but the insidious 'old boy' type whereby no legalities (sic) are committed but in which the pinnacles of power, influence and wealth are the reserve of those born into the right families."
Dr Goh added: "A system may arise in which the dominant minority... arrogate to itself not only the openings to the seats of power, but also the avenues by which individuals can fit themselves out for such positions of power. The dominant minority is thus able to point out those outside of the charmed circle just do not have the necessary qualifications to be admitted to the elite group."
Following his retirement, Dr Goh would find it hard to read the newspapers or watch the news on television - knowing that he no longer had an influence on the nation's affairs.
While some may see it a pity that Dr Goh had voluntarily cut short his political career and retreated from the public eye prematurely - so much so that many younger Singaporeans have not heard of him - his wife reiterated that Dr Goh never sought "money, power or glory or even to be honoured".
In a booklet she published in 2008 in tribute of her husband, after she had set up the Goh Keng Swee Foundation, Mrs Goh wrote that Dr Goh "made all the contributions... for the nation and for Singaporeans".
She added: "The fact that today's political leaders can go round the world to sell the Singapore success story is in itself satisfaction for him. Dr Goh himself mentioned that God has given him a reward for what he has done for Singapore. His pastor, Reverend Macolm Tan has said that his reward is in heaven."
Rest in peace, Dr Goh, and thank you.
Friday, May 14, 2010
A Tribute to a National Icon - Dr. Goh Keng Swee
I received news about the passing of Dr. Goh Keng Swee this morning while in Hong Kong. I am very much saddened by this news. Later in the evening, a ST reporter requested a response from me, on behalf of my party. This is what I said to him:
Our nation has lost a great man who has contributed tremendously to our nation building. Although we do not agree totally to some of his past policies but his spirit of socialism and public service are the source of inspiration to many of us. In mourning his death and the lost of our national icon, we would like to remind PAP of their humble democratic socialist root which was fully manifested by the late Dr. Goh Keng Swee. The PAP should reflect upon their great deviation from the socialist foundation which was upheld by Dr. Goh Keng Swee. Last but not least, our deepest condolences to the family of Dr. Goh Keng Swee.
A special Tribute to Dr Goh Keng Swee for raising Singapore up from a poor country to one with strong economic foundation.
I have not met Dr. Goh Keng Swee personally. My first impression of him came from my late father. Although my father was a skeptic of PAP rule, he had shown much respect to Dr. Goh Keng Swee, acknowledging him as the few, if not the only one, who was sincere and always had the interests of the people at heart.
I got to know Dr. Goh Keng Swee better after I became a student of Economics in NUS. I went through pages and pages of those White Papers that he wrote during his tour of duty in many ministerial portfolios. A true blue Socialist at heart and a Visionary in his era. In 1960s when many countries were caught up with protectionism due to the rise of nationalism in the post-colonialism era, he pushed for Free Trade Port and invited foreign investments onto our shores.
From the description of many others who have worked with him, he was someone who would always be very careful of spending every cent of taxpayers' money. He was also someone who would think of ways to lower cost for the benefits of Singaporeans at large.
Although I did not agree with some of his policies, especially streaming and elitist grooming (Gifted) program in education but I have a lot of admiration and respect for Dr. Goh Keng Swee. He has left a legacy which is hard to be matched by anyone in modern history. He has set a high standard for people who are in Public Service, be it civil servants, ministers, politicians or otherwise.
I am inspired by his socialist idealism and pragmatism which are embedded in many of his policies. It is rather sad to see how the contemporary PAP has forsaken much of the solid ideological foundation upon which our nation was created. It was only after the fading away of Dr. Goh Keng Swee from local politics that we started to hear people cynically relating PAP to Pay And Pay. From HDB, COE, Healthcare to Education, we have lost every bit of socialism in them. Cost recovery and even profit making have become the main policy direction for almost all ministries.
While Singaporeans mourn the death of a great man in this Nation, I hope that everyone of us, including PAP members, should reflect upon the stray path that we have been put on since the stepping down of Dr. Goh Keng Swee.
It is very unfortunate that I won't be back in time to pay my last respect to Dr. Goh. May he Rest In Peace.
Goh Meng Seng
Afternote: I will be able to pay my last respect to Dr. Goh after all on 20 May.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Sell New HDB flats at cost instead of asking citizens to sell flats for retirement
We refer to the interview of Minister Mah Bow Tan entitled “Mah Bow Tan on the frontline talking about HDB prices, COV and Elections” published in Lianhe Zaobao on 8th May 2010. On behalf of National Solidarity Party, I would like to make the following response:
We wish to remind Minister Mah Bow Tan that the success of HDB House Ownership scheme is built upon the sacrifices of our forefathers. Without the Land Acquisition Act which empowers and allows the ruling party to acquire almost 80% of land from our forefathers, Singapore would not be able to develop so rapidly and HDB would not be able to execute the House Ownership smoothly.
This is one of the most important land reforms since independence. We could only examine the role of HDB and the pricing mechanism for new HDB flats properly under this context. In its first 20 years, HDB has fulfilled its role under this land reform plan, i.e. utilize the acquired land to build HDB flats and sell them at cheap prices or even under cost to the people, in doing so, redistribute land to the people. This is the fundamental role of HDB. Most people who had their land forcefully acquired did not protest because they knew that they were making sacrifices for the people and the Nation. This is the social contract between the people and the ruling party. The HDB flats has only a 99-year lease and it provides stability to the whole system. It ensures future generations of Singaporeans will have a roof over their heads throughout their life span. This is the basic concept of land reform, distribution and public housing policy.
But now Minister Mah says, “The government cannot sell the new HDB flats at cost because this would mean that flat owners will not be able to sell it at market prices in future.” We do not understand on what basis does Minister Mah make such an assertion. Prior to 1990s, our father’s generation bought their HDB flats at cost or even under cost and now they can still sell their flats in the resale market at market prices. Isn’t this PAP’s policy? The government selling new HDB flats to Singaporeans at cost price has absolutely nothing to do with whether Singaporeans could sell off their flats in the open resale market or not.
Minister Mah also says, “The House Ownership Scheme is most beneficial to Singapore because it could ultimately allow house owners to sell their flats for a profit and use it for retirement. Selling flats at cost price would not achieve such aim.”
First of all, a HOME is not an “investment”. People only use properties as investment when they do not use it as a HOME. It is only when people have their second house then they could consider it as a “tool” for investment!
Secondly, if Singaporeans do not need to suffer from high HDB prices and use their CPF to pay for a 30-year mortgage, they will not need to “sell flats for retirement”! Minister Mah is simply putting the cart before the horse.
Thirdly, we can hardly imagine any first world country or world-class government asking their people to “sell house for retirement”!
Fourthly, can Minister Mah guarantee that each and every generation of Singaporeans can sell their flats at good prices when they retire? Can such scheme work in a rapidly aging society? From the economic perspective, it is totally unsound. In a rapidly aging society, there will be more elderly people than youngsters for the next 20 to 30 years, meaning more sellers of HDB flats than buyers! How can prices be good in such a market situation?
The root of the problem lies with the fact that prices of new HDB flats have outstripped income growth for the past 30 years. Our last generation paid only a 10 or 15-year mortgage for their HDB flats but now, our present and future generations will have to pay a 30-year mortgage for their new HDB flats! If they are married at 30 years old, they can only finish paying up their mortgage by 60 years old. By then, there will be little money left in their CPF. This is why they need to “sell flats for retirement”!
We call upon Minister Mah and PAP to take their responsibilities as embedded in the social contract of land reform seriously and fulfill them, instead of trying to shrug it off by using all sorts of flawed reasoning and excuses. We do not expect the ruling party to meddle with the resale market but we hope that HDB could resume its original role by publishing the cost of all new HDB flats and selling them at cost price to first time Singaporean buyers.
Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party
We wish to remind Minister Mah Bow Tan that the success of HDB House Ownership scheme is built upon the sacrifices of our forefathers. Without the Land Acquisition Act which empowers and allows the ruling party to acquire almost 80% of land from our forefathers, Singapore would not be able to develop so rapidly and HDB would not be able to execute the House Ownership smoothly.
This is one of the most important land reforms since independence. We could only examine the role of HDB and the pricing mechanism for new HDB flats properly under this context. In its first 20 years, HDB has fulfilled its role under this land reform plan, i.e. utilize the acquired land to build HDB flats and sell them at cheap prices or even under cost to the people, in doing so, redistribute land to the people. This is the fundamental role of HDB. Most people who had their land forcefully acquired did not protest because they knew that they were making sacrifices for the people and the Nation. This is the social contract between the people and the ruling party. The HDB flats has only a 99-year lease and it provides stability to the whole system. It ensures future generations of Singaporeans will have a roof over their heads throughout their life span. This is the basic concept of land reform, distribution and public housing policy.
But now Minister Mah says, “The government cannot sell the new HDB flats at cost because this would mean that flat owners will not be able to sell it at market prices in future.” We do not understand on what basis does Minister Mah make such an assertion. Prior to 1990s, our father’s generation bought their HDB flats at cost or even under cost and now they can still sell their flats in the resale market at market prices. Isn’t this PAP’s policy? The government selling new HDB flats to Singaporeans at cost price has absolutely nothing to do with whether Singaporeans could sell off their flats in the open resale market or not.
Minister Mah also says, “The House Ownership Scheme is most beneficial to Singapore because it could ultimately allow house owners to sell their flats for a profit and use it for retirement. Selling flats at cost price would not achieve such aim.”
First of all, a HOME is not an “investment”. People only use properties as investment when they do not use it as a HOME. It is only when people have their second house then they could consider it as a “tool” for investment!
Secondly, if Singaporeans do not need to suffer from high HDB prices and use their CPF to pay for a 30-year mortgage, they will not need to “sell flats for retirement”! Minister Mah is simply putting the cart before the horse.
Thirdly, we can hardly imagine any first world country or world-class government asking their people to “sell house for retirement”!
Fourthly, can Minister Mah guarantee that each and every generation of Singaporeans can sell their flats at good prices when they retire? Can such scheme work in a rapidly aging society? From the economic perspective, it is totally unsound. In a rapidly aging society, there will be more elderly people than youngsters for the next 20 to 30 years, meaning more sellers of HDB flats than buyers! How can prices be good in such a market situation?
The root of the problem lies with the fact that prices of new HDB flats have outstripped income growth for the past 30 years. Our last generation paid only a 10 or 15-year mortgage for their HDB flats but now, our present and future generations will have to pay a 30-year mortgage for their new HDB flats! If they are married at 30 years old, they can only finish paying up their mortgage by 60 years old. By then, there will be little money left in their CPF. This is why they need to “sell flats for retirement”!
We call upon Minister Mah and PAP to take their responsibilities as embedded in the social contract of land reform seriously and fulfill them, instead of trying to shrug it off by using all sorts of flawed reasoning and excuses. We do not expect the ruling party to meddle with the resale market but we hope that HDB could resume its original role by publishing the cost of all new HDB flats and selling them at cost price to first time Singaporean buyers.
Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party
政府应该以成本价售新组屋而不是叫人民卖屋养老！
谨《联合早报》于2010年5月8日刊登之“谈屋价 谈溢价 谈大选 马宝山上火线”，我代表国民团结党作以下回应：
我们想提醒马宝山部长，建屋局居者有其屋计划的成功是建立在许许多多先辈们的牺牲和贡献上。如果没有土地征收法令赋予执政党权力，以超低价格向我们先辈们征收超过八成的土地，新加坡就没能发展得如此迅速，建屋局也不可能这么顺利执行居者有其屋计划。
这是我国开国以来的一大重要土地改革计划。只有在这大前提下，我们才能很好的去谈建屋局的角色和制定新组屋价格的机制。建屋局在头二十年里，履行了它在这土地改革计划的任务，那就是把征收回来的土地，建好组屋以成本价或甚至成本津贴价格，把土地重新分配给广大民众。这也就是建屋局的基本职责。那一些土地被强行征收的国人，大多数也没抗议，因他们了解这是为国家广大民众利益而做出牺牲。这就是人民和执政党的社会契约。当然，组屋的地契也只有99年。这为整个体系提供了稳定性，确保世世代代的新加坡人都能拥有房屋过一辈子。这就是整个土地改革、分配和住屋政策的基本概念。
马部长现在说“在售卖新组屋时，政府也不能以成本价出售，因为这意味屋主往后在售屋时也不能以市场价格销售。”我们不明白马部长的言论有何根据。我们的父辈曾经在90年代以前以低于成本价购得政府组屋，而如今他们也能够在公开市场上销售。这难道不是行动党政府的政策吗？政府以成本价出售新组屋仅是它履行那社会契约的承诺，这跟国人能不能在公开市场上销售他们的组屋根本是两码事！
马部长还说“居者有其屋政策对新加坡最有利，因为它最终能让屋主在退休年龄时卖屋赚取利润，以房养老。以成本价售屋是无法达成这个目的。”
第一， 一个家不是单纯的“投资”项目。人们只有把房地产当投资，而不是一个家。唯有人们在拥有第二间房子时，那才算是房地产投资！
第二， 如果国人无须面对超高屋价而须动用公积金负担起30年的房屋贷款的话，他们也无须面对被逼“卖屋养老”了！马部长的这番话根本是本末倒置的。
第三， 我们从来没有听过那一个先进国家或世界级的政府会叫他们的人民“卖屋养老”的！
第四， 马部长能担保每一代人都能在退休时能把屋子卖得好价钱吗？在一个迅速老化的国家里，这“卖屋养老”的计划真的行得通？从经济学的角度来看，这种计划根本是行不通的！在一个迅速老化的社会里，在未来的二、三十年里，老年人肯定比年轻人来得多。如果依马部长的计划，每个老人都须“卖屋养老”，那么卖屋子的人（老人）肯定比买屋子的人（年轻人）多！在这种情况之下，屋子的价钱怎么能好？
说穿了，问题的症结就在于新组屋的价格的升幅在过去30年里已经超过了人民的收入增长。我们父辈能以10年或15年付清他们的的房屋贷款，而如今我们却要我们的年轻一辈与下一代以30年房贷来购买组屋！如果他们30岁结婚买组屋，他们要等到60岁才能付完房贷。到时公积金里所剩无几，所以他们才需“卖屋养老”了！
我们在此呼吁马宝山部长与行动党，认真看待他们应负起的社会契约责任，而不是以似是而非的论调来推卸这责任。我们不期望执政党去干预组屋的公开市场。但我们希望建屋局履行它原本的职责，公布组屋建筑价格，把新组屋以成本价售予第一次购买组屋的国人。
吴明盛
国民团结党秘书长启
我们想提醒马宝山部长，建屋局居者有其屋计划的成功是建立在许许多多先辈们的牺牲和贡献上。如果没有土地征收法令赋予执政党权力，以超低价格向我们先辈们征收超过八成的土地，新加坡就没能发展得如此迅速，建屋局也不可能这么顺利执行居者有其屋计划。
这是我国开国以来的一大重要土地改革计划。只有在这大前提下，我们才能很好的去谈建屋局的角色和制定新组屋价格的机制。建屋局在头二十年里，履行了它在这土地改革计划的任务，那就是把征收回来的土地，建好组屋以成本价或甚至成本津贴价格，把土地重新分配给广大民众。这也就是建屋局的基本职责。那一些土地被强行征收的国人，大多数也没抗议，因他们了解这是为国家广大民众利益而做出牺牲。这就是人民和执政党的社会契约。当然，组屋的地契也只有99年。这为整个体系提供了稳定性，确保世世代代的新加坡人都能拥有房屋过一辈子。这就是整个土地改革、分配和住屋政策的基本概念。
马部长现在说“在售卖新组屋时，政府也不能以成本价出售，因为这意味屋主往后在售屋时也不能以市场价格销售。”我们不明白马部长的言论有何根据。我们的父辈曾经在90年代以前以低于成本价购得政府组屋，而如今他们也能够在公开市场上销售。这难道不是行动党政府的政策吗？政府以成本价出售新组屋仅是它履行那社会契约的承诺，这跟国人能不能在公开市场上销售他们的组屋根本是两码事！
马部长还说“居者有其屋政策对新加坡最有利，因为它最终能让屋主在退休年龄时卖屋赚取利润，以房养老。以成本价售屋是无法达成这个目的。”
第一， 一个家不是单纯的“投资”项目。人们只有把房地产当投资，而不是一个家。唯有人们在拥有第二间房子时，那才算是房地产投资！
第二， 如果国人无须面对超高屋价而须动用公积金负担起30年的房屋贷款的话，他们也无须面对被逼“卖屋养老”了！马部长的这番话根本是本末倒置的。
第三， 我们从来没有听过那一个先进国家或世界级的政府会叫他们的人民“卖屋养老”的！
第四， 马部长能担保每一代人都能在退休时能把屋子卖得好价钱吗？在一个迅速老化的国家里，这“卖屋养老”的计划真的行得通？从经济学的角度来看，这种计划根本是行不通的！在一个迅速老化的社会里，在未来的二、三十年里，老年人肯定比年轻人来得多。如果依马部长的计划，每个老人都须“卖屋养老”，那么卖屋子的人（老人）肯定比买屋子的人（年轻人）多！在这种情况之下，屋子的价钱怎么能好？
说穿了，问题的症结就在于新组屋的价格的升幅在过去30年里已经超过了人民的收入增长。我们父辈能以10年或15年付清他们的的房屋贷款，而如今我们却要我们的年轻一辈与下一代以30年房贷来购买组屋！如果他们30岁结婚买组屋，他们要等到60岁才能付完房贷。到时公积金里所剩无几，所以他们才需“卖屋养老”了！
我们在此呼吁马宝山部长与行动党，认真看待他们应负起的社会契约责任，而不是以似是而非的论调来推卸这责任。我们不期望执政党去干预组屋的公开市场。但我们希望建屋局履行它原本的职责，公布组屋建筑价格，把新组屋以成本价售予第一次购买组屋的国人。
吴明盛
国民团结党秘书长启
Monday, May 03, 2010
CNA Talking Point: NCMP Scheme
I was invited to give my views in the Talking Point program about the changes to the Constitutions particularly with regards to the increase in NCMPs in parliament.
You could watch the exchange of views at Channel News Asia website or Youtube here.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/tp/index.htm
You could watch the exchange of views at Channel News Asia website or Youtube here.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/tp/index.htm
Sunday, May 02, 2010
Please Donate DIRECTLY to NSP
My heartfelt thanks to many supporters who have shown their concerns to me after knowing my intention to sell my flat for NSP election campaign.
Some of you wanted to donate directly to me during my walk about or at other public activities. I appreciate very much of your kindness and support but I have to decline such direct donations. It is a matter of principles that I have to keep my finance very simple and clear without any complications.
I would instead urge my supporters to donate directly to NSP account. But please remember to email us your personal particulars and state the amount that you have donated to nsp-cec@yahoogroups.com after you have banked in your contributions into our party's bank accounts as follows:
National Solidarity Party
UOB account at 933-341-747-9
We are obliged to return or surrender a received anonymous donation (to the authority) if, by accepting the anonymous donation, our total accumulated amount of anonymous donations received for the financial year should amount to S$5,000 or more.
- We are obliged to return or surrender a received donation (to the authority) if a donation originates from a non-permissible source such as:
(i) Permanent Residents and foreigners;
(ii) Singapore citizens who are below 21 years of age; and
(iii) Unincorporated associations which include businesses, societies, trade unions, mutual benefit organisations, professional firms, charities, co-operatives, corporation soles and incorporated trusts.
It is very important for you to provide us your particulars else any anonymous donations which pass the total of $5,000 in a year would be confiscated by the PAP government. Thank you very much.
Goh Meng Seng
Some of you wanted to donate directly to me during my walk about or at other public activities. I appreciate very much of your kindness and support but I have to decline such direct donations. It is a matter of principles that I have to keep my finance very simple and clear without any complications.
I would instead urge my supporters to donate directly to NSP account. But please remember to email us your personal particulars and state the amount that you have donated to nsp-cec@yahoogroups.com after you have banked in your contributions into our party's bank accounts as follows:
National Solidarity Party
UOB account at 933-341-747-9
We are obliged to return or surrender a received anonymous donation (to the authority) if, by accepting the anonymous donation, our total accumulated amount of anonymous donations received for the financial year should amount to S$5,000 or more.
- We are obliged to return or surrender a received donation (to the authority) if a donation originates from a non-permissible source such as:
(i) Permanent Residents and foreigners;
(ii) Singapore citizens who are below 21 years of age; and
(iii) Unincorporated associations which include businesses, societies, trade unions, mutual benefit organisations, professional firms, charities, co-operatives, corporation soles and incorporated trusts.
It is very important for you to provide us your particulars else any anonymous donations which pass the total of $5,000 in a year would be confiscated by the PAP government. Thank you very much.
Goh Meng Seng
Saturday, May 01, 2010
May Day Message 2010
I will be attending the May Day Picnic at Hong Lim Park this evening (4pm to 6pm)and most probably, TRY to give a SHORT speech there. (Well, people always commented that I give long speeches...) Please join us for this little gathering at Hong Lim Park.
Meanwhile, NSP has issued our May Day Message 2010
NSP's May Day Message 2010
Sat, May 01, 2010
In recognition of May Day, the National Solidarity Party honours the workers of the world in general, and those in Singapore in particular for their invaluable contributions towards nation building through their strife and hard work, sometimes in demanding and non-conducive environments.
Although a fundamental prerequisite of Production, labour is often taken for granted, especially by organizations with vested interest. Workers are expected to be more productive as in faster and better, yet they are also expected to be “cheaper” as well.
Labour unions should be truly independent to best advance the interests of their members. They should not be beholden to the State or any political power. In Singapore, the NTUC has categorically stated that it has a “symbiotic relationship” with the ruling party PAP. It would naturally serve to help sustain PAP’s political hegemony. At times, the NTUC operates much like a sub-division of the PAP.
Thus, in many sense, the NTUC has become a labour front turned political party. Its Secretary General and several other leaders are cabinet ministers, and the entire body has openly aligned itself towards a specific political identity. Under such circumstances, it inevitably loses its independence and ability to exert a better bargaining for the workers whose interests it supposed to safe guard.
The PAP Government has pride itself for having formulated an unique “tripartite” relationship with the labour front and the employers federation. However this is done by pure dominance of the labour union NTUC instead of treating them as independent equals.
Consequently, despite various fiscal schemes to promote productivity, Singaporean workers are often over-worked, over-regulated, under-paid and under-motivated. On the other hand, the leaders of the so-called “tripartism” are generally over-paid. Indeed, the divide between the rulers and the ruled has further expanded year after year.
Perhaps, the Government could re-examine its policy paradoxes involving market versus values, local against foreign, and family versus work. The mad chase after high GDP growth regardless of cost and benefits have caused great confusion to the People. High GDP growth is fast becoming meaningless to Singaporeans when many of them are displaced by cheaper foreign workers in the process. The stagnated income level for the our lower income workers has made High GDP growth figures totally irrelevant.
The union, NTUC, has not resisted any attempts by the PAP government to artificially boost GDP growth at the expense of Singaporeans by opening the flood gates to foreign workers. This is the most glaring failing of NTUC as well as the “tripartite” relationship.
Nevertheless, NSP continues to share a common aspiration with the Singaporean worker in maintaining a positive outlook that livelihood would improve with the anticipated structural changes in the national political scene in the coming months.
Ken Sun
Chairman, Central-South District
National Solidarity Party
Meanwhile, NSP has issued our May Day Message 2010
NSP's May Day Message 2010
Sat, May 01, 2010
In recognition of May Day, the National Solidarity Party honours the workers of the world in general, and those in Singapore in particular for their invaluable contributions towards nation building through their strife and hard work, sometimes in demanding and non-conducive environments.
Although a fundamental prerequisite of Production, labour is often taken for granted, especially by organizations with vested interest. Workers are expected to be more productive as in faster and better, yet they are also expected to be “cheaper” as well.
Labour unions should be truly independent to best advance the interests of their members. They should not be beholden to the State or any political power. In Singapore, the NTUC has categorically stated that it has a “symbiotic relationship” with the ruling party PAP. It would naturally serve to help sustain PAP’s political hegemony. At times, the NTUC operates much like a sub-division of the PAP.
Thus, in many sense, the NTUC has become a labour front turned political party. Its Secretary General and several other leaders are cabinet ministers, and the entire body has openly aligned itself towards a specific political identity. Under such circumstances, it inevitably loses its independence and ability to exert a better bargaining for the workers whose interests it supposed to safe guard.
The PAP Government has pride itself for having formulated an unique “tripartite” relationship with the labour front and the employers federation. However this is done by pure dominance of the labour union NTUC instead of treating them as independent equals.
Consequently, despite various fiscal schemes to promote productivity, Singaporean workers are often over-worked, over-regulated, under-paid and under-motivated. On the other hand, the leaders of the so-called “tripartism” are generally over-paid. Indeed, the divide between the rulers and the ruled has further expanded year after year.
Perhaps, the Government could re-examine its policy paradoxes involving market versus values, local against foreign, and family versus work. The mad chase after high GDP growth regardless of cost and benefits have caused great confusion to the People. High GDP growth is fast becoming meaningless to Singaporeans when many of them are displaced by cheaper foreign workers in the process. The stagnated income level for the our lower income workers has made High GDP growth figures totally irrelevant.
The union, NTUC, has not resisted any attempts by the PAP government to artificially boost GDP growth at the expense of Singaporeans by opening the flood gates to foreign workers. This is the most glaring failing of NTUC as well as the “tripartite” relationship.
Nevertheless, NSP continues to share a common aspiration with the Singaporean worker in maintaining a positive outlook that livelihood would improve with the anticipated structural changes in the national political scene in the coming months.
Ken Sun
Chairman, Central-South District
National Solidarity Party
Friday, April 30, 2010
GRC, NCMP vs Proportionate Representation
First of all, some of you may wonder if I have used the wrong phrase "proportionate representation" instead of "proportional representation". In most context in the world, people would tend to use "proportional representation" to describe the system of allocating seats to different political parties according to the percentage of votes they received in a general elections. There are quite a number of variations of such system.
However, in Singapore's context, there is one more function to be met as we are a multi-racial nation. "Proportionate Representation" would mean that we could achieve racial representation proportionately via the proportional representation system. This stands in contrast to the present GRC system that we have now.
I have just finished recording for CNA Talking Point program which will be aired on this coming Sunday (2 May 2010), 10pm. There are certain points which were brought up but some points missed due to the time constrains.
I shall explain my stand here with regards to the Press Release I wrote about the increase of NCMP seats.
I will start with the reasoning of PAP wanting to increase the number of NCMPs. It all started from one research paper done by Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) right after GE 2006. There are a few key findings and one important finding is that younger voters (P65 voters) want fair fight. They are no longer interested in pork barrel politics of HDB upgrading. They want to see more diversity of voices in parliament.
Thus, you can see that PAP no longer depend on HDB upgrading as its key electioneering strategy. They want to address the higher demand of more opposition voices in parliament. Thus, they come up with this changes of increasing more NCMPs in parliament.
I am not against NCMP scheme as I have already stated that NCMPs would have been legitimate members of parliament EMPOWERED by the voters if they are elected under the proportional representation system. They should be conferred the FULL POWER of voting rights in parliament, in contrast to the present NCMP scheme whereby NCMPs cannot vote in Supply bills (i.e. Budget), constitutional changes as well as no-confidence motion.
The disproportionate number of opposition members in parliament as compared to the percentage of votes we get is due to the GRC system. Thus, the ROOT CAUSE is the GRC system, not the lack of NCMPs in parliament. (illustratin: for single seats, 2 out of 9 seats were won by opposition. This is about 22% of the seats. Although this is still 11% away from the national average votes, but it is much better than the GRC results whereby ZERO seats were won/allocated to opposition even though we have 33.3% of votes. Thus, the problem of dis-proportionality lies with GRC.)
My view is that PAP is just trying to pacify voters that even if they vote for PAP, they could still have opposition voices in parliament without the full voting power. This is at best, populist attempt to further their agenda of political hegemony. This is the fundamental reason why I am opposing the changes even though I am neutral about NCMP scheme, because it has a motive and agenda behind it.
Naturally, to solve the problem of dis-proportionality, we will have to deal with the root problem, GRC system. This is why I have proposed the proportionate representation system to be implemented on top of the GRC system.
The GRC system is unsustainable and unstable in the long run. I guess when MM Lee talked about having "freak elections results", he understood the risks of the present GRC system. It doesn't need "freak elections results" to illustrate the inherent problems of the GRC system. If PAP lost 40% of the seats or GRCs, it could still form the government. However, it would have lost 40% of its top political talents in the process. Thus, even if it is to form the next government, it would mean that it will have to appoint second rated MPs from its rank to fill the cabinet minister posts. Would that result be optimal? Paying top salaries for second rated ministers?
Someone pointed out to me that they could well appoint their ministers who have lost to be NMPs so that they could continue to be ministers. Wouldn't that make a mockery out of the whole political system?
If we implement proportional representation on top of the GRC system, top political talents from all political parties would have been elected as long as their parties could garner the minimum required support. Even if a coalition government is to be formed as the result of this proportionate representation system, the nation could be assured that the best people from the political parties would be in place to form the government.
Many people hold the view that coalition government is no good, it is weak and such. I would object to such over simplification. The most competitive country in the world, Finland, is governed by a coalition government. So does our once aspiring Switzerland. It has a coalition government which is termed as the most stable government in the world. Even country like New Zealand which only switch to proportional representation system late last century is coping with its new system. Most importantly, proportional representation will enhance the consultative process and build consensus. It will allow people to have more stake in what is taking place to their country.
While some PAP MPs would say that the proportional representation system or even the NCMP scheme would allow opposition "noise makers" to get into parliament too easily, I would say many of us could not bear with the many MPs in parliament who have always agree blindly for the sake of agreeing to walk into the parliament through the GRC system as well. It is a matter of relativity and ultimately, in the long run, voters are not daft. They will vote even more carefully for those who they think would contribute positively towards the political process.
I was asked on whether I will take up NCMP if I am granted one. My personal stand is, I will not take up any NCMP post in parliament if I am not granted FULL VOTING RIGHTS in parliament.
Having a voice in parliament is important, but more importantly, we need to have the right and power to register our views in terms of parliamentary vote. The present system doesn't fulfill this simple but yet important criteria. NCMP Sylvia Lim is against the increase of NCMP and NMP in parliament. But she cannot vote against it because as NCMP, she is deprived of the right to vote in constitutional changes. Mr. Alvin Yeo, who have spoken against the increase for a different reason, has to vote for it eventually, according to his party whip. Well, he did qualify that he agrees with some other changes mentioned in the bill but the point is, once the party whip is applied, no PAP MPs could vote against it without repercussions. There are very instances in history that PAP has not applied its party whip during all parliamentary voting.
Having said that, I would not object to any of my party colleagues to take up the NCMP posts if offered. This is because I also view NCMP as a transitional scheme towards the proportional/proportionate representation system that I am advocating.
This may sound contradicting at first but this is a matter of personal preference and principles that I hold. There are some merits in taking up NCMP posts but at the end of the day, what matters is to represent those who voted for us to register our views, voice and votes in parliament.
Goh Meng Seng
P.S. I shall talk more about the proportionate representation that I have in mind in another posting.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Politics as Public Service - Just a little Sacrifice
Illustration by The Sketch Times Drawing News
We have lost sight of the joy and excitement of public service, helping our fellow men. The joy and excitement of seeking and understanding of the joy of the miracle of living the duty and the grandeur. We have lost taste for heroic action in the service of our people. - David Marshall
I didn't know the little leak of my intention of selling my flat to finance my party's election campaign would create such a hype on the internet. I didn't even tell the real reason behind my sale of my flat when I mention it to my property agent friend and an associate. But they know me long enough to second guess my real intention. Out of good intention, they make it public.
I hereby send my heartfelt thanks to many of my friends and supporters for their encouraging words and support. When the going gets tough, I will get tougher. Don't worry about me as I am a survivor and I would definitely not pitch tent on the beaches to live for the rest of my life although I do like to camp outdoors once a while. I am especially touched when friends from the old days send messages to show their support. Touched because as old friends, they understand me well and have that trust and confidence in me that I would really make sacrifices for social-political causes if there is a necessity to do so. They would not believe in other people's skepticism of my move and stood firmly behind me by giving me and family the uncompromising support and comforting words.
Initially, I do not wish to comment on the matter and to let it die down. But Mr. Tan Kin Lian wrote an email to me to seek clarifications. I have high respect for Mr. Tan who have selflessly stood up and fought for the Minibonds victims in 2008. Out of due respect, I made my first clarification on this matter.
But the key message here is not about why I have to sell my flat to finance the party's overall strategic electoral campaigning. Definitely not about how great or silly it is for me to do that. The key messages are: Freedom is not Free and Politics is Public Service which requires just a little sacrifices from everyone.
I have tried to play the issue down by persuading reporters not to write about it. The reason is simple, Politics should be Public Service and it is expected of all players, both opposition as well as ruling party politicians to make sacrifices. My little sacrifices here is dwarfed when compared to many politicians in the world, past and present. Politicians like Dr Sun Yat Sen have practically sold out everything they have just for their pursue of their political dream. Some have even laid their lives down for their political beliefs. In Singapore, the late Mr. JB Jeyaratnam has also make tremendous sacrifices by selling off his assets just to pay for his heavy political price exacted by his opponents.
I do appreciate the supportive comments and responses that I am getting while I read those skeptical comments with an open heart. Both supportive and sneering comments gave me the same enlightenment somehow.
It seems that Singapore has long lost the sense and spirit of Public Service. Supporters, well wishers and friends alike, are "touched" by this little mention of sacrifices basically because they have not seen such acts of willingness to make sacrifices, no matter how small it is, for the political betterment of the society. Similarly, for those skeptics who have been brought up in this materialistic environment social engineered by the PAP government for the past decades, would not believe that there would be people willing to make sacrifices in Singapore's opposition politics, which is always viewed as the "Lost Cause".
I cannot stop people from being skeptics neither can I do mind control over them. But I can only tell you about what I know which has happened and still happening in opposition politics.
There may be some people who are still selfish, self centred or insincere in many parts of Singapore's society, including politics. However, I can safely tell you that there are still a small group of people who have made sacrifices throughout the years and decades to sustain the effort of opposition parties. They are the unnamed heroes of opposition politics in Singapore. Some of them have passed away but hopefully there are still younger ones to pass on the spirit of public service in politics.
When I was in Workers Party prior to GE 2006, I have seen many of these veterans working quietly on the ground every Sundays and on every major occasions. Most of them are unknown to the public as they have not stood for elections at all. When the elections is near, Mr. Low Thia Khiang himself has offered to sponsor my election campaign if I need it. Although I have turned down the offer as I could well afford it myself, but I appreciate his selfless dedication of wanting to groom the next generation of opposition politicians by financing them in elections. I also know that Dr. Tan Bin Seng has sponsored quite a number of candidates as well. Similar observations are made when I joined National Solidarity Party. There are veterans who have worked quietly for past years and decades, contributing to the party's cause. Sebastian Teo, the present President of NSP has also committed himself to groom and finance good potential candidates to stand for elections if necessary and if they are willing to stand.
Some may look down on the little bits of contributions by these people but let me tell you a story. During Buddha's time, there was a beggar who have sold his hair for that little money to buy a small bit of oil. He intended to offer the oil to Buddha but was stopped by the monks outside the shrine because he was smelly with very untidy dressing. However, Buddha summoned him in and accepted his offer. After accepting his offer, Buddha then gave a sermon to his disciples. There were many kings, princes and rich men making huge offerings to Him but compared to what this beggar has offered, their offerings were insignificant. The beggar has given all he has to offer Him and such merits are very much bigger than those kings, princes and the rich. Thus we should not look down or belittle the every little bits of sacrifices and contributions that all these unsung heroes behind the political screens have given to Singapore. We should treasure it as our heritage of selfless spirit. These people are the pillars of Democracy.
It dawns on me that as leaders of an opposition party, it is our responsibilities to keep the party going. In view of Sebastian's commitment to make money the LEAST PROBLEM for good people to step forward and contribute to the cause of political plurality, I decided to do my little part to contribute to the war chest as well. Thus the decision was made to sell my little 4 room flat to raise that funding.
It is nothing much actually because I am brought up by my parents to understand the importance of society before self. My late father has taught me that politics should be about public service, to serve the people in selfless ways. The role of the government is to take care of the people's interests...etc.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone, including myself and other opposition members that Freedom is NOT Free. Our democratic existence is built upon the many sacrifices, big and small, of many people, past and present.
I was told by someone that some "interesting" people are "watching" me. These are the "elders" in the past and present political field. Frankly speaking, I am not surprised at all. Even for the elder PAP cadre members, I believe that they have contributed selflessly to their political beliefs during their youth. I also believe that they are disappointed that they could no longer see the kind of spirit of Public Service that should exist and maintain in modern days. I also believe that these old guards of yesteryears will agree with me that their PAP government should honor the social obligation of providing cheap public housing to Singaporeans as this was and should still be the democratic socialist ideal of land reform and redistribution.
I believe that there are still some elder PAP cadre members who are just like Mr. Tan Kin Lian who still hold true to his own ideological belief of social and economic fairness. Mr. Tan, as an ex-PAP cadre member, has taught me one very important thing during the Minibond saga, FAIRNESS. I was told he left NTUC because he couldn't compromise his sens of FAIRNESS, in the socialist way of providing FAIR returns and insurance coverage for the NTUC policy holders, in exchange for the profit maximizing direction. I have great respect for him not only for his effort in helping the Minibond victims but also his uncompromising sacrifices made to uphold the very values he believes in.
These are all little sacrifices that wouldn't be known to the public if nobody mention about them. I hope that Singaporeans should not just see my little grass in the forest without realizing that Singapore does have a tradition of people making sacrifices for the betterment of the society politically, in the name of Public Service.
Goh Meng Seng
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Public Service & Social Responsibility
I have just returned from my holidays yesterday. It is not the holidays that I have planned for my family back in February. I have initially planned to take my family to Bangkok on 7 April, flying on Jetstar which was one of my choice of budget airline before this holidays.
Way back in late March, I have sensed situation in Bangkok was getting worse by the day when the protest planned by the Red Shirts took off. I wouldn't mind visiting Bangkok during this highly charged period if I were to travel alone. However, since I was bringing my family members along, including my six year old daughter, I have to exercise great caution and discretion this time round.
I have emailed and called Jetstar Asia numerous time to check on whether I could make changes to our destination but it seems that Jetstar Asia has only issued a "policy" for those customers who travel on 28 March 2010 (this is what I gather from the call centre) in which they could make changes to their destination or dates. However, things gotten worse since 28 March but in spite of my constant calls and second email to Jetstar Asia, they still maintain that there would be no changes to the flight schedules and customers are not allowed to make changes to destination nor have any refunds.
In contrast, Thai Airways has allowed us to have a 80% refund for our flight from Thailand to Hong Kong which falls on 10 April. We have made our concerns known to them about traveling to Bangkok during this period of time and I guess it is reasonable for them to charge us 20% of our fare for the cancellation.
I wrote a lengthy email to Jetstar Asia after my unfruitful calls to their call centre. It seems that they show no great concern about the safety of its customers at the destination, Bangkok, which is a potentially a hot spot during my period of travel. This is especially frustrating when Travel Warnings to Bangkok has been issued by various places and countries and most importantly, there is a child involved in the travel plan. I was prepared to change destination to KL instead of asking for a refund but my request was not granted.
My point is that Jetstar Asia has not fulfill its role in providing public service totally, apart from customer service. Even though Jetstar Asia is a private company that seek profits from its operations, but as an international carrier, it must uphold its role as a public service provider. Profit itself should not be its sole aim; public service in terms of ensuring the safety concerns of its customers being addressed should also be its top priority.
Although legally and technically, Jetstar has all the rights of not acceding to my request (even though it is not totally unreasonable), but I feel that this is an exceptional situation whereby more flexibility could be applied. When there are genuine concerns due to by unforeseen circumstances at the destination, flexibility should be applied to allow its clients to avoid possible danger.
I was right to abandon the plan for my family to visit Bangkok even though it means that a few hundred dollars would be wasted in unused air tickets to Jetstar Asia. As a politician, I am more sensitive to possible political development in such critical period. I was expecting the final showdown soon and unfortunately, I was right. Curfew was imposed on the day where we were supposed to arrive in Bangkok. Tension continued to rise and at this point of time of writing this article, I receive SMS messages to inform me that shots were fired in Bangkok. A Japanese was shot dead among others.
Being a "Budget" Airline is no excuse for any airlines to neglect its social responsibility towards its customers. This reminds me about the complains made against Tiger Airway during the period of an earthquake in Indonesia. It was not just about customer service but rather the lack of social responsibility towards the company's customers.
This boils down to the lack of the spirit of Public Service. The strength of a company or the lack of it, is normally reflected in the way it deals with crisis. Take Toyota for example. In spite of whatever happens in the process of the making of its faulty cars, its leaders took responsibility for it and recall all models which are affected by the flaws. It will cost the company a lot of money but at the very least, it maintains itself as a socially responsible enterprise.
Of course, the crisis in Thailand is neither Jetstar Airline's fault nor within its control. The earthquake in Indonesia was not the doing of Tiger Airway as well. But as a "public transport" provider, safety of its customers should be its utmost concerns. i.e. Safety beyond the service standards that they provide. Customers would be more appreciative to companies that took an extra effort to care for their safety and well being.
There are many corporates out there who does not regard their products and services as a form of public services as well. The worst kinds of corporates are those who did not care about the safety, health or public interests of others; i.e. companies that pollutes irresponsibly, sell toxic products like milk powder, cooking oil or commercial landlords who impose hefty rentals increase without any regards of actual impact on public consumers at large etc... The only difference lies in whether these companies did all these knowingly and whether they show any social responsibility in dealing with their own flaws.
In this case, the inflexibility of airlines in dealing with a crisis situation may mean a matter of life and death to its travelers.
From this incident, it also makes me think about the value of Public Service. The recollection of the ways that financial institutions deal with the Minibond crisis is a significant part of this enlightenment. The ways that companies deal with such crisis really differentiate the good from the bad.
Public Service is mostly and strongly identified with governmental services. However, we need people with a strong sense of public service to serve in both governmental organizations as well as private enterprises to make this world a better place. However, it doesn't help when even our own politicians puts more value on the million dollar pay as the prime motivator rather than the sense of Public Service.
Although I am truly disappointed with Jetstar which has been my choice airline for the past numerous years, but it is not my intention to take vengeance against it here. It is a learning experience for all of us. The little money I wasted is worth the price for such enlightenment on what Public Service and Social Responsibility is all about. Between private profits/interests and public service/social responsibility, there must be a balance to be maintained.
I would like to believe that Jetstar is still a socially responsible enterprise as it has made exceptional policy to allow its customers who have planned to travel to Bangkok on 28 March to make amendments to their booking. But I guess it was not able to make appropriate judgment on the situation for the subsequent days. It is truly unfortunate and regrettable that it has fallen deaf to its customers' safety concerns and was not able to make accurate assessment of the situation on its own.
Having said all these, I am glad that my alternative holiday plan for my family turns out well despite this little hiccup over the abandoned trip to Thailand. Well, at least we got to try out an alternative budget airline, Air Asia. Just like any other free market, it is good to have more choices so that we could make good comparisons. At the end of the day, it is the competition that makes the companies and consumers like us better.
Goh Meng Seng
Way back in late March, I have sensed situation in Bangkok was getting worse by the day when the protest planned by the Red Shirts took off. I wouldn't mind visiting Bangkok during this highly charged period if I were to travel alone. However, since I was bringing my family members along, including my six year old daughter, I have to exercise great caution and discretion this time round.
I have emailed and called Jetstar Asia numerous time to check on whether I could make changes to our destination but it seems that Jetstar Asia has only issued a "policy" for those customers who travel on 28 March 2010 (this is what I gather from the call centre) in which they could make changes to their destination or dates. However, things gotten worse since 28 March but in spite of my constant calls and second email to Jetstar Asia, they still maintain that there would be no changes to the flight schedules and customers are not allowed to make changes to destination nor have any refunds.
In contrast, Thai Airways has allowed us to have a 80% refund for our flight from Thailand to Hong Kong which falls on 10 April. We have made our concerns known to them about traveling to Bangkok during this period of time and I guess it is reasonable for them to charge us 20% of our fare for the cancellation.
I wrote a lengthy email to Jetstar Asia after my unfruitful calls to their call centre. It seems that they show no great concern about the safety of its customers at the destination, Bangkok, which is a potentially a hot spot during my period of travel. This is especially frustrating when Travel Warnings to Bangkok has been issued by various places and countries and most importantly, there is a child involved in the travel plan. I was prepared to change destination to KL instead of asking for a refund but my request was not granted.
My point is that Jetstar Asia has not fulfill its role in providing public service totally, apart from customer service. Even though Jetstar Asia is a private company that seek profits from its operations, but as an international carrier, it must uphold its role as a public service provider. Profit itself should not be its sole aim; public service in terms of ensuring the safety concerns of its customers being addressed should also be its top priority.
Although legally and technically, Jetstar has all the rights of not acceding to my request (even though it is not totally unreasonable), but I feel that this is an exceptional situation whereby more flexibility could be applied. When there are genuine concerns due to by unforeseen circumstances at the destination, flexibility should be applied to allow its clients to avoid possible danger.
I was right to abandon the plan for my family to visit Bangkok even though it means that a few hundred dollars would be wasted in unused air tickets to Jetstar Asia. As a politician, I am more sensitive to possible political development in such critical period. I was expecting the final showdown soon and unfortunately, I was right. Curfew was imposed on the day where we were supposed to arrive in Bangkok. Tension continued to rise and at this point of time of writing this article, I receive SMS messages to inform me that shots were fired in Bangkok. A Japanese was shot dead among others.
Being a "Budget" Airline is no excuse for any airlines to neglect its social responsibility towards its customers. This reminds me about the complains made against Tiger Airway during the period of an earthquake in Indonesia. It was not just about customer service but rather the lack of social responsibility towards the company's customers.
This boils down to the lack of the spirit of Public Service. The strength of a company or the lack of it, is normally reflected in the way it deals with crisis. Take Toyota for example. In spite of whatever happens in the process of the making of its faulty cars, its leaders took responsibility for it and recall all models which are affected by the flaws. It will cost the company a lot of money but at the very least, it maintains itself as a socially responsible enterprise.
Of course, the crisis in Thailand is neither Jetstar Airline's fault nor within its control. The earthquake in Indonesia was not the doing of Tiger Airway as well. But as a "public transport" provider, safety of its customers should be its utmost concerns. i.e. Safety beyond the service standards that they provide. Customers would be more appreciative to companies that took an extra effort to care for their safety and well being.
There are many corporates out there who does not regard their products and services as a form of public services as well. The worst kinds of corporates are those who did not care about the safety, health or public interests of others; i.e. companies that pollutes irresponsibly, sell toxic products like milk powder, cooking oil or commercial landlords who impose hefty rentals increase without any regards of actual impact on public consumers at large etc... The only difference lies in whether these companies did all these knowingly and whether they show any social responsibility in dealing with their own flaws.
In this case, the inflexibility of airlines in dealing with a crisis situation may mean a matter of life and death to its travelers.
From this incident, it also makes me think about the value of Public Service. The recollection of the ways that financial institutions deal with the Minibond crisis is a significant part of this enlightenment. The ways that companies deal with such crisis really differentiate the good from the bad.
Public Service is mostly and strongly identified with governmental services. However, we need people with a strong sense of public service to serve in both governmental organizations as well as private enterprises to make this world a better place. However, it doesn't help when even our own politicians puts more value on the million dollar pay as the prime motivator rather than the sense of Public Service.
Although I am truly disappointed with Jetstar which has been my choice airline for the past numerous years, but it is not my intention to take vengeance against it here. It is a learning experience for all of us. The little money I wasted is worth the price for such enlightenment on what Public Service and Social Responsibility is all about. Between private profits/interests and public service/social responsibility, there must be a balance to be maintained.
I would like to believe that Jetstar is still a socially responsible enterprise as it has made exceptional policy to allow its customers who have planned to travel to Bangkok on 28 March to make amendments to their booking. But I guess it was not able to make appropriate judgment on the situation for the subsequent days. It is truly unfortunate and regrettable that it has fallen deaf to its customers' safety concerns and was not able to make accurate assessment of the situation on its own.
Having said all these, I am glad that my alternative holiday plan for my family turns out well despite this little hiccup over the abandoned trip to Thailand. Well, at least we got to try out an alternative budget airline, Air Asia. Just like any other free market, it is good to have more choices so that we could make good comparisons. At the end of the day, it is the competition that makes the companies and consumers like us better.
Goh Meng Seng
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
NSP Press Release: Concerns on the Casino License for Marina Sands
Concerns on the Casino License for Marina Sands
1. The National Solidarity Party notes that there are news reports on Macau Sands’ links to its partner who is implicated in the murder-for-hire case being tried in Hong Kong. According to Business Time April 3 2010 report, “an investigation in Macau has revealed that a local partner of Las Vegas Sands (LVS) could have links with triads”.
2. We also note that Reuters has reported on 31st March that “Nevada's Gaming Control Board said on Wednesday it was analyzing the status of VIP room operations in Macau casinos and possible links to Chinese criminals”.
3. The PAP government has stated categorically that it will not issue any casino license to any operators that have links to any triads in the world when the decision to build the two casinos was made back in 2005. While the constructions of both casino resorts are due to be completed soon, NSP is very concerned about the social implications of issuing casino license to operators who have links to triads.
4. We notice that the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) under the Ministry of Home Affairs has declined comment on this issue when contacted by the Business Time reporter. We strongly feel that CRA should make an appropriate response to the latest development of Sands in view of the pending opening of Marina Sands at the end of this month.
5. We hope that the CRA would take the recent development into careful considerations when it decides upon the issuing of Casino License to Marina Sands. We would also like to know the contingency plans that the government has in place to deal with casino operators who are found to breach the rules on having links to any triads after casino licenses have been issued.
Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General of the 13th CEC
1. The National Solidarity Party notes that there are news reports on Macau Sands’ links to its partner who is implicated in the murder-for-hire case being tried in Hong Kong. According to Business Time April 3 2010 report, “an investigation in Macau has revealed that a local partner of Las Vegas Sands (LVS) could have links with triads”.
2. We also note that Reuters has reported on 31st March that “Nevada's Gaming Control Board said on Wednesday it was analyzing the status of VIP room operations in Macau casinos and possible links to Chinese criminals”.
3. The PAP government has stated categorically that it will not issue any casino license to any operators that have links to any triads in the world when the decision to build the two casinos was made back in 2005. While the constructions of both casino resorts are due to be completed soon, NSP is very concerned about the social implications of issuing casino license to operators who have links to triads.
4. We notice that the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) under the Ministry of Home Affairs has declined comment on this issue when contacted by the Business Time reporter. We strongly feel that CRA should make an appropriate response to the latest development of Sands in view of the pending opening of Marina Sands at the end of this month.
5. We hope that the CRA would take the recent development into careful considerations when it decides upon the issuing of Casino License to Marina Sands. We would also like to know the contingency plans that the government has in place to deal with casino operators who are found to breach the rules on having links to any triads after casino licenses have been issued.
Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General of the 13th CEC
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Health Care System: Where is the role of PAP Govt in taking care of Singaporeans?
The following is the report from Taiwan's media on the conference held in Singapore with regards to Health Care in Asia conference.
This report is an alternative report to our local MSM's spin on our health care system. The Taiwanese Minister of Health has criticized the Singapore's system as one that the government has shirked off their social responsibility towards the citizens in terms of providing basic health care.
Incidentally, I have been studying the Taiwanese Medical Insurance system which has provided a Universal coverage for ALL its citizens as well as foreign workers. I have put up my proposal to NSP manifesto committee on revamping the Medishield system.
The basic idea of this new Medical Insurance scheme is to have the government and employers to share part of the premiums paid as Medishield for their Singaporean workers. As for Foreign workers, the government will not share the burden of their premium while the employers will take up more of the responsibility.
This is a fair system whereby the Government and employers take up their social responsibility towards the citizens' health care insurance. The workers will still pay the bulk of the Medishield follow by their employers and the Government. For family members who are not gainfully employed, there will also be a co-payment of Medishield premiums.
The Medishield coverage should be widen. The payout by Medishield is only close to 55% of total premium collected for each year. This is lesser than Group Medical Insurance scheme, which has a much higher payout rate of 75%.
Anyway, the details of my proposal would be finalized in NSP manifesto in time to come. For the time being, here is the media report in Chinese, by Taiwanese online media (I have translated the important part mentioned about Singapore in the text below):
楊志良分析全球健保制度引起熱烈迴響
* 2010-03-30
* 新聞速報
* 【中央社】
衛生署長楊志良今天在經濟學人資訊社（EIU）的亞洲醫療論壇討論健保財政課題時，清楚的把現存4種制度的優劣進行分析，引起迴響，多國代表並希望參考台灣的健保制度。
正在台灣推動二代健保的楊志良，受邀在經濟學人亞洲論壇的閉門會議中，討論亞洲政府健保財政的難題。
楊志良把全球現存的健保財政制度分為4種，他說，第1種是英國和大英國協國家實施以稅收劃定一定比例作為健保費的國民保健服務制；第2種是社會保險制度，例如台灣的健保；第3種是使用者付費和私人保險搭配的制度；第4種是結合上述3種的綜合體。
楊志良分析，英國這套制度，雖以稅收作為健保預算，感覺非常公平，可避免道德危害，但缺點是由於醫療保險預算是固定的，醫院和醫生多看病人收入也不會增加，因此不願意多看病人，讓等候看病的名單過長，造成政府失能。
楊志良說，社會保險制度則是站在社會福利的角度來照顧全民的健康，也照顧到低收入者的醫療，這是台灣為什麼要採用這套制度的原因。
但是楊志良也坦承，這套制度的缺點，是會造成公民失能（civic failure），因為人民都有政府的健保照顧，所以就不會注意照顧自己的健康，浪費醫療資源，導致醫療消耗愈來愈高。
不過，楊志良指出，台灣的健保制度實施迄今，滿意度超過70%，代表這套制度確實有可取之處。
談到第3種制度，楊志良說，這項制度的概念就是使用者付費，結果造成低收入者無力負擔醫療費，政府等於沒有在照顧人民的醫療需求；而先進國家採取的私人保險制度，更導致貧富產生醫療差距。
由於在席間有人提起新加坡的3M（保健儲蓄、健保雙全和保健基金）架構，楊志良不改直言本色，分析新加坡醫療制度的優劣。
Yang Ziliang (Taiwan Minister of Health) said that Singapore's 3M system is basically a system that forces its citizens to pay for their own Medical Insurance (Medishield). i.e. taking money from the people. Thus, it is basically a system that consumers pay for themselves. If that is so, where is the Government's role in taking care of its citizens?
Yang Ziliang pointed out that it would be difficult for many countries to implement such a system because this system needs to force citizens to pay for their own medical insurance. But some of the lower income group who are not eligible for social welfare may have too low an income to have any deductions made from their salaries to pay for their own premiums. It would further lower their standards of living and this is against the spirit of social welfare and social responsibility (of the government).
由於楊志良的直言，也引起在場與會各國代表的迴響，甚至延續到後面的分組討論，與會者在討論時，「台灣的部長」至少被提到4次。
At the end of the conference, many representatives including Indonesian, Malaysian and other countries concluded that Singapore's system may be good but it may only be implemented in Singapore as other countries may not be able to emulate it. Some have even used the failed experiment used by China as an example to reiterate this point.
此外，印尼、馬來西亞、澳洲等國代表，也都發言表示，希望自己的國家能參考台灣的健保制度。
On the other hand, Indonesian, Malaysian, Australian and other countries' representatives have indicated that they hope their own countries could take Taiwan's comprehensive Health Care Insurance scheme as a reference for their reform.
Goh Meng Seng
This report is an alternative report to our local MSM's spin on our health care system. The Taiwanese Minister of Health has criticized the Singapore's system as one that the government has shirked off their social responsibility towards the citizens in terms of providing basic health care.
Incidentally, I have been studying the Taiwanese Medical Insurance system which has provided a Universal coverage for ALL its citizens as well as foreign workers. I have put up my proposal to NSP manifesto committee on revamping the Medishield system.
The basic idea of this new Medical Insurance scheme is to have the government and employers to share part of the premiums paid as Medishield for their Singaporean workers. As for Foreign workers, the government will not share the burden of their premium while the employers will take up more of the responsibility.
This is a fair system whereby the Government and employers take up their social responsibility towards the citizens' health care insurance. The workers will still pay the bulk of the Medishield follow by their employers and the Government. For family members who are not gainfully employed, there will also be a co-payment of Medishield premiums.
The Medishield coverage should be widen. The payout by Medishield is only close to 55% of total premium collected for each year. This is lesser than Group Medical Insurance scheme, which has a much higher payout rate of 75%.
Anyway, the details of my proposal would be finalized in NSP manifesto in time to come. For the time being, here is the media report in Chinese, by Taiwanese online media (I have translated the important part mentioned about Singapore in the text below):
楊志良分析全球健保制度引起熱烈迴響
* 2010-03-30
* 新聞速報
* 【中央社】
衛生署長楊志良今天在經濟學人資訊社（EIU）的亞洲醫療論壇討論健保財政課題時，清楚的把現存4種制度的優劣進行分析，引起迴響，多國代表並希望參考台灣的健保制度。
正在台灣推動二代健保的楊志良，受邀在經濟學人亞洲論壇的閉門會議中，討論亞洲政府健保財政的難題。
楊志良把全球現存的健保財政制度分為4種，他說，第1種是英國和大英國協國家實施以稅收劃定一定比例作為健保費的國民保健服務制；第2種是社會保險制度，例如台灣的健保；第3種是使用者付費和私人保險搭配的制度；第4種是結合上述3種的綜合體。
楊志良分析，英國這套制度，雖以稅收作為健保預算，感覺非常公平，可避免道德危害，但缺點是由於醫療保險預算是固定的，醫院和醫生多看病人收入也不會增加，因此不願意多看病人，讓等候看病的名單過長，造成政府失能。
楊志良說，社會保險制度則是站在社會福利的角度來照顧全民的健康，也照顧到低收入者的醫療，這是台灣為什麼要採用這套制度的原因。
但是楊志良也坦承，這套制度的缺點，是會造成公民失能（civic failure），因為人民都有政府的健保照顧，所以就不會注意照顧自己的健康，浪費醫療資源，導致醫療消耗愈來愈高。
不過，楊志良指出，台灣的健保制度實施迄今，滿意度超過70%，代表這套制度確實有可取之處。
談到第3種制度，楊志良說，這項制度的概念就是使用者付費，結果造成低收入者無力負擔醫療費，政府等於沒有在照顧人民的醫療需求；而先進國家採取的私人保險制度，更導致貧富產生醫療差距。
由於在席間有人提起新加坡的3M（保健儲蓄、健保雙全和保健基金）架構，楊志良不改直言本色，分析新加坡醫療制度的優劣。
楊志良表示，新加坡的3M制度基本上就是強制人民有保健儲蓄，也就是從人民身上拿錢，等於是使用者付費的觀念，那政府照顧人民的責任在哪裡？
Yang Ziliang (Taiwan Minister of Health) said that Singapore's 3M system is basically a system that forces its citizens to pay for their own Medical Insurance (Medishield). i.e. taking money from the people. Thus, it is basically a system that consumers pay for themselves. If that is so, where is the Government's role in taking care of its citizens?
楊志良指出，這種模式在許多國家實行有困難，因為這個制度必須強迫人民醫療儲蓄，但收入低卻達不到領取社會救濟金的族群，薪水已經夠低，還被迫扣除一部份薪資作為保健儲蓄，生活更加困難，有違社會福利和社會照護的精神。
Yang Ziliang pointed out that it would be difficult for many countries to implement such a system because this system needs to force citizens to pay for their own medical insurance. But some of the lower income group who are not eligible for social welfare may have too low an income to have any deductions made from their salaries to pay for their own premiums. It would further lower their standards of living and this is against the spirit of social welfare and social responsibility (of the government).
由於楊志良的直言，也引起在場與會各國代表的迴響，甚至延續到後面的分組討論，與會者在討論時，「台灣的部長」至少被提到4次。
包括印尼、馬來西亞代表在內的多個國家代表最後認為，新加坡的制度也許很好，但只能適合在新加坡使用，其他國家無法仿效，有人並以中國為例，指中國曾經仿效最後宣告失敗。
At the end of the conference, many representatives including Indonesian, Malaysian and other countries concluded that Singapore's system may be good but it may only be implemented in Singapore as other countries may not be able to emulate it. Some have even used the failed experiment used by China as an example to reiterate this point.
此外，印尼、馬來西亞、澳洲等國代表，也都發言表示，希望自己的國家能參考台灣的健保制度。
On the other hand, Indonesian, Malaysian, Australian and other countries' representatives have indicated that they hope their own countries could take Taiwan's comprehensive Health Care Insurance scheme as a reference for their reform.
Goh Meng Seng
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
HDB: Myths and Truth II
Out of the blue, after three weeks from my initial email to MOF for the request of more information of the $460K assistance given to the poor family over 60 years, I receive an email from Ministry of Finance. Well, although this very late reply is far from the quality assurance that the auto-reply emails have promised of replying within 3 working days, this is better than nothing.
The reply leads me to the link on MOF website which is an Annex to the Minister's speech. I am still looking at it closely but I believe readers of this blog could come up with their very own conclusions.
Now, back to the main issue of HDB Myth.
The grants are a fixed amount and have not been revised to take into account the large increase in HDB prices. Buyers buying a flat today therefore have to pay substantially more than a buyer who bought a HDB 1 year earlier and was able to obtain the same level of grant. In fact, 30 years ago, Singaporeans also get the same amount of grant of $30K!
# The median house price is 5.8 times the median household income in Singapore. In comparison, the ratio is 7.1 in London and 19.8 in Hong Kong.
There is a need to verify the numbers. If these are based on the numbers used in the article released by Prof Tu, then there are serious statistical comparability issues. There are already some analysis put up on the net about the inappropriate comparison.
HDB flats are leasehold flats without strata titles. This is totally different from private condominiums and apartments. It would be grossly inappropriate to make such comparisons because strictly speaking, HDB flat owners don’t own the whole piece of land which thier flats are built on. i.e. Condominiums owners own the whole piece of land in strata titles. When there is an enbloc sales, the land of the whole development fenced up would be considered as part of the asset owned by each owners. i.e. HDB flat owners don’t even own the corridors and void decks below their flats!
Afternote: In HK, there are flats sold to lower income group without the land cost being imputed in the costing. These flats are comparable to our HDB flats and should be used as a comparison.
According to HDB website, the Median Household income is not derived from more objective source but based on applicants income in their last sales exercise. What does this actually mean?
First of all, it only shows the Median Household income of those who could afford to buy their flats and that is the reason why they have registered to buy a flat in the very first place. For those who could not afford, will not be in the data set! So how could one use such data to justify the “affordability” of HDB flats?
For example, there may be X number of couples who wanted to buy a flat of their choice but could not afford it due to the high prices. If these couples are taken into account, it would mean that the MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME would drop tremendously.
On the other hand, what we are observing is that, even if we use HDB’s measure of “Median Household Income”, it has suddenly increase from $3900 in 2009 for a “normal” 4 room flat to $4300 in 2010! Did our young couples enjoy such a huge increase of 10% in their pay checks within a year?
Moreover, this data is totally inaccurate as a measure for another two reasons. If we are interested to know about the affordability of these flats for our YOUNG COUPLES, such data is not representative at all as it includes those who are applying for their second flats as well. On top of that, if we observe carefully, for the other 4 room flat in SkyVilla and SkyTerrace @ Dawson, the Median Household Income has shot up to $6000. It means that these similar size of 4 room HDB flats are no longer affordable to the NORMAL couples. Obviously, those who couldn’t afford will have no ways to apply for these “SPECIAL” 4 room flats.
All these basically mean that such measurement of “AFFORDABILITY” is totally flawed. The goal post will keep shifting and the statistics do not represent the real picture on the ground. What is the real picture on the ground then?
For any young couples who had just joined the labor market, it is unreasonable to expect them to earn a total of $4300 per month. While a small percentage of graduates who have exceptional grades or graduates with Honors degrees may be able to get higher starting salaries, most university graduates will not be able to garner that kind of wages. Furthermore, if university graduates have difficulty in getting that kind of pay, what about those with lesser qualifications?
Most graduates from Polytechnics and Universities have to repay their study loans after they found a job. If we add all these up, it seems that it is really difficult for them to afford a flat before 30. The situation will get worse if the prices of HDB flats keep going up under the present HDB policy. It will definitely in turn affect late marriages and fertility rate of Singaporeans.
Singaporeans who service their housing loans need to be employed in order to have CPF savings. If key members of the household lose their job, the household will have problems servicing their HDB loan. This is especially so, given that the tenure of most HDB loans is 30 years. Given the current economic environment, it is imprudent to assume that households will not face retrenchment or reduction in salary in the next 30 years.
On the other hand, when all CPF savings in OA is used for financing the 30 years mortgage loans, it would mean that there will be very little left for retirement. As I have shown in my previous article here, the idea of using HDB flat as retirement financing is a very DANGEROUS one, with a lot of unrealistic perfect scenario assumptions being made.
High HDB prices alone will affect more than the affordability of the flats by young couples. It will also affect retirement financing as well as late marriages and fertility rate. It will create a whole lot of social-economic problems in the long run.
HDB should discard their ill representation of “affordability” by using some self-justifying data which is inherently bias. Minister Mah and those HDB planners should walk out of their Ivory Towers to get proper perspective of the problems that our youngsters are facing before they just shoot their mouths off about the “affordability” of their HDB flats by just looking at “cold figures”. In fact, I think it would do them good if they give us the data on the age of applicants with respective to the income groups. Only then we will have a fuller picture and proper perspective of “affordability” of HDB flats.
Goh Meng Seng
The reply leads me to the link on MOF website which is an Annex to the Minister's speech. I am still looking at it closely but I believe readers of this blog could come up with their very own conclusions.
Now, back to the main issue of HDB Myth.
MYTH II: HDB flats are unaffordable.
HIS RESPONSE:
# On top of the CPF Housing Grant of $30,000 or $40,000, there is an Additional Housing Grant (AHG) for lower-income families of up to $40,000. As of Jan 31, the Government disbursed more than $330 million in AHG to more than 20,000 families.
The grants are a fixed amount and have not been revised to take into account the large increase in HDB prices. Buyers buying a flat today therefore have to pay substantially more than a buyer who bought a HDB 1 year earlier and was able to obtain the same level of grant. In fact, 30 years ago, Singaporeans also get the same amount of grant of $30K!
# The median house price is 5.8 times the median household income in Singapore. In comparison, the ratio is 7.1 in London and 19.8 in Hong Kong.
There is a need to verify the numbers. If these are based on the numbers used in the article released by Prof Tu, then there are serious statistical comparability issues. There are already some analysis put up on the net about the inappropriate comparison.
HDB flats are leasehold flats without strata titles. This is totally different from private condominiums and apartments. It would be grossly inappropriate to make such comparisons because strictly speaking, HDB flat owners don’t own the whole piece of land which thier flats are built on. i.e. Condominiums owners own the whole piece of land in strata titles. When there is an enbloc sales, the land of the whole development fenced up would be considered as part of the asset owned by each owners. i.e. HDB flat owners don’t even own the corridors and void decks below their flats!
Afternote: In HK, there are flats sold to lower income group without the land cost being imputed in the costing. These flats are comparable to our HDB flats and should be used as a comparison.
# The average mortgage payment for new flats in non-mature estates sold in 2009 was 22 per cent of monthly household income. This is well below the affordability benchmark of 30 per cent to 35 per cent.
According to HDB website, the Median Household income is not derived from more objective source but based on applicants income in their last sales exercise. What does this actually mean?
First of all, it only shows the Median Household income of those who could afford to buy their flats and that is the reason why they have registered to buy a flat in the very first place. For those who could not afford, will not be in the data set! So how could one use such data to justify the “affordability” of HDB flats?
For example, there may be X number of couples who wanted to buy a flat of their choice but could not afford it due to the high prices. If these couples are taken into account, it would mean that the MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME would drop tremendously.
On the other hand, what we are observing is that, even if we use HDB’s measure of “Median Household Income”, it has suddenly increase from $3900 in 2009 for a “normal” 4 room flat to $4300 in 2010! Did our young couples enjoy such a huge increase of 10% in their pay checks within a year?
Moreover, this data is totally inaccurate as a measure for another two reasons. If we are interested to know about the affordability of these flats for our YOUNG COUPLES, such data is not representative at all as it includes those who are applying for their second flats as well. On top of that, if we observe carefully, for the other 4 room flat in SkyVilla and SkyTerrace @ Dawson, the Median Household Income has shot up to $6000. It means that these similar size of 4 room HDB flats are no longer affordable to the NORMAL couples. Obviously, those who couldn’t afford will have no ways to apply for these “SPECIAL” 4 room flats.
All these basically mean that such measurement of “AFFORDABILITY” is totally flawed. The goal post will keep shifting and the statistics do not represent the real picture on the ground. What is the real picture on the ground then?
For any young couples who had just joined the labor market, it is unreasonable to expect them to earn a total of $4300 per month. While a small percentage of graduates who have exceptional grades or graduates with Honors degrees may be able to get higher starting salaries, most university graduates will not be able to garner that kind of wages. Furthermore, if university graduates have difficulty in getting that kind of pay, what about those with lesser qualifications?
Most graduates from Polytechnics and Universities have to repay their study loans after they found a job. If we add all these up, it seems that it is really difficult for them to afford a flat before 30. The situation will get worse if the prices of HDB flats keep going up under the present HDB policy. It will definitely in turn affect late marriages and fertility rate of Singaporeans.
# Four out of five Singaporean new flat buyers service their housing loans from CPF savings, without any cash payment.
Singaporeans who service their housing loans need to be employed in order to have CPF savings. If key members of the household lose their job, the household will have problems servicing their HDB loan. This is especially so, given that the tenure of most HDB loans is 30 years. Given the current economic environment, it is imprudent to assume that households will not face retrenchment or reduction in salary in the next 30 years.
On the other hand, when all CPF savings in OA is used for financing the 30 years mortgage loans, it would mean that there will be very little left for retirement. As I have shown in my previous article here, the idea of using HDB flat as retirement financing is a very DANGEROUS one, with a lot of unrealistic perfect scenario assumptions being made.
High HDB prices alone will affect more than the affordability of the flats by young couples. It will also affect retirement financing as well as late marriages and fertility rate. It will create a whole lot of social-economic problems in the long run.
HDB should discard their ill representation of “affordability” by using some self-justifying data which is inherently bias. Minister Mah and those HDB planners should walk out of their Ivory Towers to get proper perspective of the problems that our youngsters are facing before they just shoot their mouths off about the “affordability” of their HDB flats by just looking at “cold figures”. In fact, I think it would do them good if they give us the data on the age of applicants with respective to the income groups. Only then we will have a fuller picture and proper perspective of “affordability” of HDB flats.
Goh Meng Seng
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
HDB: Myths and Truth I
It has been more than 2 weeks since I sent in my email to MOF to obtain the data/methodology for Mr Tharman’s statement in Parliament which said that poor income families in Singapore would be helped to the sum of $460,000 for. In spite of sending reminder, I have yet to receive a response.
If the numbers are accurate and correct, it is unknown why MOF would refuse to release the data/methodology. Without transparency, there can only be rumor and speculation about the accuracy on what Mr Thraman claimed.
Well, throwing numbers and figures in a serious place like Parliament could be pretty easy. However if such so call "statistics" or "figures" are not and could not subject to public scrutiny to the fullest details, then I guess such talk is just Highfalutin expression without any solid foundation.
I have also written to HDB to seek clarifications on what Minister Mah has brought up in parliament about the affordability issue. Similarly, I have been ignored. This is a government that self-proclaim to be the First World government, but without any "Transparency" in action. A government that dare not provide any proof that could withstand public scrutiny. It is really up to Singaporeans to decide whether to believe such talks or not.
I shall now move on to Minister Mah's HDB MYTHS and TRUTH.
MYTH I: There are not enough HDB flats to meet demand.
HIS RESPONSE:
# The HDB released 13,500 new flats last year and will release another 12,000 or more this year. This is more than the total number of flats in Clementi or Jurong East (about 23,000 flats each).
Based on the HDB website, it takes 3 years on average for a new HBD flat to be built. The 13,500 new flats released in 2009 will therefore only be available for occupancy in 2012. Similarly the 12,000 HDB flats released in 2010 will not be available for occupancy until 2013.
There is a housing shortage in Singapore NOW. From 2003 to 2008. the total population increased by 17.6% while resident population increased by 8.2%. The number of HDB flats however only increased by 1.2.%.
The inadequate new HDB flats to meet demand caused a destructive boom-bust cycle to be formed. Prices of HDB prices have skyrocketed as people need HDB flats NOW. The subsequent flooding of the market with HDB flats in 2012/2013 will mean that there is likely to be collapse of HDB prices by 2012.
A conservative estimate of the need to provide 4% more flats compare to 2003 would mean a need to increase new HDB flats by at least 24,000 flats. This should be on top of the natural annual demand of new flats derived from new couples.
YPAP has published Mr Mah Bow Tan’s speech in Parliament
http://www.youngpap.org.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=148:mnd-cos-debate-on-affordability-of-hdb-flats&catid=24:political-discussions
To avoid misquoting Mr Mah, I had waited for a copy of the speech to be released on an official PAP platform before commenting on it. There are some parts of the speech which I do not understand. I have written in to the Ministry of National Development to clarify what Mr Mah meant, but as I have said earlier, I have been ignored totally.
In view of the inability of HDB to meet demand for 2003 and 2008, I would like to discuss Mr Mah’s Build-To-Order (BTO) system and how it caused the current HDB housing bubble.
Under the BTO scheme, HDB flats are built based on application demand. In Mr Mah’s own words, the intent of the BTO scheme is so that HDB is not stuck with a large inventory of unsold flats.
To prove his point, Mr Mah then sprouts out an impressive looking set of statistics to show that the BTO system is working and that there are sufficient HDB flats to meet demand.
The fatal flaw in Mr Mah’s reasoning is that it takes 3 years or more for BTO flats to be built. What happens then if there is a sudden spike in housing demand? What can Mr Mah do?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !
Sudden spikes in housing demand coincide with booms in the Singapore economy. During such booms, the labor market tightens. To keep wages down and prevent Singaporeans from job hopping, large numbers of FT are allowed into Singapore. These FT need a place to stay and therefore push up rental and property prices. PRs could only buy from the HDB resale market but the truth is, how many Singaporeans could afford to sell their HDB flats without buying another HDB flat for them to live in? Without a stockpile and a 3 years time lag for new HDB flats to be built, what can Mr Mah do about skyrocketing HDB prices?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !
If we stick with the current BTO system, we will have a continuous series of destructive boom-bust housing cycles. During such cycles, there will be a small group of individuals who earn supernormal profit. There will however be a much larger group who will suffer large paper losses and be saddled with a huge debt for possibly the rest of their lives.
The total mismatch of IMMEDIATE demand and supply in the HDB resale market is basically caused by the lag effect of HDB supply of new flats. Singaporeans could not possibly sell their flats to PRs due to PAP's own liberal FT policy basically because they could not get any new flats from HDB at all.
This in turn created a round robin feedback effect on the whole system. HDB resale prices went up, causing the prices of new HDB flats to go up as well. This in turn cause deferment of purchase of new HDB flats by the lower income couples.
There is nothing much which can be done to help the victims of the current boom-bust housing cycle caused by Mr Mah’s BTO system. The best that can be done is to change the system to protect future generations. As part of comprehensive HDB housing reform, I would like to propose
1) Revert to the previous Build-To-Sell system
2) Maintain a strategic stockpile of HDB flats which can be released into the market to stop housing bubbles from forming
3) Reduce the time to build HDB flats
4) Have a long term policy of matching available HDB flats to the Total Population of Singapore.
Goh Meng Seng
If the numbers are accurate and correct, it is unknown why MOF would refuse to release the data/methodology. Without transparency, there can only be rumor and speculation about the accuracy on what Mr Thraman claimed.
Well, throwing numbers and figures in a serious place like Parliament could be pretty easy. However if such so call "statistics" or "figures" are not and could not subject to public scrutiny to the fullest details, then I guess such talk is just Highfalutin expression without any solid foundation.
I have also written to HDB to seek clarifications on what Minister Mah has brought up in parliament about the affordability issue. Similarly, I have been ignored. This is a government that self-proclaim to be the First World government, but without any "Transparency" in action. A government that dare not provide any proof that could withstand public scrutiny. It is really up to Singaporeans to decide whether to believe such talks or not.
I shall now move on to Minister Mah's HDB MYTHS and TRUTH.
MYTH I: There are not enough HDB flats to meet demand.
HIS RESPONSE:
# The HDB released 13,500 new flats last year and will release another 12,000 or more this year. This is more than the total number of flats in Clementi or Jurong East (about 23,000 flats each).
Based on the HDB website, it takes 3 years on average for a new HBD flat to be built. The 13,500 new flats released in 2009 will therefore only be available for occupancy in 2012. Similarly the 12,000 HDB flats released in 2010 will not be available for occupancy until 2013.
There is a housing shortage in Singapore NOW. From 2003 to 2008. the total population increased by 17.6% while resident population increased by 8.2%. The number of HDB flats however only increased by 1.2.%.
The inadequate new HDB flats to meet demand caused a destructive boom-bust cycle to be formed. Prices of HDB prices have skyrocketed as people need HDB flats NOW. The subsequent flooding of the market with HDB flats in 2012/2013 will mean that there is likely to be collapse of HDB prices by 2012.
A conservative estimate of the need to provide 4% more flats compare to 2003 would mean a need to increase new HDB flats by at least 24,000 flats. This should be on top of the natural annual demand of new flats derived from new couples.
YPAP has published Mr Mah Bow Tan’s speech in Parliament
http://www.youngpap.org.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=148:mnd-cos-debate-on-affordability-of-hdb-flats&catid=24:political-discussions
To avoid misquoting Mr Mah, I had waited for a copy of the speech to be released on an official PAP platform before commenting on it. There are some parts of the speech which I do not understand. I have written in to the Ministry of National Development to clarify what Mr Mah meant, but as I have said earlier, I have been ignored totally.
In view of the inability of HDB to meet demand for 2003 and 2008, I would like to discuss Mr Mah’s Build-To-Order (BTO) system and how it caused the current HDB housing bubble.
Under the BTO scheme, HDB flats are built based on application demand. In Mr Mah’s own words, the intent of the BTO scheme is so that HDB is not stuck with a large inventory of unsold flats.
To prove his point, Mr Mah then sprouts out an impressive looking set of statistics to show that the BTO system is working and that there are sufficient HDB flats to meet demand.
The fatal flaw in Mr Mah’s reasoning is that it takes 3 years or more for BTO flats to be built. What happens then if there is a sudden spike in housing demand? What can Mr Mah do?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !
Sudden spikes in housing demand coincide with booms in the Singapore economy. During such booms, the labor market tightens. To keep wages down and prevent Singaporeans from job hopping, large numbers of FT are allowed into Singapore. These FT need a place to stay and therefore push up rental and property prices. PRs could only buy from the HDB resale market but the truth is, how many Singaporeans could afford to sell their HDB flats without buying another HDB flat for them to live in? Without a stockpile and a 3 years time lag for new HDB flats to be built, what can Mr Mah do about skyrocketing HDB prices?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !
If we stick with the current BTO system, we will have a continuous series of destructive boom-bust housing cycles. During such cycles, there will be a small group of individuals who earn supernormal profit. There will however be a much larger group who will suffer large paper losses and be saddled with a huge debt for possibly the rest of their lives.
The total mismatch of IMMEDIATE demand and supply in the HDB resale market is basically caused by the lag effect of HDB supply of new flats. Singaporeans could not possibly sell their flats to PRs due to PAP's own liberal FT policy basically because they could not get any new flats from HDB at all.
This in turn created a round robin feedback effect on the whole system. HDB resale prices went up, causing the prices of new HDB flats to go up as well. This in turn cause deferment of purchase of new HDB flats by the lower income couples.
There is nothing much which can be done to help the victims of the current boom-bust housing cycle caused by Mr Mah’s BTO system. The best that can be done is to change the system to protect future generations. As part of comprehensive HDB housing reform, I would like to propose
1) Revert to the previous Build-To-Sell system
2) Maintain a strategic stockpile of HDB flats which can be released into the market to stop housing bubbles from forming
3) Reduce the time to build HDB flats
4) Have a long term policy of matching available HDB flats to the Total Population of Singapore.
Goh Meng Seng
Monday, March 22, 2010
HDB for retirement financing? Think again...
I have written about Minister Mah's idea of turning HDB flat into retirement instrument as DANGEROUS in my last posting. Some people has ponder over it and realize that it is indeed a "look good but infeasible" idea. As I have mentioned, it is an idea that lacks basic economic sense.
You can read something interesting abt HDB-CPF-Retirement Financing at the following blog:
En Bloc Block - Block Collective Sales @ - Trilogy : Part C PM said, I am saying
The following is a comment left by a reader "Now Not Talent Anymore" in Temasek Review about how the idea of HDB flat as a means of retirement financing is a total flaw:
You can read something interesting abt HDB-CPF-Retirement Financing at the following blog:
En Bloc Block - Block Collective Sales @ - Trilogy : Part C PM said, I am saying
The following is a comment left by a reader "Now Not Talent Anymore" in Temasek Review about how the idea of HDB flat as a means of retirement financing is a total flaw:
By 2030, there will be at least 900,000 65 year old and old retired Singaporeans.
Assuming an average of S$500 pm CPF Life payment, or S$6,000 per annum.
It means there is a drain of S$5.4-billion per annum from CPF Corporation. In 2030, has PAP Government got the fund to service this CPF Life annual payout?
Assume PAP Government agreed to apply Reverse Mortgage Scheme for 2-room, 3-room and 4-room flat as a means to help out retired Singaporeans.
Assume 500,000 HDB dwelling units are eligible in 2030.
Assume an average of S$10,000 per annum payout to each HDB dwelling unit.
It means an annual outlay of S$10,000 x 500,000 = S$5-billion per annum.
America is now using 17% of its GDP for medical and healthcare.
Presently, the budget for healthcare is about 3% of GDP.
Assuming that due to ageing baby-boomers, healthcare budget doubels up, meaning about S$4-billion per annum is needed just to take care of teh need of an ageing population in terms of subsidised medicine, hospitals, community hospitals, geriatrics polyclinics, nurisng homes and hospices.
And of course, by 2030, PAP Government can easily spend about S$1-billion per annum for LUP, MUP and SERC.
Add up the future burden in 2030 due to our ageing infrastructures and ageing HDB estates, plus 900,000 unproductive consumers of 65 year old retired SIngaporeans, and we have to find money of at least:
5.4 + 5 + 4 + 1 = S$15.4-billion.
7% GST = S$7-billion collection.
And dear Singaporeans, I envisage that GST will go up to 15% (on par with European countries today GST rate) by 2030 just to service all those soical welfarism which we enjoy today…cleverly packaged as Workfare, Progressive Payment, etc.
And the above S$15-billion is a piffy sum as compared to the looming financial disaster, starting in 2030..and yes, the very foundation of PAP Government Success Story – our very own HDB Estates.
I dimly remembered a reinforced cocnrete handbook that I read which indicated that reinforced cocnrete strength starts to deteriorate after 75 years; and worse if it is post-tensioned (PT).
And we use lots of PT slabs and PT beams due to our prefabricated methid of construction.
Imagine you are leaving in a 3-room HDB flat built in 1965. It will be 65 years old in 2030.
You bought it from resale market in 2010 at S$300,000; hoping that it will increase by at least 50% to S$450,000 by 2030.
And if you are lucky and there is another Property Bubble, you can sell it for S$600,000!!!
But the Seller forgot one little fact.
Can the prospective buyer gets a bank loan for a 60+ year odl flat with only 39 of lease remaining?
So, poor Seller is “asset rich, cash poor” as he or she simply cannot find any buyer and may very well have to lower the selling price to attract buyers!!!
Therefore, Mah Bow Tan’s assumption of a continual upward curve of appreciating values hold no water for those poor saps snapping up all those 30+ year old HDB flats – built in the 60s – to the tune of S$250,000 to S$350,000 in 2010.
Then, the chain reaction starts.
There is a large overhang of 60s and 70s HDB flats with no buyers, and will certainly depress the HDB resale market – meaning there is no asset appreciaiton for HDB flats by 2030.
Instead, there is price stagnation due to thsoe unsellable 60+ year old HDB flats in the market.
Then, how will those affected – say 300,000 to 500,000 HDB householders retire if they can’t cash in their “asset appreciated” HDB flats to downgrade to a smaller HDB unit?
Imagine 500,000 60+ year old HDB flats that no buyer will want.
And PAP Government has no choice but to Reverse Mortgage those 500,000 HDB units to enable retired SIngaporeans to have a decent pension funds.
Assume an average price of S$300,000 per HDB unit.
Then, 500,000 units = S$150-billion!!!!!
If the payout is S$5-billion per annum, then those 500,000 HDB house owners will receive their payment during a 30 year period.
Now, what if in 2030, your HDB block is declared struturally unsafe and must be demolished?
Then, force majuere comes into play and you may end up with zilch as your expected asset appreciation of S$450,000 instantly ebcomes worthless as your home is no more, demolished and the land revert back to HDB, i.e. PAP Government.
At one stroke, you are 65 year old, hapily looking froward to retirement.
Then, WHAM! BAM!
You “asset apprection” of a HDB flat is no more but a pile of rubbles and you become an instant pauper with 30-year of hard earned CPF money just turned into conrete dust.
Therfore, Mr. Mah Bow Tan, has you ever think of a 60-year old, and rapidly ageing year by year – HDB flat will ever appreciate on an upward curve when buyers will hesitate, not because they can’t get a bank loan, but becaue of the inherent nature of reinforced concrete strength starts to deteriorate after 75 years or more?
Apparently the only solution to ensure continual asset appreciation I can think of is sadly that for 60 year old HDB blocks (and even private dwelling units), is en bloc, demolishment and re-building.
Meaning that HDB ownbers will need to fork out money to pay for:
- to renew the land elase bakc to 99-year.
- to pay for a newly constructed HDB flats.
I trust you all can see the fallacy of Mr. Mah Bow Tan’s lovely advice of “your HDB flat will appreciate and you can then sell it, downgrade to a smaller unit and retire on the capital appreciation”.
And of course, it is always better to buy brand-new HDB flats.
The frist batch was in Queenstown in early 60s..maybe 1963.
Toa Payoh at Lorong 1, 2, 4 & 5 are in 1965.
Lorong 7 is 1965, and my fmaily moved in in 1969, Block 13 – and it is still standing there.
That is, the first batch of HDB blocks are now 45 to 47 year old.
And in 2030, they will be 65 to 67 year old where P65ers are 65 year old and start to retire.
Now, when a 3-room HDB flat is 60+ year old, and you want to sell in the resale market at say S$450,000 for yoru retirement needs, the question is will there be buyer for a HDB flat with 39 leasehold year remaining?
Adn will commercial banks willing tyo loan out a 30-year mortgage loan for this 60+ year old HDB flat?
And what happen tot hat 2nd buyer who paid S$450,000 for a 60-year old HDB flat; only to see it worthless in another 30 to 40 year time?
Asset appreciaiton of course will not work for the 2nd buyer.
Of coruse, if you are unfortunate and perhaps afetr moving in in 2030 and then 10 to 15 years later, the HDB block sid eclared strucuturally unsafe…..and where those affected fmailies move to?
As I said that if a 50 year old HDB flat is udner SERC and completely demolished, then those affected HDB residents will either move away or wait 4 years for rebuilding ebfore moving back to the ned HDB blocks.
But who will fund all these rebuilding works under SERC?
Imagine throughout a 30 year period, an average cost of building one dwelling unit is S$200,000.
Then, just to rebuild new 500,000 dwelling units starting in 2030 – and ending in 2060 – the funds required is 500,000 x S$200,000 = S$100-billion.
Or about S$3.3-billion per annum, starting in 2030.
That is, which ever way you look at it, if PAP Government plans to put all 60 year old HDB blocks under SERC to rejuvenate ageing HDB estates, funds are needed.
And under SERC, say you want to cash in by selling yoru 3-room, 4-room or 5-room back to (and downgrade to 1-room or 2-room) PAP Government, then PAP Government will need to fidn billions to pay out these “asset APPRECIATIONS” to 65-year old SIngpaorean retirees.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
HDB's Flawed Policy Direction
I have watched the Talking Point of Mr. Mah's effort to defend his HDB policies. After watching it, I feel very worried about the future of Singapore.
It has confirmed my initial guess of what this PAP government is up to, although I have heard about it from a professor whom might have helped to mold such policy direction.
MBT started off with three main points:
1) HDB flats are for Home Ownership, for Singaporeans to "own" their flats. This "asset" you could "sell it and you can keep everything that you made"
2) Extensive Coverage. Over 80% Singaporeans are within this scheme.
3) HDB is also acting as a form of retirement income. Singaporeans can "monetize" their flats, downgrade, rent out... etc. just for retirement financing.
Mr. Mah responded to my constant ranting on the ground that with a 30 years mortgage, our children will not be able to have sufficient money in their CPF for retirement financing. If our children married at 30 years old, they could only finish their mortgage payment by 60 years old. Almost all money in CPF apart from Medisave will be used for this mortgage payment. There will be very little money left for retirement financing.
Mr. Mah responded saying that we could "monetize" our HDB flat for this retirement financing. The assumption that one could actually "monetized" our HDB flats to finance retirement is totally flawed. There are many issues here. When you pay high prices for your first HDB flat, by the time you finish paying the 30 years mortgage, you would be buying almost 50% more than the price you initially bought in terms of interests.
Case I
Take for example, if you are getting a loan of $225K for a 4 room flat, you will be paying about $865 for a 30 years mortgage. Your interests paid at the end of the mortgage is a total of about $103K at the HDB's concessionary interest rate of 2.6%. It means that if you are to make any money out of your flat, you must be able to sell at least $328K by the time you finished paying the 30 years mortgage. Please bear in mind that your lease will be left with 69 years. This is the reason why PAP wants the resale price of HDB to stay high.
However, if you sell off your HDB flat, where are you going to stay? Assuming that the studio apartment by then will cost you $100K. (Very conservative estimate indeed.) So you will have $228K left for retirement financing.
Case II
Could we do better than this? If the price today is priced at cost price, maybe $50K less. The amount of interest you will save will be about $23K with the same 30 years mortgage. You will be paying $190 less per month for your mortgage payment. This $190 will be in your CPF account earning an interest of 2.5%. At the end of the 30 years, you will get about $109K from this monthly saving of $190.
You will be taking a loan of $175K and paying $675 per month for your flat. Total interest paid will be about $79K. So in order for you to break even, you will need to sell $254K. Deducting that $100K studio apartment, you will get $154K plus the CPF extra saving of $109K. A total of $263K!
Please bear in mind that this is selling at break even, at lower price than Case I. If the flat could be sold at the same price as Case I, $328K, you will have another extra amount of $74K!
Besides, nobody could possibly predict what price the resale market will be in 30 years time! For the Case II, you will definitely get $109K first regardless of whether you can sell your flat or not. If you take $1000 per month for monthly expense, this $109K savings could last you about 9 years.
The above is a simple example. However, I have not come to the other problems of Mr. Mah's method. If HDB insists on high HDB flat pricing based on resale market prices which are subjected more to excess liquidity from foreign sources rather than real income growth locally, the pricing mechanism will price young couples out. It is already taking effect on the lower income people now.
If we were to take Mr. Mah's policy direction at face value, it would mean that the resale market has to grow by at least 2.6% per year in order for the plan to be successful. However, can the Minister guarantees that our income growth could also grow at this rate for ALL Singaporeans? Apparently, by historical data for the past 10 years, the wages for the middle-lower income group has been stagnant or even regressed!
If more and more Singaporeans are priced out of the HDB property market, forced to stay with their parents, such a scheme will collapse. You may have 80% of Singaporeans staying in HDB but not all adult Singaporeans owning their flats! How could Mr. Mah's "HIGHFALUTIN IDEA" of using HDB flat as retirement financing works then?
On the other hand, more and more Singles and Divorced Singaporeans will be priced out by the system because the system is basically based on two income earners assumption. In the end, they may be forced to buy studio apartments or 2 room flats. If that happens, they couldn't possible downgrade further, could they?
Besides, this system is in danger of turning into sub-prime. At this rate we are going, there is no guarantee that everyone will be able to stay employed for the whole 30 years of their lives without decreased wages. Even Government agencies and GLCs are totally biased against older applicants who have passed 40 years old.
This is basically the reason why more and more Singaporeans are unable to fulfill their mortgage payment, ended up having their HDB flats being repossessed, evicted out of their flats. This is no laughing matter. They would have lost everything in the whole process or even ended up still owning HDB money after losing all their CPFs and the flats. At the very least, if they have kept that $190 per month savings in CPF as in Case II, they would still have some funds for retirement in future!
The other problem with this model is that there will be a great possibility of over building of studio apartments in view of an aging population. There will be a peak of this aging population and then it will decline, stabilizing at sometime later. During the peak of the aging population, the resale market may just collapse! This is basically because many people who follow Mr. Mah's direction would have to sell their flats to finance their retirement. Thus, Mr. Mah's hope of having high resale market price by the time of our retirement may be just fat hope.
On the other hand, the HDB may not react sufficiently to provide enough studio apartments to these people because they will be very concerned of over building. It will be a very delicate balance to maintain. By HDB's track record back in 2007 and 2008, it doesn't seem to be very nimble in estimating demand.
The situation would be great demand on studio apartment but there are competing resources now. HDB would have to build and cater to TWO big groups of people, the young couples and the retirees. If we do not have more PRs to buy up the resale flats from these retirees, we will be in trouble! There will be a huge oversupply of flats in the market.
Thus, the "downgrading" option is not economically sound at all. What about "reverse mortgage"? How much money do the government of the day needs to fork out to satisfy this system? Especially for an aging population when the PEAK of retirees begins to surface? Is that sound at all for the financial system to put in so much money to finance an "unproductive" investment?
How about the renting out option? First of all, there must be enough demand. If we do not have enough foreign workers working here to rent the flats during the peak of aging population, we are doomed. Furthermore, more PRs would prefer to buy their own flats and rent them out as well! Could anyone guarantee that there will be so many foreign workers around? If that is so, our own Singaporeans may just face depressed wages as well! The problem of affordability of HDB will come back to haunt us again especially so when we need the wage to grow as fast as the flat prices to grow at the rate of 2.6% per year.
Thus I think the suggestion of using HDB flat as "retirement financing" is really a very dangerous one. It has no basic sound economic foundation to start with. It is just based on some "ideal situation" scenario which is totally unrealistic. The premise of the "ULTIMATE PLAN" of PAP's retirement financing for Singaporeans is totally flawed. This system cannot work at all.
The better bet is the second case scenario whereby flats are sold at lower prices and Singaporeans could continue to save their money in CPF to be used for future retirement financing. To bank on Mr. Mah's policy direction on High HDB price for Future Retirement Financing is a very dangerous move. There are so many variables to take care of. There are just too many unrealistic assumptions made but possible scenarios arising from the aging population not taken care of. His plan that aims to solve one problem, will eventually create more problems for Singaporeans and future government.
Goh Meng Seng
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
