The elections are getting HOT. Someone just torn off our posters put on our trucks and some of our supporters have been throwing stones at PAP posters in Tampines. I would like to urge our supporters to keep calm. We can afford to lose this elections but not our dignity.
BG Tan Chuan Jin (陈川仁), PAP candidate of Marine Parade has said many things lately. Before Nomination Day, he has challenged opposition party not just talk or wayang but go and contest in MP. Now, after NSP sent a team to contest in MP, he is saying that NSP is wayang!
I believe that a General like Tan Chuan Jin would not want to be just PAPER GENERAL and definitely he won’t want to HIDE behind a so-call HEAVY WEIGHT in MP GRC. IF he is really dying for a good fight, he should have offered himself to stand in a SMC! Regrettably he is now hiding in MP GRC. I really don’t know who is wayang!
As I have stated in our first MP rally, the STRATEGIC reason is to extract ACCOUNTABILITY from SM Goh Chok Tong for his past bad policies which are turning Singapore from a country to a COMPANY. Do you want accountability from Goh Chok Tong?
BG Tan also said that NSP doesn’t know the people in MP. I have to ask our dear general, as a ROOKIE candidate in MP, how much does he know about MP voters? Has he knocked every door? I guess most of the incumbent PAP MPs who are paid more than $14,000 a month didn’t even knock every door!
Alright, let’s not be distracted by our General Tan from the real issues at hand.
We are having a PAP system which is SUCKING every drop of blood we have in the name of AFFORDABILITY. Right from Healthcare, Transport to Housing. Especially for housing which is the most expensive item that Singaporeans have to buy.
Mah Bow Tan says that the length of your mortgage doesn’t really matter. If you can have the FALSE SENSE of affordability of having 30 years mortgage as it is “cheaper” to pay each month, please go ahead.
BUT, my Dear Minister, do you know that by having 30 years mortgage instead of 5, 10 or 20 years, we are going to be paying more COMPOUNDED interests?
Do you know that WE will not be able to RETIRE 30 years later if ALL our CPF money is used to pay for your EXPENSIVE HDB flat? 1 Our WHOLE GENERAL will be ENSLAVED by your 30 years mortgage!
If Mah Bow Tan continues his pricing mechanism pegging NEW HDB flats to resale market prices, we will definitely end up with 40, 50 or even 100 years mortgage! Why?
Anyone with just that bit of common sense will know that ASSET INFLATION is always MUCH HIGHER than NORMAL INFLATION. It is also a fact that as compared to 1990, our income has only increased by 2 times BUT HDB resale prices have increased by FOUR TIMES!
Moreover, according to some reports, prices for NEW HDB flats have increased almost 70% for the pass 6 years but median income has only grown by 37.7% and worse, the lower income group only grows only at 22.6% for the whole decade of 2000 to 2010!
Pegging prices of NEW HDB FLATS to resale market prices will definitely erode the ability of our younger and future generations to own their home!
NSP has come up with a more viable pricing mechanism for NEW HDB FLATS. We are advocating pegging the prices of New HDB FLATS to the COST of building the flat plus a hefty discount on the land prices. This will eradicate the UNFAIR impact of ASSET INFLATION RATE while taking into account of the Normal Inflation rate through the cost of building the flats.
Only by adopting NSP pricing mechanism for new HDB flats, the REAL affordability for any generations of Singaporeans will be secured.
Our forefathers have made sacrifices by giving up their lands to PAP government at DIRT CHEAP PRICES. Don’t you think that the PAP has the SOCIAL OBLIGATION to ensure Singaporeans, generations after generations, should have a CHEAP ROOF over their heads?
If you want to secure the future of your children, your grandchildren, your great grand children, You will have to make your stand clearly on 7 May.
If you don’t want to be ENSLAVED by PAP’s 30 or even 40 years mortgage in time to come, please vote NSP.
If you don’t want your future generations to SELL their flats for retirement, you will have to vote NSP.
And IF you do not want your future generations to continue to be THREATEN by PAP, which is fast becoming GOD which we need to repent to, VOTE more opposition members into parliament.
Our FUTURE lies in your hands my fellow Singaporeans. VOTE NSP, YOUR VOICE, YOUR CHOICE, YOUR FUTURE.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
Funeral Wake of the Unsung Hero
Dear Supporters,
The Funeral Wake of our Unsung Hero, David Goh Meng Hee, will be held at Tampines Street 71, Blk 721 from evening onwards. The family of the hero declines any press interviews or reporting. Please respect the privacy of the family. Your cooperation will be much appreciated.
NSP Tampines Team
The Funeral Wake of our Unsung Hero, David Goh Meng Hee, will be held at Tampines Street 71, Blk 721 from evening onwards. The family of the hero declines any press interviews or reporting. Please respect the privacy of the family. Your cooperation will be much appreciated.
NSP Tampines Team
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Back to Fundamentals
Today is the eve of Nomination Day for GE 2011. I have mixed feelings within me.
Looking back, this is the 10th anniversary of my involvement in partisan politics. However, if I look deeper to my consciousness, the seed of political activism has been planted into me 20 to 30 years back.
Reading MM Lee's comment on going back to fundamentals and not "rock the foundations" of this Nation really make me feel more righteous about my involvement in opposition politics. I have told reporters that it was PAP which has "rocked" the very foundation which this Nation was founded upon.
The TWO main pillars of our nation's Core Values are:
1) Social Justice and Equality
2) Meritocracy
The most important reason why I decided to take the plunge into opposition politics is because I realize that PAP has eroded these fundamental principles. The final push comes in GE 1997 whereby Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong made used of HDB upgrading as the carrot in pork barrel politics, threatening voters (especially Cheng San voters like me) that if we do not vote for PAP, we will not have HDB upgrading.
In this one master stroke, PAP has destroyed the sense of Social Justine and Equality as well as the Spirit of Meritocracy. Whether a HDB flat needs upgrading or not should depend on the MERITS like the age of the building, conditions of the infrastructure etc and not about who the voters vote for or anything else. I fear for my children and Singapore's future generations to live under an environment that is devoid of such basic Social Moral principles. This is why I have chosen to fight against PAP to reinstate such basic Fundamentals which we have depended on for success.
While I was still an undergraduate back in early 1990s, I was furious about Goh Chok Tong's plan of "Asset Enhancement Scheme". The Goh's Administration sold the idea of having our assets increase in value but it has not mentioned about the prices of new HDB flats would go up as well. As an undergraduate waiting to graduate, get married and start up a home, I was furious but NO ONE represented us. I have written articles about the ills of this scheme which will result in inter-generation wealth gap but all fallen on death ears.
This is why I am prepared to encourage young people in their 20s to stand for Elections. I have experienced such desperation as a youngster who could only just sit down an watch politicians selling away the future of my generation, helplessly. I believe youngsters should play a role in this parliamentary system because many policies made by the ruling party will have long term great impact on our youngsters in 10, 20 or even 30 years to come.
It was PAP who have changed the fundamentals of HDB as public housing. PAP has discarded its social obligation as the ruling party in providing cheap or even subsidized housing for Singaporeans. They have forcefully acquired our forefathers' land at dirt cheap price and they should carry the social obligation to provide cheap public housing for our future generations. Instead, they are more interested in keep growing the National Reserves by selling land at high profits for building HDB flats!
Yes, MM Lee, it is about going back to fundamentals. PAP should do a deep self reflection on what went wrong with its fundamental principles of governance. PAP has lost its socialist roots along the way and now, it has lost the political moral high ground to talk about fundamentals.
Goh Meng Seng
Looking back, this is the 10th anniversary of my involvement in partisan politics. However, if I look deeper to my consciousness, the seed of political activism has been planted into me 20 to 30 years back.
Reading MM Lee's comment on going back to fundamentals and not "rock the foundations" of this Nation really make me feel more righteous about my involvement in opposition politics. I have told reporters that it was PAP which has "rocked" the very foundation which this Nation was founded upon.
The TWO main pillars of our nation's Core Values are:
1) Social Justice and Equality
2) Meritocracy
The most important reason why I decided to take the plunge into opposition politics is because I realize that PAP has eroded these fundamental principles. The final push comes in GE 1997 whereby Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong made used of HDB upgrading as the carrot in pork barrel politics, threatening voters (especially Cheng San voters like me) that if we do not vote for PAP, we will not have HDB upgrading.
In this one master stroke, PAP has destroyed the sense of Social Justine and Equality as well as the Spirit of Meritocracy. Whether a HDB flat needs upgrading or not should depend on the MERITS like the age of the building, conditions of the infrastructure etc and not about who the voters vote for or anything else. I fear for my children and Singapore's future generations to live under an environment that is devoid of such basic Social Moral principles. This is why I have chosen to fight against PAP to reinstate such basic Fundamentals which we have depended on for success.
While I was still an undergraduate back in early 1990s, I was furious about Goh Chok Tong's plan of "Asset Enhancement Scheme". The Goh's Administration sold the idea of having our assets increase in value but it has not mentioned about the prices of new HDB flats would go up as well. As an undergraduate waiting to graduate, get married and start up a home, I was furious but NO ONE represented us. I have written articles about the ills of this scheme which will result in inter-generation wealth gap but all fallen on death ears.
This is why I am prepared to encourage young people in their 20s to stand for Elections. I have experienced such desperation as a youngster who could only just sit down an watch politicians selling away the future of my generation, helplessly. I believe youngsters should play a role in this parliamentary system because many policies made by the ruling party will have long term great impact on our youngsters in 10, 20 or even 30 years to come.
It was PAP who have changed the fundamentals of HDB as public housing. PAP has discarded its social obligation as the ruling party in providing cheap or even subsidized housing for Singaporeans. They have forcefully acquired our forefathers' land at dirt cheap price and they should carry the social obligation to provide cheap public housing for our future generations. Instead, they are more interested in keep growing the National Reserves by selling land at high profits for building HDB flats!
Yes, MM Lee, it is about going back to fundamentals. PAP should do a deep self reflection on what went wrong with its fundamental principles of governance. PAP has lost its socialist roots along the way and now, it has lost the political moral high ground to talk about fundamentals.
Goh Meng Seng
Friday, April 22, 2011
Response to Minister Mah's twisted logic
I have made the following rebuttals to Minister Mah Bow Tan's assertions:
1) Asset Enhancement Scheme
As an undergraduate in early 1990s, I was pretty upset when the Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong announced his plan for "Asset Enhancement Scheme". It would mean that my generation as well as future generations will have to pay MORE for HDB flats in future. Indeed, I have to pay 10 times more than my parents for a similar 4 room HDB flat. There is a COST of this Asset Enhancement Scheme to next and future generations.
Every Singaporean can only own ONE HDB flat as their HOME. HDB flat is a HOME, NOT an investment tool.
Furthermore, can the value of HDB value keep going up forever when it has only a 99 year lease? Obviously not! When our HDB flat is 50 year old or more, banks will be very reluctant to provide loans for potential buyers. It would mean that the demand for our old flats will drop drastically and the value will definitely drop.
To ask Singaporeans to depend on their HDB flats for retirement financing because we have this Asset Enhancement Scheme is totally flawed.
2) Lower Land Cost is Raiding Reserves
The PAP government has "raided" our forefathers by using Land Acquisition Act to acquire their land while paying peanuts in compensation! While our forefathers made sacrifices for the sake of our Nation's development needs, it is the social obligation of the PAP government to take care of our people by providing cheap public housing. At the very least, they should provide such cheap public housing for their FIRST matrimonial home.
Even with lower land price, the government of the day will still GAIN from such land sales due to the fact that they have acquired such land at dirt cheap prices.
We have accumulated more than $300Billion reserves basically due to the hefty profits gained via land sales. We could afford to slow down the growth of our reserves by making more concessions to our young Singaporeans.
3) Will we crash the market?
Resale market and first hand new HDB flat market are totally different market segments.
Resale market is a free market with many buyers and sellers. The demand in this market segment consists of Permanent Residents, Upgraders as well as some First time buyers.
For the first hand new HDB flat market, HDB is the MONOPOLY of supply with many Singaporean buyers. But the demand of this first hand HDB market consists only FIRST time buyers.
Thus, only Singaporeans who are first time buyers of these NEW HDB flats will benefit from this Cost-Plus scheme which NSP is advocating. Even if those first hand buyers in the resale market start to consider buying New HDB flats directly from HDB, there is no risk of total collapse of the resale market at all! This is basically because PRs and upgraders would not benefit from this scheme at all. PRs cannot buy direct from HDB and upgraders cannot benefit from this scheme. There is no incentive for them to switch to buy new HDB flat.
If the PAP government is sincere and serious about solving the low fertility rate problem, it should fulfill its social obligation by giving our young Singaporeans a big Ang Pao in terms of cheap HDB flats. This will allow them to have a head start in owning their first home when they get married.
Goh Meng Seng
1) Asset Enhancement Scheme
As an undergraduate in early 1990s, I was pretty upset when the Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong announced his plan for "Asset Enhancement Scheme". It would mean that my generation as well as future generations will have to pay MORE for HDB flats in future. Indeed, I have to pay 10 times more than my parents for a similar 4 room HDB flat. There is a COST of this Asset Enhancement Scheme to next and future generations.
Every Singaporean can only own ONE HDB flat as their HOME. HDB flat is a HOME, NOT an investment tool.
Furthermore, can the value of HDB value keep going up forever when it has only a 99 year lease? Obviously not! When our HDB flat is 50 year old or more, banks will be very reluctant to provide loans for potential buyers. It would mean that the demand for our old flats will drop drastically and the value will definitely drop.
To ask Singaporeans to depend on their HDB flats for retirement financing because we have this Asset Enhancement Scheme is totally flawed.
2) Lower Land Cost is Raiding Reserves
The PAP government has "raided" our forefathers by using Land Acquisition Act to acquire their land while paying peanuts in compensation! While our forefathers made sacrifices for the sake of our Nation's development needs, it is the social obligation of the PAP government to take care of our people by providing cheap public housing. At the very least, they should provide such cheap public housing for their FIRST matrimonial home.
Even with lower land price, the government of the day will still GAIN from such land sales due to the fact that they have acquired such land at dirt cheap prices.
We have accumulated more than $300Billion reserves basically due to the hefty profits gained via land sales. We could afford to slow down the growth of our reserves by making more concessions to our young Singaporeans.
3) Will we crash the market?
Resale market and first hand new HDB flat market are totally different market segments.
Resale market is a free market with many buyers and sellers. The demand in this market segment consists of Permanent Residents, Upgraders as well as some First time buyers.
For the first hand new HDB flat market, HDB is the MONOPOLY of supply with many Singaporean buyers. But the demand of this first hand HDB market consists only FIRST time buyers.
Thus, only Singaporeans who are first time buyers of these NEW HDB flats will benefit from this Cost-Plus scheme which NSP is advocating. Even if those first hand buyers in the resale market start to consider buying New HDB flats directly from HDB, there is no risk of total collapse of the resale market at all! This is basically because PRs and upgraders would not benefit from this scheme at all. PRs cannot buy direct from HDB and upgraders cannot benefit from this scheme. There is no incentive for them to switch to buy new HDB flat.
If the PAP government is sincere and serious about solving the low fertility rate problem, it should fulfill its social obligation by giving our young Singaporeans a big Ang Pao in terms of cheap HDB flats. This will allow them to have a head start in owning their first home when they get married.
Goh Meng Seng
Monday, April 18, 2011
Cheaper housing key to securing future
From Channel News Asia:
The National Solidarity Party (NSP) has said there would be no future for Singapore if the People's Action Party cannot secure cheaper housing for future generations.
It was responding to the ruling party's manifesto entitled, "Securing the Future Together", which was released on Sunday.
The NSP's Secretary General, Goh Meng Seng, along with his party's members and volunteers, covered the Chua Chu Kang, Jurong and Pioneer areas on Sunday.
Mr Goh said he disagreed with National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan's comments that lowering the cost of state land was equivalent to "raiding the reserves".
Mr Goh said: "At this moment, we know that we have about S$300 billion of reserves. And I think it is about time that we can do with a lower growth for the reserve. And I would rather (have) a lower reserve growth than HDB raiding the people. Raiding our young generation with high cost of housing."
The NSP will be going up against Mr Mah in Tampines Group Representation Constituency (GRC).
Mr Goh said that the Socialist Front's move of not standing in the Whampoa and Mountbatten single-member constituencies was a "considerate gesture", while the NSP's withdrawal from Moulmein-Kallang GRC was to have a more "harmonious opposition movement".
Mr Goh said: "But of course, there are still areas which we are facing three-cornered fights at. As far as NSP is concerned, we have made the greatest compromise that we could, and I think the ball is in other people's court now."
The NSP still faces possible three-cornered fights in Radin Mas and Pioneer, which the Reform Party is also contesting.
Mr Goh was walking the ground with his party's Chua Chu Kang and Jurong GRC teams, and its candidate for Pioneer, Steve Chia.
Potential NSP candidates like former Nee Soon Central MP, Cheo Chai Chen, as well as 35-year-old Dexter Wong and 29-year-old Abdul Salim Harun, were also present.
- CNA/ms
The National Solidarity Party (NSP) has said there would be no future for Singapore if the People's Action Party cannot secure cheaper housing for future generations.
It was responding to the ruling party's manifesto entitled, "Securing the Future Together", which was released on Sunday.
The NSP's Secretary General, Goh Meng Seng, along with his party's members and volunteers, covered the Chua Chu Kang, Jurong and Pioneer areas on Sunday.
Mr Goh said he disagreed with National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan's comments that lowering the cost of state land was equivalent to "raiding the reserves".
Mr Goh said: "At this moment, we know that we have about S$300 billion of reserves. And I think it is about time that we can do with a lower growth for the reserve. And I would rather (have) a lower reserve growth than HDB raiding the people. Raiding our young generation with high cost of housing."
The NSP will be going up against Mr Mah in Tampines Group Representation Constituency (GRC).
Mr Goh said that the Socialist Front's move of not standing in the Whampoa and Mountbatten single-member constituencies was a "considerate gesture", while the NSP's withdrawal from Moulmein-Kallang GRC was to have a more "harmonious opposition movement".
Mr Goh said: "But of course, there are still areas which we are facing three-cornered fights at. As far as NSP is concerned, we have made the greatest compromise that we could, and I think the ball is in other people's court now."
The NSP still faces possible three-cornered fights in Radin Mas and Pioneer, which the Reform Party is also contesting.
Mr Goh was walking the ground with his party's Chua Chu Kang and Jurong GRC teams, and its candidate for Pioneer, Steve Chia.
Potential NSP candidates like former Nee Soon Central MP, Cheo Chai Chen, as well as 35-year-old Dexter Wong and 29-year-old Abdul Salim Harun, were also present.
- CNA/ms
Sunday, April 17, 2011
In the Name of Opposition Harmony...
Yes, in the name of Opposition Harmony, NSP has decided to give up both Moulmein Kallang GRC to Workers Party and Yuhua SMC to Singapore Democratic Party.
It is indeed a very painful decision to make for NSP but for the larger good of opposition movement, we have decided to give up both places to the respective parties.
I personally feel that this is the only right thing to do even though I may be really upset by such development. With all the signs and observations made, I am convinced that this decision is the right decision in order for the opposition movement to advance forward. Right from the start, I have repeatedly stressed that Singapore voters do not want to see 3 corner fights, especially in a GRC. This is based on the observations made on the ground.
Another reason for NSP to come to this decision is reported on Yahoo News:
I am especially grateful to Socialist Front's Secretary General Chia Tilik to make the announcement that in the spirit of opposition unity and avoiding 3 corner fights, SF has decided not to send any candidates to contest in this GE.
He has earned my utmost respect for making this move for the bigger picture of the whole opposition movement.
NSP's full press release is as follows:
NSP's Decision On Moulmein-Kallang GRC and Yuhua SMC Singapore
15 April 2011
As had been reported by the media, both the National Solidarity Party (NSP) and the
Workers’ Party (WP) have expressed interest in contesting in the Moulmein-Kallang
GRC (MK).
There have been further discussions between NSP and WP since then. During the
discussions, WP has expressed a strong desire to contest in MK.
The decision that NSP has to make is a painful one. The Moulmein-Kallang GRC has a
large overlap with the Jalan Besar GRC in which NSP had contested in GE2001 and
GE2006, and bonds had been built with the residents in that area. However, in the
interest of opposition harmony, NSP has decided to withdraw from MK, and is declaring
this intention so that WP can proceed with its campaigns there unhindered.
We wish to apologise to the residents in Moulmein-Kallang GRC who have welcomed
our contest, but we are confident that WP will be able to put up a strong team to fight for their benefit and work for their well-being if elected.
In view of this new development, the team originally slated to contest in MK, namely
Jeisilan Sivalingam, Nor Lella Mardiiiah Binte Mohamed, Tony Tan Lay Thiam and Hazel
Poa Koon Koon will instead be led by Sebastian Teo, the President of NSP, to contest in Chua Chu Kang GRC (CCK).
We would also like to take this opportunity to announce the launch of our CCK Team’s
website: chuachukang.nsp.sg
On this website, interested readers can get to know more about the candidates and
what they stand for.
NSP will also not be contesting in Yuhua SMC. We wish SDP all the best in their contest.
Sincerely,
Sebastian Teo
President of NSP
It is indeed a very painful decision to make for NSP but for the larger good of opposition movement, we have decided to give up both places to the respective parties.
I personally feel that this is the only right thing to do even though I may be really upset by such development. With all the signs and observations made, I am convinced that this decision is the right decision in order for the opposition movement to advance forward. Right from the start, I have repeatedly stressed that Singapore voters do not want to see 3 corner fights, especially in a GRC. This is based on the observations made on the ground.
Another reason for NSP to come to this decision is reported on Yahoo News:
OOne of the reasons for backing out included WP's refusal to reveal its candidates who will be contesting in the area, leaving the NSP with uncertainties. This, Teo said, 'does not make it worth for the NSP to wait till the last minute'.
"For the benefit of the voters, for the benefit of the whole opposition, I think we have to make our decision early.
"As a responsible party, we should give our residents an informed kind of choice as early as we can," he said.
I am especially grateful to Socialist Front's Secretary General Chia Tilik to make the announcement that in the spirit of opposition unity and avoiding 3 corner fights, SF has decided not to send any candidates to contest in this GE.
He has earned my utmost respect for making this move for the bigger picture of the whole opposition movement.
NSP's full press release is as follows:
NSP's Decision On Moulmein-Kallang GRC and Yuhua SMC Singapore
15 April 2011
As had been reported by the media, both the National Solidarity Party (NSP) and the
Workers’ Party (WP) have expressed interest in contesting in the Moulmein-Kallang
GRC (MK).
There have been further discussions between NSP and WP since then. During the
discussions, WP has expressed a strong desire to contest in MK.
The decision that NSP has to make is a painful one. The Moulmein-Kallang GRC has a
large overlap with the Jalan Besar GRC in which NSP had contested in GE2001 and
GE2006, and bonds had been built with the residents in that area. However, in the
interest of opposition harmony, NSP has decided to withdraw from MK, and is declaring
this intention so that WP can proceed with its campaigns there unhindered.
We wish to apologise to the residents in Moulmein-Kallang GRC who have welcomed
our contest, but we are confident that WP will be able to put up a strong team to fight for their benefit and work for their well-being if elected.
In view of this new development, the team originally slated to contest in MK, namely
Jeisilan Sivalingam, Nor Lella Mardiiiah Binte Mohamed, Tony Tan Lay Thiam and Hazel
Poa Koon Koon will instead be led by Sebastian Teo, the President of NSP, to contest in Chua Chu Kang GRC (CCK).
We would also like to take this opportunity to announce the launch of our CCK Team’s
website: chuachukang.nsp.sg
On this website, interested readers can get to know more about the candidates and
what they stand for.
NSP will also not be contesting in Yuhua SMC. We wish SDP all the best in their contest.
Sincerely,
Sebastian Teo
President of NSP
Friday, April 15, 2011
A Challenge to Minister Mah
NSP has introduced its Tampines Team of candidates as well as Poineer SMC and Whampoa SMC yesterday afternoon.
I have taken the opportunity to issue a CHALLENGE to Minister Mah Bow Tan to have a debate on housing issues, whether it is in Town Hall or TV.
Housing prices will affect lots of other issues like fertility rate, cost of living, retirement financing etc. It is a serious issue with a long term impact of 20, 30 years or even more. Mah Bow Tan may not be a minister by then but who will be accountable for such impacts?
Thus, I feel that the seriousness of Housing Issue warrants a thorough debate and we will let the voters decide for their future, their future generations' future.
Goh Meng Seng
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Singapore Cannot Lose 新加坡输不起
There are a lot of comments on my previous post on Friendship and Politics. Terrence from New Nation has even written a pretty critical article on my blog post. I have made a comment on his article as well.
How opposition parties contest is an important National issue because at this stage, it involves the critical development of the Nation's political landscape for Post-LKY era.
There are a few points I would like to put forward which I believe represent the aspiration and expectation of Singapore voters at large:
1) Singaporeans want to have credible opposition MPs in parliament
2) Singaporeans want opposition to win at least 1 GRC so to put pressures on PAP
3) Singaporeans do not wish to see 3 corner fights especially for GRCs.
4) Singaporeans want to vote, wish to see as many seats contested as possible.
Many people have mistakenly perceived my previous blog post as "attacking" fellow opposition party WP. Those who have met me during my ground work would know very well, whenever I meet people staying in Aljunied or East Coast GRCs, I would naturally encourage them to vote WP. How would I be attacking a party which I promote?
As I have explained to Terrence of New Nation, when I wrote that blog post, I was writing as a normal person, not a politician. It was true feelings that I have expressed which includes my frustrations of how things went wrong.
As I have mentioned, I regard Mr. Low Thia Khiang very highly as my political mentor while I was still with WP. Even till now, I would still respect him as my political mentor. I believe he too has the soft spot for his ex-student like me when he said he has given up WP's "first choice" because he knows I am going to contest there. Thus, WP chose Moulmein Kallang as the target for its expansion plan.
However that is really the crux of the problem.
I think most people really think too much of my blog post. The Zaobao reporter actually thinks that I am hinting WP is trying to block NSP because NSP is becoming a "threat" to its position. That is just that bit too far off. The truth is, when the space within the eastern corridor is so packed, two opposition parties enjoying growth will definitely face each other in a situation of 3 corner fight if they don't want to move towards the "untested" territory in the WEST.
NSP has done its part. Although NSP has generally been contesting and working the ground in the eastern corridors like Tampines and Jalan Besar (which is now split into Moulmein Kallang and Whampao), in order to avoid clashes with WP, we have started our expansion plan in the wild wild west, Jurong GRC which was not contested in 2006. We have tried to avoid WP's traditional ground like Aljunied and East Coast.
The clash of 3 corner fight is inevitable because unfortunately WP has taken up a totally different strategic approach from NSP. WP chose to stay put and expand in the eastern corridors which inevitably step into "traditional turfs" like NSP's Jalan Besar. Mr. Low Thia Khiang has even indicated that WP's first choice was Tampines.
That is why I say I would understand why it is inevitable that both WP and NSP will end up with 3 corner fights, in the eastern corridor.
In both NSP's and WP's perspectives, the mid-eastern part of Singapore would have more "fertile political land" basically because most parts in this area has been contested in past GEs. Consistent GE contests would naturally improve political awareness and consciousness of voters.
When good people like Tony Tan and Hazel have shown interests to join NSP and contest in the coming General Elections, as the co-leader of NSP, it is my duty to make sure that they will get a reasonably good fertile ground to work on.
In order to protect Tony and Hazel's team from 3 corner fight in Moulmein Kallang, I have even offered their team to stand in Tampines but both of them have declined the offer immediately citing the reason that I have worked so hard on the minister-specific strategy on Minister Mah for so long and I should stay put there. They decided to contest Moulmein Kallang instead, which is the other ground which NSP has worked on consistently for the past decade.
I believe that both WP and NSP are responsible and credible opposition parties which would make due considerations in terms of national interests to avoid 3 corner fight in Moulmein Kallang GRC in the spirit of trying to enhance Singapore's political landscape by trying to send good and credible people into parliament. This could only happen if and only if we could provide them a reasonable good fertile ground to work on.
It would be sad if both WP and NSP have two teams of good people clashing in a 3 corner fight. This is especially so when there are other constituencies like Sembawang GRC which will go uncontested for the coming GE. NSP has done its part in deciding that the team which is supposed to contest in Nee Soon GRC would be withdrawn from there to be deployed somewhere else.
Any opposition parties, including NSP, could afford to lose elections, but Singapore cannot afford to lose, to lose the opportunity to send in good and credible people into parliament. I just hope that in the coming days, the negotiation will have fruitful outcome that will serve the Nation's interests as a whole.
Goh Meng Seng
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
Friendship and Politics
This is the 10th Anniversary of my involvement in opposition politics but instead of feeling happy about this "unusual journey" that I have chosen, I just feel sentimentally strained.
Throughout these 10 years of active involvement, I have made quite a number of friends as well as unknown faceless foes. I have worked hard and contributed to both Workers Party's as well as National Solidarity Party's growth in two different periods.
I have special sentimental attachment to WP especially when I have contributed to the rise of WP in its re-branding exercise by helping to revamp the party and fighting the battle of Aljunied GRC in GE 2006. I would regard Mr. Low Thia Khiang as my first political mentor who have guided me through the formative years of my involvement. And I still respect him as the saying goes, once a teacher forever a teacher.
Along the way, I have made many other friends in WP who have up till now, still remain close friends.
My departure from WP was the darkest day of my political life. I have chosen to leave very quietly without much fanfare even though the pain within is just like a heavy stone pounding the heart repeatedly non-stop.
After a few months of self reflections and reassessment of the roads ahead, I finally decided to join NSP with strong persuasion from Sebastian Teo, President of NSP. Frankly speaking, at first, it was a cultural shock to me. I have to spend time adjusting to new party culture and such. I was asked to take up the Secretary General post when Law Sin Ling decided to step down but I declined because I know I still cannot fully integrate into the party just yet.
It was last year that I finally decided to take up the Secretary General post and from then on, it is a road of no return.
NSP has transformed very fast under the leadership of Sebastian Teo. Within a few years, we have revamped our newspaper North Star into one of the top selling opposition papers in town. Even some ex-WP comrades have told me privately that North Star is indeed better than other opposition papers. We have inaugurated the Malay Bureau and our membership has grown significantly.
Never would I expect that WP would have 3 corner fights with NSP in the coming GE. I am being torn apart as my loyalty for my party NSP has to be weighed against the friendship I have cultivated in WP. At one point of time I was even contemplating to be the one leading the team in Moulmein-Kallang GRC to fight out the impending 3 corner fight because it would not be fair for my other NSP comrades to bear the brunt of such aggression. I am totally disappointed but in a certain way, could understand why WP has to go into such aggression. For two parties which are growing rapidly, it is just a matter of time that such battles will be waged.
Although there will be more heart pain in the process of such 3 corner fights but the wish of having "friendly 3 corner fight" will really be wishful thinking. There can never be "friendly 3 corner fight" in politics when the stake is heavy where any one party could just lose their election deposits.
It is not a battle of politics for me but rather, a battle of sentimental emotions against upright reasoning. There is absolutely no reason for WP to step into Moulmeign Kallang and wasting resources in a battle that nobody can win when there are other places like Sembawang GRC which is just next to Nee Soon GRC which is not contested.
The main aim of all opposition parties should be winning a GRC, not going into 3 corner fight. This is especially so for WP which is viewed as the biggest party with the highest potential to wrestle Aljunied GRC from PAP in this coming GE. A 3 corner fight in a GRC with fellow opposition party like NSP is truly unnecessary distraction from the main mission.
But somehow, I think WP members have lost sight of the most important mission they have set for themselves for this GE. Many of the new members have not gone through the baptism of fire, least contributed to the re-branding exercise that we have gone through but yet they have such a "gungho" feeling that they are invincible and could possibly thumb down other parties.
It is with my saddest and painful heart that I have to fight for Singapore in a very unique way. Arrogance and head-swell syndrome are bad traits for Singapore politics. It will be a hard battle ahead but I believe that each and every voter will have a very clear mind of what fairness and good reasoning mean.
Goh Meng Seng
Throughout these 10 years of active involvement, I have made quite a number of friends as well as unknown faceless foes. I have worked hard and contributed to both Workers Party's as well as National Solidarity Party's growth in two different periods.
I have special sentimental attachment to WP especially when I have contributed to the rise of WP in its re-branding exercise by helping to revamp the party and fighting the battle of Aljunied GRC in GE 2006. I would regard Mr. Low Thia Khiang as my first political mentor who have guided me through the formative years of my involvement. And I still respect him as the saying goes, once a teacher forever a teacher.
Along the way, I have made many other friends in WP who have up till now, still remain close friends.
My departure from WP was the darkest day of my political life. I have chosen to leave very quietly without much fanfare even though the pain within is just like a heavy stone pounding the heart repeatedly non-stop.
After a few months of self reflections and reassessment of the roads ahead, I finally decided to join NSP with strong persuasion from Sebastian Teo, President of NSP. Frankly speaking, at first, it was a cultural shock to me. I have to spend time adjusting to new party culture and such. I was asked to take up the Secretary General post when Law Sin Ling decided to step down but I declined because I know I still cannot fully integrate into the party just yet.
It was last year that I finally decided to take up the Secretary General post and from then on, it is a road of no return.
NSP has transformed very fast under the leadership of Sebastian Teo. Within a few years, we have revamped our newspaper North Star into one of the top selling opposition papers in town. Even some ex-WP comrades have told me privately that North Star is indeed better than other opposition papers. We have inaugurated the Malay Bureau and our membership has grown significantly.
Never would I expect that WP would have 3 corner fights with NSP in the coming GE. I am being torn apart as my loyalty for my party NSP has to be weighed against the friendship I have cultivated in WP. At one point of time I was even contemplating to be the one leading the team in Moulmein-Kallang GRC to fight out the impending 3 corner fight because it would not be fair for my other NSP comrades to bear the brunt of such aggression. I am totally disappointed but in a certain way, could understand why WP has to go into such aggression. For two parties which are growing rapidly, it is just a matter of time that such battles will be waged.
Although there will be more heart pain in the process of such 3 corner fights but the wish of having "friendly 3 corner fight" will really be wishful thinking. There can never be "friendly 3 corner fight" in politics when the stake is heavy where any one party could just lose their election deposits.
It is not a battle of politics for me but rather, a battle of sentimental emotions against upright reasoning. There is absolutely no reason for WP to step into Moulmeign Kallang and wasting resources in a battle that nobody can win when there are other places like Sembawang GRC which is just next to Nee Soon GRC which is not contested.
The main aim of all opposition parties should be winning a GRC, not going into 3 corner fight. This is especially so for WP which is viewed as the biggest party with the highest potential to wrestle Aljunied GRC from PAP in this coming GE. A 3 corner fight in a GRC with fellow opposition party like NSP is truly unnecessary distraction from the main mission.
But somehow, I think WP members have lost sight of the most important mission they have set for themselves for this GE. Many of the new members have not gone through the baptism of fire, least contributed to the re-branding exercise that we have gone through but yet they have such a "gungho" feeling that they are invincible and could possibly thumb down other parties.
It is with my saddest and painful heart that I have to fight for Singapore in a very unique way. Arrogance and head-swell syndrome are bad traits for Singapore politics. It will be a hard battle ahead but I believe that each and every voter will have a very clear mind of what fairness and good reasoning mean.
Goh Meng Seng
Thursday, March 03, 2011
3 Corner Fight, anyone?
I have just come back from the Pre-Elections Conference for all opposition parties. It is a tiring process although we have made some progress.
I am not in the position to reveal any details of the meeting but I will speak about my view in general of why this meeting is so important for Singapore, not just opposition parties.
I think Singaporeans are having high expectation of opposition parties as a whole to avoid 3 corner fights and most Singaporeans want to vote. It is the responsibility of ALL opposition parties to make sure that we could meet such high expectations. If not, the disappointment created may have big repercussion on all opposition parties; i.e. the middle ground voters may just abandon us altogether. No matter how we try to "differentiate" our "party branding" from each other, but there is still a substantial number of people who will view opposition as one big group.
Some people may not agree with me but this is the sentiment on the ground. People are prepared to vote for opposition but NO 3 CORNER FIGHT PLEASE!
NSP has been very open, reasonable and ever ready to negotiate so far in this whole process. Although there are still some outstanding issues to be ironed out, I believe and am hopeful that most opposition parties will come to reasonable settlement for all. It is not going to be a simple process but i just hope that everyone of us can take a good look at the overall picture. When we come to negotiation table, it is all about give and take. There must be willingness from all parties to reach a reasonable settlement for all.
The next meeting will be held on this coming Saturday (5 March 2011). I just hope that every outstanding issues will be solved by then.
Goh Meng Seng
I am not in the position to reveal any details of the meeting but I will speak about my view in general of why this meeting is so important for Singapore, not just opposition parties.
I think Singaporeans are having high expectation of opposition parties as a whole to avoid 3 corner fights and most Singaporeans want to vote. It is the responsibility of ALL opposition parties to make sure that we could meet such high expectations. If not, the disappointment created may have big repercussion on all opposition parties; i.e. the middle ground voters may just abandon us altogether. No matter how we try to "differentiate" our "party branding" from each other, but there is still a substantial number of people who will view opposition as one big group.
Some people may not agree with me but this is the sentiment on the ground. People are prepared to vote for opposition but NO 3 CORNER FIGHT PLEASE!
NSP has been very open, reasonable and ever ready to negotiate so far in this whole process. Although there are still some outstanding issues to be ironed out, I believe and am hopeful that most opposition parties will come to reasonable settlement for all. It is not going to be a simple process but i just hope that everyone of us can take a good look at the overall picture. When we come to negotiation table, it is all about give and take. There must be willingness from all parties to reach a reasonable settlement for all.
The next meeting will be held on this coming Saturday (5 March 2011). I just hope that every outstanding issues will be solved by then.
Goh Meng Seng
Sunday, February 20, 2011
NSP Response to Budget Statement 2011
NSP Response to Budget Statement 2011
The National Solidarity Party is very disappointed that the PAP government has not addressed in this budget the fundamental question on whether the current economic growth model of “Growth at all cost” based on indiscriminate importation of foreign workers at ALL LEVELS of employment should carry on. Instead, it tries to address the “ill symptoms”, which are caused by this flawed economic strategy, in such an inadequate way.
While the excuse of low fertility rate is cited as the main reason to import excessive foreign workers into Singapore, the miserable $300 to $400 Child Development Credit is totally inadequate to address this problem. We would expect healthcare cost to be lowered or a comprehensive social safety net for children up to 18 years old or heavy subsidy for pre-school education etc. The little top ups to students’ Edusave by $130 could hardly offset the enormous increase in tuition fees over the years. Apparently there are not enough subsidies given to tertiary institutions to defray the rising costs. On the other hand, there are no new initiatives to strengthen work-life balance for couples so that they could enjoy family life with their children.
The only “real” solution to the low fertility rate provided by PAP government is to depend on the influx of foreign workers. Although PAP has increased worker levies but it falls short of giving us the assurance that the number of foreign workers, thus population, will not grow any further.
The first critical problem of having excessive foreign workers is, either citizens' jobs are displaced or wages are suppressed by them. PAP has chosen to increase workers levies while giving more workfare to citizens to address these problems. However, we believe that without a minimum wage scheme, the effectiveness of both the workfare and worker levies will be dampened (due to substitution effects).
The influx of cheap foreign labour has apparently suppressed wages and thus widened the income disparity. According to the chart shown in the budget speech as well as what the Finance Minister has said, the real income growth of the 20th percentile in the past decade would only be 5% instead of 8.1% if it was not for the workfare. The income disparity has widened when the real income growth for the 50th percentile is 20.7%!
There is no doubt that workfare has managed to close the gap of the widening trend just a bit but the most important question we have to ask: is this economic model sustainable in the long run? Can the PAP government guarantee that it will keep giving out more and more workfare in the years to come in a bid to cushion the impact of the widening of income gap?
We are very doubtful about the Finance Minister’s assertion that the real income of all our workers could grow by 30% for the next decade. While we are only able to raise the income of the 20th and 50th percentile by 8.1% and 20.7% in real terms respectively with a corresponding average growth of 4%-6% in GDP for the last decade, how can we possibly achieve a higher growth of 30% in real terms for ALL Singaporeans when our Finance Minister only expects our economy to grow at a slower pace of 3% to 5% for the next decade? We believe that only the million-dollar salaried ministers will enjoy more than 30% increase in real terms in the coming decade!
In the mad pursuit of more foreign workers, the PAP government has taken the lead to cultivate the mindset that only foreigners are “talents” while Singaporeans are not. The government should not put too much emphasis on foreigners as talents. Our homegrown MNCs should emphasise more on grooming our Singaporean PMETs instead of replacing them with “foreign talents”.
We do not think that the effort to raise productivity would bear fruits in raising our citizens' wages as long as PAP continues to let the whole world supply us with cheaper and younger foreign labour indiscriminately. The economic growth model needs a major overhaul. Comprehensive plans should be put in place to groom local SMEs as well as local talents with global view.
The sudden rapid increase in foreign workers has also caused a whole range of other problems, from rising inflation to inadequate public transport and healthcare infrastructure as well as high housing cost. However the PAP government has not effectively addressed all these issues at all.
The Minister says he wants to help Singaporeans to fight inflation but yet he has conveniently avoided mentioning anything about GST. Either GST should be reduced or at least stay permanent at 7%, but there is no commitment from PAP at all.
In spite of a shortage of hospital beds, the budget for Ministry of Health has been reduced for 2011 resulting from a cut in “development expenditure”. We are surprised that the government has cut healthcare funding but increased the defence budget by a substantial 5.4% instead.
On the property front, we believe that the key issue of high HDB price lies with the pricing policy of new HDB flats. NSP advocates cost-plus pricing for new HDB flats. Giving more grants to low-income buyers will not solve the burden of 30-year mortgage tagged on these flat purchases.
In conclusion, NSP would want to make an open call to the PAP government to set its priorities right. The PAP should not merely focus on giving away goodies to voters in this election year. but focus on the long-term structural problems of our economy. As long as the ruling party refuses to realign its economic growth model for the coming decade, we will forever face the critical problems raised above.
A responsible government should take the welfare of our citizens at heart in longer terms instead of engrossing itself in populist policies which may temporarily alleviate unhappiness on the ground but are totally unhelpful in solving our longer term structural problems.
Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party
Afternote: I have some feedback, including from my wife, that some of the technical things are difficult to understand. Especially the part in bold.
The logic is this, the Finance Minister Tharman claims that in order to continue to have real income growth, we need GDP to grow continuously. But the question is, by this logic, how could we have HIGHER REAL INCOME growth with LOWER GDP growth? He was talking about 30% REAL INCOME GROWTH FOR EVERYONE! But, in spite of the fact that we had HIGHER average GDP growth in the last decade of 4%-6%, the real income growth for BOTH 20 percentile and 50 percentile is far lesser than 30%. He then projected that we will have LOWER GDP growth for the next decade at 3% to 5% but expect REAL INCOME growth to be HIGHER! On top of that, with the present economic growth model the real income growth is going to be unequal and income disparity will widen. It is really impossible to have EQUAL real income growth for everybody. It is really an amazing contradiction or simply MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.
The National Solidarity Party is very disappointed that the PAP government has not addressed in this budget the fundamental question on whether the current economic growth model of “Growth at all cost” based on indiscriminate importation of foreign workers at ALL LEVELS of employment should carry on. Instead, it tries to address the “ill symptoms”, which are caused by this flawed economic strategy, in such an inadequate way.
While the excuse of low fertility rate is cited as the main reason to import excessive foreign workers into Singapore, the miserable $300 to $400 Child Development Credit is totally inadequate to address this problem. We would expect healthcare cost to be lowered or a comprehensive social safety net for children up to 18 years old or heavy subsidy for pre-school education etc. The little top ups to students’ Edusave by $130 could hardly offset the enormous increase in tuition fees over the years. Apparently there are not enough subsidies given to tertiary institutions to defray the rising costs. On the other hand, there are no new initiatives to strengthen work-life balance for couples so that they could enjoy family life with their children.
The only “real” solution to the low fertility rate provided by PAP government is to depend on the influx of foreign workers. Although PAP has increased worker levies but it falls short of giving us the assurance that the number of foreign workers, thus population, will not grow any further.
The first critical problem of having excessive foreign workers is, either citizens' jobs are displaced or wages are suppressed by them. PAP has chosen to increase workers levies while giving more workfare to citizens to address these problems. However, we believe that without a minimum wage scheme, the effectiveness of both the workfare and worker levies will be dampened (due to substitution effects).
The influx of cheap foreign labour has apparently suppressed wages and thus widened the income disparity. According to the chart shown in the budget speech as well as what the Finance Minister has said, the real income growth of the 20th percentile in the past decade would only be 5% instead of 8.1% if it was not for the workfare. The income disparity has widened when the real income growth for the 50th percentile is 20.7%!
There is no doubt that workfare has managed to close the gap of the widening trend just a bit but the most important question we have to ask: is this economic model sustainable in the long run? Can the PAP government guarantee that it will keep giving out more and more workfare in the years to come in a bid to cushion the impact of the widening of income gap?
We are very doubtful about the Finance Minister’s assertion that the real income of all our workers could grow by 30% for the next decade. While we are only able to raise the income of the 20th and 50th percentile by 8.1% and 20.7% in real terms respectively with a corresponding average growth of 4%-6% in GDP for the last decade, how can we possibly achieve a higher growth of 30% in real terms for ALL Singaporeans when our Finance Minister only expects our economy to grow at a slower pace of 3% to 5% for the next decade? We believe that only the million-dollar salaried ministers will enjoy more than 30% increase in real terms in the coming decade!
In the mad pursuit of more foreign workers, the PAP government has taken the lead to cultivate the mindset that only foreigners are “talents” while Singaporeans are not. The government should not put too much emphasis on foreigners as talents. Our homegrown MNCs should emphasise more on grooming our Singaporean PMETs instead of replacing them with “foreign talents”.
We do not think that the effort to raise productivity would bear fruits in raising our citizens' wages as long as PAP continues to let the whole world supply us with cheaper and younger foreign labour indiscriminately. The economic growth model needs a major overhaul. Comprehensive plans should be put in place to groom local SMEs as well as local talents with global view.
The sudden rapid increase in foreign workers has also caused a whole range of other problems, from rising inflation to inadequate public transport and healthcare infrastructure as well as high housing cost. However the PAP government has not effectively addressed all these issues at all.
The Minister says he wants to help Singaporeans to fight inflation but yet he has conveniently avoided mentioning anything about GST. Either GST should be reduced or at least stay permanent at 7%, but there is no commitment from PAP at all.
In spite of a shortage of hospital beds, the budget for Ministry of Health has been reduced for 2011 resulting from a cut in “development expenditure”. We are surprised that the government has cut healthcare funding but increased the defence budget by a substantial 5.4% instead.
On the property front, we believe that the key issue of high HDB price lies with the pricing policy of new HDB flats. NSP advocates cost-plus pricing for new HDB flats. Giving more grants to low-income buyers will not solve the burden of 30-year mortgage tagged on these flat purchases.
In conclusion, NSP would want to make an open call to the PAP government to set its priorities right. The PAP should not merely focus on giving away goodies to voters in this election year. but focus on the long-term structural problems of our economy. As long as the ruling party refuses to realign its economic growth model for the coming decade, we will forever face the critical problems raised above.
A responsible government should take the welfare of our citizens at heart in longer terms instead of engrossing itself in populist policies which may temporarily alleviate unhappiness on the ground but are totally unhelpful in solving our longer term structural problems.
Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party
Afternote: I have some feedback, including from my wife, that some of the technical things are difficult to understand. Especially the part in bold.
The logic is this, the Finance Minister Tharman claims that in order to continue to have real income growth, we need GDP to grow continuously. But the question is, by this logic, how could we have HIGHER REAL INCOME growth with LOWER GDP growth? He was talking about 30% REAL INCOME GROWTH FOR EVERYONE! But, in spite of the fact that we had HIGHER average GDP growth in the last decade of 4%-6%, the real income growth for BOTH 20 percentile and 50 percentile is far lesser than 30%. He then projected that we will have LOWER GDP growth for the next decade at 3% to 5% but expect REAL INCOME growth to be HIGHER! On top of that, with the present economic growth model the real income growth is going to be unequal and income disparity will widen. It is really impossible to have EQUAL real income growth for everybody. It is really an amazing contradiction or simply MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Budget 2011 - Back to Basics
Many Singaporeans are expecting "BIG ANG BAO" (Red Packets filled with money) from the government for this year's Budget because this is an "Election Year". How big is big? $1000? $2000? Some even suggested $3000!
I have no problem if such cash handouts are given with full sincerity to help Singaporeans to cope with runaway cost of living. But if this is another exercise of "Fix Opposition and buy votes", I would be very disappointed that we have not progressed nor matured at all politically.
But what matters most for Singapore at this juncture is that the ruling party has "gone astray" from basics and fundamentals of governance. When the ministers' pay is tied to some "KPI" which includes GDP growth as the main component as well as the salary scale of those top earners in Singapore, it will inevitably create the mindset of "Growth at ALL COST". The widening of Income Disparity would not be the top concern of this government because what matters most would be how much the top income earners would grow!
The appropriate way of pegging the salary of ministers would be pegging it at different percentages at different percentile of the income of Singaporeans. eg. 500% of 10th percentile + 400% of 20th percentile + X% of 30th percentile +....+5% of 90 percentile. Maybe it could also include GDP growth in per household capital instead of GDP growth alone. Only such KPI will make the ministers more focus on "Quality Balanced Growth" in GDP as well as the plight of the lower income earners!
By now, Singaporeans should realize that it is actually quite easy to push for high GDP growth. Just introduce vice like casino gambling, just increase enormous amount of foreign workers in a short time and just give huge preferential packages to foreign MNCs to set up shops here. Never mind if the MNCs are providing more QUALITY jobs for Singaporeans or not or whether casino gambling will erode work ethics and cause irreversible damage to our social fabrics or not.
The side effects of such "Growth at all cost" strategy has finally reached a boiling state. All warnings sounded previously about inflation, run away prices of HDB flats, overcrowded public transport and hospitals etc.
Some may wonder why would inflation be blamed on this "Growth at all cost" strategy? There are already analysis on the internet which touched on the impact of "non-tradable" goods and services on inflation. Non-tradable goods and services refer to things that we could not get from importation. These include land, health services, barber service, taxi service, supermarket/market etc.
The sudden rapid increase in population would have caused great demands on various goods and services, both tradable and non-tradable. Singapore could well import as many food and other products from other places to meet such demands. Most of the inflation on tradable goods are due to factors beyond the government's control. eg. Food and commodities. They could well increase the strength of Singapore dollars via foreign exchange intervention to offset most of such inflation.
But for non-tradable goods and services, there is no way we could meet the sudden increase in demand by a spur in our mismanaged population growth. Especially rental for commercial space has been pushed up significantly, worsen by the fact that retail space has been more or less monopolized by a cartel of big GLCs.
For critical services like hospital healthcare, it is really an eye opening when our restructured hospitals were so strained by the spike in demands, they are still going around the world to promote their "medical tourism"!
There a lot of problems with the economic situation in Singapore right now but the source of problem is only one: the misadventure of wrong economic direction. If we do not solve this root problem, we will be stuck with all these problems of high inflation, shortage of housing, medical care, public transport... for years to come.
It is time for the PAP government to go back to the basics. There is nothing wrong with a slower growth with higher growth in income per capital for Singaporeans. There is nothing wrong to cut down cheap foreign labour substitutes which take our jobs and suppress our wages.
It is only when the direction of Economic policy is changed, the companies in Singapore will react accordingly to raise productivity in view of higher labour cost.
It is only when PAP government review the need of the Casino resorts, we will always be threaten by the huge social impacts which these vice activities brought upon our nation.
I would like to see the PAP government address this very important issue for this coming budget instead of dealing with "ineffective medicines" to address all the ills created by their previous economic policy.
Goh Meng Seng
I have no problem if such cash handouts are given with full sincerity to help Singaporeans to cope with runaway cost of living. But if this is another exercise of "Fix Opposition and buy votes", I would be very disappointed that we have not progressed nor matured at all politically.
But what matters most for Singapore at this juncture is that the ruling party has "gone astray" from basics and fundamentals of governance. When the ministers' pay is tied to some "KPI" which includes GDP growth as the main component as well as the salary scale of those top earners in Singapore, it will inevitably create the mindset of "Growth at ALL COST". The widening of Income Disparity would not be the top concern of this government because what matters most would be how much the top income earners would grow!
The appropriate way of pegging the salary of ministers would be pegging it at different percentages at different percentile of the income of Singaporeans. eg. 500% of 10th percentile + 400% of 20th percentile + X% of 30th percentile +....+5% of 90 percentile. Maybe it could also include GDP growth in per household capital instead of GDP growth alone. Only such KPI will make the ministers more focus on "Quality Balanced Growth" in GDP as well as the plight of the lower income earners!
By now, Singaporeans should realize that it is actually quite easy to push for high GDP growth. Just introduce vice like casino gambling, just increase enormous amount of foreign workers in a short time and just give huge preferential packages to foreign MNCs to set up shops here. Never mind if the MNCs are providing more QUALITY jobs for Singaporeans or not or whether casino gambling will erode work ethics and cause irreversible damage to our social fabrics or not.
The side effects of such "Growth at all cost" strategy has finally reached a boiling state. All warnings sounded previously about inflation, run away prices of HDB flats, overcrowded public transport and hospitals etc.
Some may wonder why would inflation be blamed on this "Growth at all cost" strategy? There are already analysis on the internet which touched on the impact of "non-tradable" goods and services on inflation. Non-tradable goods and services refer to things that we could not get from importation. These include land, health services, barber service, taxi service, supermarket/market etc.
The sudden rapid increase in population would have caused great demands on various goods and services, both tradable and non-tradable. Singapore could well import as many food and other products from other places to meet such demands. Most of the inflation on tradable goods are due to factors beyond the government's control. eg. Food and commodities. They could well increase the strength of Singapore dollars via foreign exchange intervention to offset most of such inflation.
But for non-tradable goods and services, there is no way we could meet the sudden increase in demand by a spur in our mismanaged population growth. Especially rental for commercial space has been pushed up significantly, worsen by the fact that retail space has been more or less monopolized by a cartel of big GLCs.
For critical services like hospital healthcare, it is really an eye opening when our restructured hospitals were so strained by the spike in demands, they are still going around the world to promote their "medical tourism"!
There a lot of problems with the economic situation in Singapore right now but the source of problem is only one: the misadventure of wrong economic direction. If we do not solve this root problem, we will be stuck with all these problems of high inflation, shortage of housing, medical care, public transport... for years to come.
It is time for the PAP government to go back to the basics. There is nothing wrong with a slower growth with higher growth in income per capital for Singaporeans. There is nothing wrong to cut down cheap foreign labour substitutes which take our jobs and suppress our wages.
It is only when the direction of Economic policy is changed, the companies in Singapore will react accordingly to raise productivity in view of higher labour cost.
It is only when PAP government review the need of the Casino resorts, we will always be threaten by the huge social impacts which these vice activities brought upon our nation.
I would like to see the PAP government address this very important issue for this coming budget instead of dealing with "ineffective medicines" to address all the ills created by their previous economic policy.
Goh Meng Seng
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Honest Talk on Race
It was a tiring but fruitful week right after the Chinese New Year celebration. National Solidarity Party Malay Bureau has successfully conducted its first Malay Reflection Forum on 11 Feb 2011. We have learned quite a number of things through this forum.
The other forum was conducted by James Gomez on 12 Feb 2011 touching on racial discrimination and a preview of his report on the UN Rapporteur visit to Singapore.
In both forums, we had honest talks over racial issues. From religion, social, culture (pop culture), education to job discrimination etc. Yes, we can. We can hold public talk, honest talks over such "taboo" racial issues.
In the NSP Malay Reflection Forum, the very first response from the participants was about "Freedom of Expression" with regards to racial issues, or just issues which the Malay community face in their daily lives. Nobody wants to talk about it, in a constructive way.
We also talk about job discrimination. My take is that while Singapore, as a multi-cultural society, has taken upon Meritocracy as the core value of our system, the government should not get into systematic discrimination. The various talks by the leader of the ruling party about what race cannot hold what jobs is least helpful to enhance the bonds between Singaporeans of all races. It is not helpful for them to declare "We are not ready to have an Indian Prime Minister" or "We cannot have Malays as machine gunners, air force pilots, generals" etc. My position is that we need to set up an Equal Opportunity Commission to look into discriminative practices in employment. As a Chinese, the so call "majority", I also feel discriminated when job advertisements open declare that "PR and Foreigners preferred"!
In the forum conducted by James Gomez, the issue about HDB Ethnic Quota was raised again by the well known human rights lawyer M Ravi. He has asked me about this question back in TOC Face to Face forum in December 2010 and my answer didn't satisfy him. Thus this issue was raised again.
My stand is that the HDB Ethnic Quota should stay but it could be modified or relax by have a range of not more than 50% for "minority races" and not more than 85% of Chinese in any precincts. It doesn't sound good to human rights activists who will still maintain that this is "discriminative" rules which disadvantaged the minority races in terms of lower sales values of their flats etc.
I have explained that congregation and segregation of different races will not do us good. An Australian couples whom I met have praised Singapore's HDB Ethnic Quota because of their experiences back in Australia. In Australia, when left alone, the various different races congregate and segregate themselves. Racial tension increased due to such setting.
As a student from a SAP school which is predominantly a "Chinese school", I have experienced first hand how racist stereotyping could arise when a single race congregates together.
Thus, I have to make the difficult political stand to keep the HDB Ethnic Quota in a modified form, to cushion the impact on the minority races. Of course there are both people who agree and disagree with me on this issue. I would agree to disagree.
Issues on Thaipusam and MM Lee's remarks on the Malay community were raised as well, by Mr. M. Ravi. Well M. Ravi has, unconsciously and unintentionally, made a "racist remark" or "racist stereotyping" that Chinese are racist and that, opposition members have not raise objection to these issues.
I have to correct him again. My colleagues, especially Syafarin, who are present at the forum, would have known that I was very upset about the new rules on Thaipusam as well as the remarks made by MM Lee in the new book. I explained that I have issued a statement on behalf of NSP AFTER Thaipusam. I would be putting my party and members AT RISK if I issue a statement BEFORE Thaipusam and any riot happened during that event, the ruling party may take the opportunity to detain us under ISA for "inciting racial riot"! It is a political judgment I have to make.
Having been through these two forums, I must say that all these were discussed in a rational and civil way. I think one of the greatest achievement we have made is to prove to the authorities that sensitive racial issues could be debated, discussed in a very calm and civil way. We have matured intellectually as a people and there is nothing too taboo to be discussed or debated in public forums.
Goh Meng Seng
Saturday, February 05, 2011
Reservist as an Officer
I have just completed my annual In Camp Training (ICT) in January and I guess many of the Mindef people are waiting for my usual reports on this blog with regards to the ICT.
It is always good to meet up with old buddies and men. However, many of them will MR (i.e. completing their NSmen cycle of 7 High Keys and 3 low keys or going to pass 40 years old). But some officers have completed more than 7 High Keys (ICT more than 5 days is considered to be 1 High Key) and some like me, are 40 years old or above, are still serving.
Ever since Mindef announced the changes made to the 13 year cycle to 10 year cycle, there are confusions among the officers. Many officers thought that they will only need to finish 7 High Keys and 3 Low Keys and they could MR. This is not true. Officers are liable for reservist training UP TO 50 YEAR OLD.
But some officers are "lucky" that they MR together with their units; especially those "mono-intake" infantry or Guards units way before 40 years old. Thus the confusion was deepen when logistic officers who are in "evergreen units" like mine are required to serve way beyond 7 High Keys and 40 years old.
This disgruntlement is primarily due to poor manpower planning of succession. At the end of each and every of my ICT, the discussion on succession planning always dominates the meeting. Succession planning for officers as well as key NCO postings like CSM, CQ etc is pretty weak. Officers with special technical skills like signal officers are lacking.
Even for my position, MTO (Motor Transport Officer) is lacking. I was sent for two courses during my reservist, both about 2 to 3 weeks each. These are supposedly to be considered as High Keys but it seems that there are rumors courses attended during reservist period are not considered as High Keys! This created much unhappiness on the ground and if Mindef did not come clear on this issue, we will find less officers willing to attend prolonged courses like mine.
Two to three weeks off from our normal work routine to attend military courses are big sacrifices to NSmen officers. It would be unfair to them that all these time spent are not going to be considered as High Key ICT.
Such treatment will aggravate the succession plan for Officers. i.e. If no Officers are willing to attend courses, how could they take on the roles of their predecessors?
Quite a number of officers (as well as warrant officer) in my unit have completed more than 7 High Keys. Some of them chose to sign on as Rovering key appointment holders. Their dedication to National Service is really commendable.
But I think it is unfair for other officers who have completed the needed 7 High Keys and who have reached 40 years old and above to be made to stay just because of the failure of succession planning by the S1 or G1.
Service Officers should be treated fairly as the Combat Officers. If Combat Officers could MR even before they reach 40 years old, why should Service Officers made to stay on beyond 7 High Keys and 40 years old? Such unfair treatment is going to affect the morale of the Service Officers.
I am raising this problem not because my fellow officers in my unit are complaining nor unwilling to serve. We treasure our comradeship and companionship. But in this highly competitive job market, people are worried about their jobs being taken away by FTs who do not pose such disruptions to the company's work routine. Whether we are Officers or men, we face the same constrains and competition on the job front.
The additional problems we officers face when we are serving above 40 years old is IPPT. For any servicemen, you are required to take the IPPT even when you are 40 years old and above. However, we have to take the FFI (a medical check up to certify fit for IPPT) every year. Sometimes, the FFI may drag due to additional medical check up needed. By the time the FFI is done, the window left for IPPT will be very limited.
After going through all the trouble of FFI, we are required to take only THREE stations for the IPPT. This is pretty ironic.
Most reservist officers who serve beyond 40 years old are service officers (logistic officers) like me. Our main role is to provide combat service support to the frontline troops. We are not required to go on physically strenuous combat missions but most of the time, we do a lot of planning on logistics deployment. i.e. We are using more brain power than muscles to complete our missions.
Thus it is kind of inconvenient irony that we are still put through the hassles of FFI and IPPT. The main risk in taking IPPT after 40 years old lies in the 2.4km running. There is totally unnecessary for service officers to take such risks especially so when they are already serving unfairly more than Combat officers.
Personally I am most willing to serve up to 50 years old if the hassles of FFI and IPPT are taken off. Almost all my men in my unit know I am "the opposition man" but I always tell them, even opposition man can be a good soldier. It is a kind of National Education by example that opposition members can be "deadly patriotic" too.
I hope Mindef, especially G1 has to come out and clarify certain things for officers, especially for logistic officers who need to attend courses. I also hope that succession planning for logistic units should be done properly by G1 so that most logistic officers would be treated equally as their combat counterparts. Last but not least, the requirement of IPPT for those NSmen officers above 40 should be reviewed or scrapped totally (especially for logistic officers).
Goh Meng Seng
Afternote: BTW, I am very sorry that I may have caused some anxiety within my unit's admin.
This article is specifically written for higher authority (i.e. G1 & Mindef) to reconsider their policy directions and not meant to doubt the efficiency and effectiveness of my unit's administration.
The key issues here is about fair treatment to Service Officers vs Combat Officers, as well as the redundancy of the IPPT requirement for those NSmen who are above 40.
Imagine that every year you are required to go through the hassle of medical check up and ended up with a watered down IPPT (i.e. required to do 3 stations instead of 6). It really doesn't make economic and practical sense to me.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
NSP Press Statement: We Are Singaporeans united as one irrespective of politics, religion or culture
The party is disappointed to read recent news report on what Minister of Home Affairs Shanmugam’s comments on Thaipusam as well as Minister Mentor Lee’s recent comments on Malay community as the main hindrance to social integration in Singapore. The politics of Division, Distraction to ensure PAP political dominance should have no place in political discourse in Singapore.
We feel that the strict enforcement of law on Thaipusam is totally unwarranted. Singaporeans have evolved as one people in spite of the diversities in race and cultural heritage. We have enhanced our understanding and tolerance to various cultural and religious celebrations as well as practices in almost all aspects of our lives. For almost four decades, Singaporeans have no problems in living with all sorts of “noisy” religious-cultural celebrations.
If the law is to be strictly applied and enforced on all activities and procession, we would have ended up with Chinese lion-dragon dance without drums and gongs, Malay traditional marriage without gendengs, Thaipusam without drums and cheers, Christmas without chorals played along Orchard Road and Chingay procession without all those “noisy” performances and music played on floats. Rules on festive noise-making should be determined by weighing upon inter-racial tolerance and strengthened civil society, through open consultation instead of administrative fiat by the minister concerned.
MM Lee’s comments on race and religion in “Hard Truths” are totally unwarranted and somewhat out of touch with the sensibilities and feelings of a younger and more cosmopolitan generation. In general, our party’s observation is that Singaporeans of all races have no issue with eating on the same table or for that matter halal food served and eaten at different tables even at the same event. Resistance to inter-racial marriages is on the decline even though there are some Singaporeans, just like MM Lee, who are still unable to accept and remain resistant to their children marrying to spouses of other races. However, such resistance to inter-racial marriages is NOT UNIQUE to Muslims alone just as MM Lee has made known his own resistance to it as well.
On the contrary, it seems to us that the ruling party is the biggest hindrance to social integration in Singapore. It has constantly reminded Singaporeans of the racial divides wherever possible. It has reminded voters that an Indian cannot be Prime Minister even when the candidate is proven to be the better choice. This is contrary to the system of Meritocracy which PAP has always emphasized on.
PAP has also used the excuse of the inability of minority candidates in winning an election against Chinese candidates to push for the GRC system. On the contrary, historical facts have shown that many PAP Malay and Indian candidates have won against Opposition Chinese candidates and the late JB Jeyaratnam has won in Anson against PAP’s Chinese candidate as well.
We believe that most Singaporeans are moderates in every race and religion. We believe that they share our core values as well as frustration at PAP’s aggressive FT policy which caused problems on jobs, housing, transport and healthcare.
We would want to urge the PAP to focus on these problems instead of sidetracking to sensitive racial issues so as to divide, distract and attempt to ensure its political dominance.
Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party
We feel that the strict enforcement of law on Thaipusam is totally unwarranted. Singaporeans have evolved as one people in spite of the diversities in race and cultural heritage. We have enhanced our understanding and tolerance to various cultural and religious celebrations as well as practices in almost all aspects of our lives. For almost four decades, Singaporeans have no problems in living with all sorts of “noisy” religious-cultural celebrations.
If the law is to be strictly applied and enforced on all activities and procession, we would have ended up with Chinese lion-dragon dance without drums and gongs, Malay traditional marriage without gendengs, Thaipusam without drums and cheers, Christmas without chorals played along Orchard Road and Chingay procession without all those “noisy” performances and music played on floats. Rules on festive noise-making should be determined by weighing upon inter-racial tolerance and strengthened civil society, through open consultation instead of administrative fiat by the minister concerned.
MM Lee’s comments on race and religion in “Hard Truths” are totally unwarranted and somewhat out of touch with the sensibilities and feelings of a younger and more cosmopolitan generation. In general, our party’s observation is that Singaporeans of all races have no issue with eating on the same table or for that matter halal food served and eaten at different tables even at the same event. Resistance to inter-racial marriages is on the decline even though there are some Singaporeans, just like MM Lee, who are still unable to accept and remain resistant to their children marrying to spouses of other races. However, such resistance to inter-racial marriages is NOT UNIQUE to Muslims alone just as MM Lee has made known his own resistance to it as well.
On the contrary, it seems to us that the ruling party is the biggest hindrance to social integration in Singapore. It has constantly reminded Singaporeans of the racial divides wherever possible. It has reminded voters that an Indian cannot be Prime Minister even when the candidate is proven to be the better choice. This is contrary to the system of Meritocracy which PAP has always emphasized on.
PAP has also used the excuse of the inability of minority candidates in winning an election against Chinese candidates to push for the GRC system. On the contrary, historical facts have shown that many PAP Malay and Indian candidates have won against Opposition Chinese candidates and the late JB Jeyaratnam has won in Anson against PAP’s Chinese candidate as well.
We believe that most Singaporeans are moderates in every race and religion. We believe that they share our core values as well as frustration at PAP’s aggressive FT policy which caused problems on jobs, housing, transport and healthcare.
We would want to urge the PAP to focus on these problems instead of sidetracking to sensitive racial issues so as to divide, distract and attempt to ensure its political dominance.
Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Elaboration on answers to Housing Issues @ TOC Forum
I was invited to be one of the panelists at TOC end of year event, Face-to-Face Forum on 16 Dec 2010. Housing issues became one of the hottest again.
Due to time constrains, I have given key points and short answers to the questions asked. I would like to elaborate further here on what I have said during the forum.
The first question asked was whether HDB should be privatized. My first response is that it should not. HDB is part of a socialist Land Reform program. Due to scarcity of land in Singapore, it is important for us to avoid land hogging by a small group of landlords while the masses and future generations suffer. The fall of the ancient feudal systems was basically due to the income and wealth inequality partly exaggerated by the unequal distribution of land.
Thus it is important for the government to act as an arbitrator in making sure that land can be recycled over generations for public usage like housing. The 99-year leasehold HDB flats are part of this scheme to maintain sustainability of land usage across generations. Privatizing HDB will not do us good. It will most probably result in higher prices for HDB flats due to the profit maximizing nature of a private entity.
The second question about HDB is on what will happen to those who have paid hefty prices for their HDB flats but now I am advocating lower HDB prices. I explained that the HDB has two market segments. First, we have the NEW HDB flat market and second, the resale market. The government, via HDB, is the sole monopoly of supply in the NEW HDB flat market. The demand comes from citizens only. The resale market is basically a free market where sellers are those who own HDB flats (both PRs and Citizens) and buyers from both PRs and citizens as well.
The government has FULL CONTROL over the New Flat market as the monopoly. It should sell these flats at cost to Singaporeans as I have explained earlier that our forefathers have sacrificed their land for the development of this Nation. It is the unwritten social contract that the government in return should take care of Singaporeans' basic public housing needs.
On the other hand, the government should not meddle or distort the resale market, which is a free market by giving grants to first timers. This is a bit "counter-intuitive" which results in people calling it a "radical view" but it is not!
The rational is very simple. Just taking an analogy of a fireman trying to put out a fire. Will he add oil to the fire? Obviously not. If there is a pipe leaking oil to the fire, what will he do? Obviously, it is to stop the leakage.
Money and easy credit are just like fuel to the fire of high prices. Giving grants to first timers to buy resale flat is an act of market distortion to increase the demand of resale market. There are a few implications:
1) The present system is such that the NEW HDB flats prices are pegged at the resale market prices. It is naturally for the government to want to maintain a high Resale prices.
2) The grants given to first timers have to come from somewhere. i.e. from the higher prices of New HDB flats. At the same time, resale levy is charged on those who sold their flats and apply for new flats.
3) It is basically a scheme that goes round about, self-feeding itself to maintain or push up the prices of HDB flats, both resale and new HDB flats.
4) Such grants coupled with easy credit and low interest rates will encourage more young couples to OVER COMMIT themselves. If these young couples, in spite of low interest rate of 1.5% or less from private banks need to commit 30 years loans to buy their resale flats, they will be in trouble if interest rates rise in future! That will become Singapore's Subprime!
My proposal of a new system is:
1) Sell NEW HDB flats at cost.
2) Don't meddle in the free resale market by removing the grants.
Many youngsters may scream at the second point. I would advise them to take a step back and ponder. The proposal is a package. New young couples will have a far CHEAPER OPTION of having their first new HDB flat when it is sold at cost.
After you get your first HDB flat at CHEAP price, it will provide you a good financial position to get your resale HDB flat later on. My concern now is that too many young couples are over committing themselves by going for resale HDB flats. This will add financial burden to the new families and in the end, you may not have enough finances to have babies.
It is also an important thing to show to young couples that it is more worthwhile to buy NEW HDB flats with a big difference in the prices. If young couples are to be lured into resale HDB flats with the HDB grant and resulting in over committing themselves, a 30 years mortgage loan starting at low interest rate but going up later one, most people will be forced to sell their flats for retirement in the end!
However, I also caution that our only HDB flat is OUR HOME and SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED AS INVESTMENT. A HOME is not something you can sell off that easily. Each and every corners of your HOME are embedded with the collective memories of your family members.
I am asked about how I am going to make such "unpopular" idea to Singaporeans. I just replied, we just have to make it "popular". We should be careful about politicians trying to sell you GREED and be populist. My generation as well as my father's generation has been hoodwinked by PAP's sales of GREED through "ASSET ENHANCEMENT SCHEME". Who suffers in the end? My generation, the younger generation as well as future generations.
Two years ago, nobody would have thought that the campaign on HDB issues would be fruitful. Nobody believes that I could convince so many people that the HIGH HDB PRICES IS BAD FOR THEM. Nobody sees the bad points of 30-year mortgage for HDB flats. With the help of the online media, blogs and networking tools, we have managed to get the message viral. Many people are talking about the ills of the 30-year mortgage. I strongly believe that I can go a step further to bring forth my point about my "instinctively unfavorable" or even "politically incorrect" policy views that this is the best way for Singapore's future generations.
Of course, for those who have committed at high HDB prices, I just have to remind them that it is PAP who makes them suffer with such bad policy. Look on the bright side. Just like many people of my generations who were caught in the late 1990s property boom and subsequent bust, as long as we treat our flat as our HOME, whether the price went up or down, it didn't affect us, even when we became negative asset holders. On top of that, in my proposal, the resale market will be allowed to grow on its own. In the long run, the HDB resale prices will still grow although in a relatively slower pace.
One sensitive HDB issue was raised by M Ravi on the ethnic quota. It is a well-known fact that ethnic quota restrictions affect the minority races adversely.
I went a bit further to say that the present restriction may have impact on ethnic economy. Look at Tampines. It has a bigger proportion of Malay community of 24%. Tampines has the most number of Muslim coffeeshops as compared to other places. There are even shops selling Malay traditional clothing. A critical mass congregation of the minority ethnic group will provide more opportunities for their ethnic entrepreneurs to strive.
Thus in my view, I have no problem with any precincts or groupings with less than 50% composition of the minority races. Why not more than 50%? If the minority race becomes the majority composition of a precinct, that would mean statistically, it has become a big outlier!
I have not mentioned the lower band. My proposal is to have a band, instead of a tight rule of 25%. The band will range from 15% to 45%. It also means that the Chinese majority race cannot exceed 85% of the composition in any precincts.
Many people would suggest to get rid of the ethnic quota once and for all. I do not favor that but instead, take a progressive step towards that aim. I have spoken to foreign visitors from Australia, Sri Lanka and other places on Earth and they admire our racial policies in this aspect. It is something that we may have taken for granted for all this while. But a relax of such rules may foster better ties and lessen the price that any ethnic groups may suffer as the result of the ethnic quota rule.
I hope that these elaborations on my comments and responses given during the TOC Face to Face Forum will provide more insight into the policy rationale behind them.
Goh Meng Seng
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
行不通的公共组屋政策
尽管组屋价格还是需要以30年房贷才能让国人买得起，国家发展部长马宝山还是坚持政府组屋还是“负担得起”。但他最近还提起几个有意思的观点。
在这些观点当中，他似乎刻意的把之前所说的“卖屋养老”的话给收回了。他说许多人也许不必卖屋降级来维持退休生活。
我之前已经在我党报悉数这“卖屋养老”计划根本行不通，更非是一个可持续的选择。
我现在就解释为什么这高屋价政策在“资产提升”的掩护下成为行动党的蓄意执行的政策方针。
以高房价解决人口老化问题
自1980年代初起，行动党就意识到它在70年代执行的“两个就够了”政策是大错特错，而这政策将促使人口史无前例的迅速老化。在做了人口统计规划预算后，执政党便发觉公积金政策可能无法持续的给老化的人口提供足够的退休资金。
为公积金户口提供稳定回报作为国人的养老金是政府的责任。如果有能力工作的人越来越少而向公积金提钱的退休人士越来越多的话，这情况会促使公积金局造成现金周转的压力。这问题将随着时间而逐渐严重。
维持高屋价的“好主意”就是为了解决人口老化带来的种种问题而构思出来的。以下是这计划的详细的论述：
1）如果新加坡人在公积金户头里有较少的储蓄的话，政府就无需承担太大的利息负担。也就是说，政府就可把资助人口老化的养老金的责任推卸掉。
2）但是将来老人的生活由谁来担当呢？30年的房贷肯定会逼使多数新加坡人卖屋养老的！只要让政府组屋价格持续上升，这一些未来的退休人士就可在高屋价的环境中卖屋“提取退休金”！这不就解决了他们养老金的问题了吗！
卖屋养老计划的影响和冲击
这过于简单的想法将会有几个影响。所有的现象都对新加坡人不利，反而对政府有利。
1）政府可从以高屋价把政府组屋卖给公民中得利。与此同时政府也无需拿出任何钱给以任何津贴。
2）首要调整就是提高地价。建屋局会在账目上承担赤字，因为它必须向土地局（两个部门同样隶属于国家发展局）以市价买地。我们必须认清土地局因运用土地征用法令强行以超低价收了私地而成了最大地主，拥有垄断权来制定地价。
3）所有卖地所得都直接进入储备金。这也就是为什么我们的储备金会自1980年起迅速增长。
4）政府减少了在公积金给以的利息反而从借给组屋买者的贷款中赚取利息。这也意味着新加坡人不只要承担高屋价的负担，除此之外还要承担房贷的利息。
5）如果这计划要能持续下去，房价就必须随时间大幅度飙升。要不然，整个的制度就会垮了。
影响
很明显的政府是这计划的既得利益者。它推卸了为老化人口提供资金的责任。它基本上把这责任以高屋价政策转嫁给下一代。与此同时，它却从中得利而把这利益转入储备金里头，使执政党看来能干。除此之外，它还从房屋借贷利息里获利。
政府的获利就是人民的失利。建屋发展局是新组屋市场的唯一供应者而它也是从房屋借贷中收取利息。
这政策将对这一代以高价买组屋和往后世世代代的新加坡人。这一代以30年房贷买屋子的人将会被逼卖屋养老。下一代的新加坡人就必须承担更高的屋价，因为这是政策方向以便这一代人可以筹足养老金！
行不通的政策
从长远看来，这计划根本是无法持续下去的。原因显而易见。如果要保住那一些新加坡人放进房子的钱的购买力的话，他们房子未来的价钱就必须要盖过利息和30年里的通货膨胀。
但是工人的工资通常只能以通货膨胀的速度增长。这也就是为什么我们在这二十年间已经面对工资的增长大幅度落后于政府组屋价钱的增长率的情况。
资料源自 singaporemind.blogspot.com
从1990至2009年间，工资只翻了一番，但是组屋的价钱却翻了四番！在这期间，房贷也因此从15年增长至30年。如果这形势持续下去，我们的后代也许就必须
会面对40或50年的放贷才能买得到政府组屋！
这能行得通吗？
这是两个矛盾的政策目标。这一方，如果要卖屋养老计划成功的话，房价的飙升必须超越薪金的涨幅。但是在另一方，我们又要世世代代的新加坡人“负担得起”房子，那么房价的涨幅就不能超越薪金的涨幅！我们怎么可能同时达到这两个矛盾的目的？
再说没有人能保证房价能以这速度飙升。在这人口老化的前提，二手房屋的供应将会增加而需求量反而会因年轻人的数目少而减少。这就会致使房价承受下跌的压力。
新加坡人必须彻底的了解这“卖屋养老”对我们这一代与后代所带来的严重后果。
最新的报告显示新加坡的房贷已经占了我们经济所有贷款的51%。这比香港的20% 还要高！如果房地产市场崩溃的话，整个金融体系将会承担超重的坏账！
一个经济体系不能把过多的资金投入像房地产一样的无生产力的资产上。如此会剥夺了需要资金来创业的国人。这也会使整个金融体系过度暴露于能使我们的财富瞬时间化为乌有的泡沫经济里。
日本，爱尔兰或甚至美国的经验显示金融体系过度暴露于潜向于泡沫的房地产将会摧毁整个经济体系。日本自从1990年代的泡沫经济引爆后，至今还是无法重新振作起来！
政治上，对大众推销贪婪是最有效的手段但是这也会致使对我们后代无法扭转和弥补的伤害。要说服人们高屋价是对他们不利是非常艰难的。我已等了很久才等到这适当的时机来试图以我在这些年里对此课题深入研究的知识来尝试解释这政策祸害的来龙去脉。我恳请那一些认同我的看法的读者能帮我把这重要讯息传达给你的亲朋好友们。
这祸害子孙后代的政策必须被制止，否则我们的后代会因我们的不理不睬而受害。
在这些观点当中，他似乎刻意的把之前所说的“卖屋养老”的话给收回了。他说许多人也许不必卖屋降级来维持退休生活。
我之前已经在我党报悉数这“卖屋养老”计划根本行不通，更非是一个可持续的选择。
我现在就解释为什么这高屋价政策在“资产提升”的掩护下成为行动党的蓄意执行的政策方针。
以高房价解决人口老化问题
自1980年代初起，行动党就意识到它在70年代执行的“两个就够了”政策是大错特错，而这政策将促使人口史无前例的迅速老化。在做了人口统计规划预算后，执政党便发觉公积金政策可能无法持续的给老化的人口提供足够的退休资金。
为公积金户口提供稳定回报作为国人的养老金是政府的责任。如果有能力工作的人越来越少而向公积金提钱的退休人士越来越多的话，这情况会促使公积金局造成现金周转的压力。这问题将随着时间而逐渐严重。
维持高屋价的“好主意”就是为了解决人口老化带来的种种问题而构思出来的。以下是这计划的详细的论述：
1）如果新加坡人在公积金户头里有较少的储蓄的话，政府就无需承担太大的利息负担。也就是说，政府就可把资助人口老化的养老金的责任推卸掉。
2）但是将来老人的生活由谁来担当呢？30年的房贷肯定会逼使多数新加坡人卖屋养老的！只要让政府组屋价格持续上升，这一些未来的退休人士就可在高屋价的环境中卖屋“提取退休金”！这不就解决了他们养老金的问题了吗！
卖屋养老计划的影响和冲击
这过于简单的想法将会有几个影响。所有的现象都对新加坡人不利，反而对政府有利。
1）政府可从以高屋价把政府组屋卖给公民中得利。与此同时政府也无需拿出任何钱给以任何津贴。
2）首要调整就是提高地价。建屋局会在账目上承担赤字，因为它必须向土地局（两个部门同样隶属于国家发展局）以市价买地。我们必须认清土地局因运用土地征用法令强行以超低价收了私地而成了最大地主，拥有垄断权来制定地价。
3）所有卖地所得都直接进入储备金。这也就是为什么我们的储备金会自1980年起迅速增长。
4）政府减少了在公积金给以的利息反而从借给组屋买者的贷款中赚取利息。这也意味着新加坡人不只要承担高屋价的负担，除此之外还要承担房贷的利息。
5）如果这计划要能持续下去，房价就必须随时间大幅度飙升。要不然，整个的制度就会垮了。
影响
很明显的政府是这计划的既得利益者。它推卸了为老化人口提供资金的责任。它基本上把这责任以高屋价政策转嫁给下一代。与此同时，它却从中得利而把这利益转入储备金里头，使执政党看来能干。除此之外，它还从房屋借贷利息里获利。
政府的获利就是人民的失利。建屋发展局是新组屋市场的唯一供应者而它也是从房屋借贷中收取利息。
这政策将对这一代以高价买组屋和往后世世代代的新加坡人。这一代以30年房贷买屋子的人将会被逼卖屋养老。下一代的新加坡人就必须承担更高的屋价，因为这是政策方向以便这一代人可以筹足养老金！
行不通的政策
从长远看来，这计划根本是无法持续下去的。原因显而易见。如果要保住那一些新加坡人放进房子的钱的购买力的话，他们房子未来的价钱就必须要盖过利息和30年里的通货膨胀。
但是工人的工资通常只能以通货膨胀的速度增长。这也就是为什么我们在这二十年间已经面对工资的增长大幅度落后于政府组屋价钱的增长率的情况。
资料源自 singaporemind.blogspot.com
从1990至2009年间，工资只翻了一番，但是组屋的价钱却翻了四番！在这期间，房贷也因此从15年增长至30年。如果这形势持续下去，我们的后代也许就必须
会面对40或50年的放贷才能买得到政府组屋！
这能行得通吗？
这是两个矛盾的政策目标。这一方，如果要卖屋养老计划成功的话，房价的飙升必须超越薪金的涨幅。但是在另一方，我们又要世世代代的新加坡人“负担得起”房子，那么房价的涨幅就不能超越薪金的涨幅！我们怎么可能同时达到这两个矛盾的目的？
再说没有人能保证房价能以这速度飙升。在这人口老化的前提，二手房屋的供应将会增加而需求量反而会因年轻人的数目少而减少。这就会致使房价承受下跌的压力。
新加坡人必须彻底的了解这“卖屋养老”对我们这一代与后代所带来的严重后果。
最新的报告显示新加坡的房贷已经占了我们经济所有贷款的51%。这比香港的20% 还要高！如果房地产市场崩溃的话，整个金融体系将会承担超重的坏账！
一个经济体系不能把过多的资金投入像房地产一样的无生产力的资产上。如此会剥夺了需要资金来创业的国人。这也会使整个金融体系过度暴露于能使我们的财富瞬时间化为乌有的泡沫经济里。
日本，爱尔兰或甚至美国的经验显示金融体系过度暴露于潜向于泡沫的房地产将会摧毁整个经济体系。日本自从1990年代的泡沫经济引爆后，至今还是无法重新振作起来！
政治上，对大众推销贪婪是最有效的手段但是这也会致使对我们后代无法扭转和弥补的伤害。要说服人们高屋价是对他们不利是非常艰难的。我已等了很久才等到这适当的时机来试图以我在这些年里对此课题深入研究的知识来尝试解释这政策祸害的来龙去脉。我恳请那一些认同我的看法的读者能帮我把这重要讯息传达给你的亲朋好友们。
这祸害子孙后代的政策必须被制止，否则我们的后代会因我们的不理不睬而受害。
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Unsustainable Policy : HDB
Minister Mah Bow Tan has continued to claim that HDB flats are "affordable" inspite of the 30 years mortgage. He has however, made a few interesting points lately.
One of the points he made has somewhat RETRACTED from his earlier position that it is alright to have high HDB prices because we could "monetize" or sell our HDB flats for retirement. He said that we may not need to sell our flats and downgrade for retirement.
I have explained why selling flat for retirement is NOT A WORKABLE and SUSTAINABLE OPTION at all.
Before I talk about why this scheme of "selling flat for retirement" is not sustainable in the long run, I would like to address the basic fundamentals of why such HIGH HDB PRICES under the guise of "asset enhancement" is the deliberate policy direction of PAP government.
High Property Prices to solve Aging Population Problems
Since early 1980s, PAP has suddenly realized that their aggressive "TWO IS ENOUGH" policy is flawed and it would create unprecedented acceleration of an aging population. By doing a demographic projection, it would mean that the CPF scheme may not be sustainable in providing adequate retirement financing for this aging population.
The burden of providing retirement financing lies on the government to give constant returns to CPF account holders. If less and less people are going to work in the work force while more and more people are going to withdraw their CPF money in future, it would create cashflow pressures on CPF. This problem will aggravate in time to come.
The brilliant idea of maintaining high HDB flat price comes about to solve a lot of these problems derived from aging population. The followings are the reasoning:
1) If Singaporeans have less savings in CPF, the government won't be burdened by interest payment to the account holders. i.e. the government will wash its hands off from retirement financing of an aging population.
2) How or who will finance the future retirees then? A 30 year mortgage plan will DEFINITELY force Singaporeans to sell their flats for retirement! This is basically because their CPF accounts will have very little amount of funds left! By allowing HDB prices to increase, these future retirees could well "withdraw" their "retirement funds" by selling off their HDB flats at high prices! This would solve their retirement financing!
Impact of HDB flat for Retirement Financing
Such simplistic thinking will have a few impacts. All of these impacts are unfavorable to Singaporeans but very favorable to the Government.
1) The Government could benefit from selling HDB flats at high prices to citizens and they no longer need to fork out money for any subsidies. All so call subsidies are basically on paper accounting, market subsidies.
2) The first adjustment is to raise land prices. HDB, on paper, is in deficits because it has to buy land from SLA (both under Ministry of Development) at market prices. Please note that SLA has become the biggest land owner in Singapore through forceful acquisition of private land with monopoly power to determine prices.
3) All proceeds from Land Sales go directly into the reserves and that is why our reserves grow at rapid rate since 1980s.
4) The government earns interests, instead of paying interests, from making loans to HDB buyers. This also means that while Singaporeans are paying higher HDB prices using almost all their CPF monies and they are also incurring mortgage interests.
5) The prices of HDB flats MUST increase substantially over time in order for this scheme to be sustainable. If not, the whole system will collapse.
Implications
What are the implications?
Apparently, the government benefited the most from such scheme. It relinquishes its responsibility of providing retirement financing for an aging population. It basically transfers this burden to the future generations in terms of HIGHER HDB PRICES. It MAKES PROFITS from these higher HDB prices which transferred into reserves which make them look good. On top of that, it makes money from interests collected from HDB buyers
What the government gains will be what the citizens will lose. HDB is the MONOPOLY of the new HDB flat market and it is also the lender who earns interests from all outstanding loans.
What the government gains will be what the citizens will lose. HDB is the MONOPOLY of the new HDB flat market and it is also the lender who earns interests from all outstanding loans.
Unsustainable
This model is NOT sustainable in the long run. The reason is pretty clear. In order to preserve the purchasing power of the amount of money Singaporeans have put into their HDB flats, the future price of their flats has to increase tremendously to cover the interest cost as well as inflation throughout the 30 years period.
However, wages of the working class will normally grow at the rate just enough to cover inflation. That is why we are witnessing this impact of wages lagging behind HDB price growth for the past two decades. From the following graph prepared by Lucky Tan .
Wage doubled while HDB prices grow by FOUR folds during the period from 1990 to 2009. It corresponds to the increase in the mortgage payment period from 15 years to 30 years. In time to come, our future generations may have to pay for a 40years or even 50 years mortgage for just a decent HDB flat
Is this sustainable?
There are CONFLICTING policy objectives. On one hand, in order for the scheme of utilizing high HDB prices as a means for retirement financing, we need HDB prices to outstrip wage growth but in order to maintain "AFFORDABILITY" for all generations, we need to maintain the price increase according to wage growth! How could these CONFLICTING policy targets be met simultaneously?
Nobody can guarantee property prices will grow forever at such rapid rate. With an aging population, demand will be lower while supply will be increasing due to the increasing number of elders trying to sell their flats. This will have downward pressure on relative prices.
This is really an ill-thought out HDB-retirement scheme by the PAP government. This scheme benefits only the present government by alleviating its burden to provide for the retirement funding needs for the citizens while benefiting from all the higher HDB prices and interests earned from loans to HDB owners. This is in the expense of Singaporeans both present and future.
Almost all present Ministers will not be around in 30 years time to take responsibility for the effects of their policies. It is important for Singaporeans to understand the great implications of this HDB-retirement scheme upon our present generations as well as future generations.
I have come to this realization of this scheme ever since PAP started to embark the so call "Asset Enhancement Scheme" back in early 1990s. I have written a number of articles in protest of this scheme but many Singaporeans were overwhelmed by the immediate gain of paper capital gains. There were even Singaporeans trying to capitalize on the sudden increase in their flat value by upgrading or multiple upgradings. In the whole process, they committed higher and higher debts.
The latest report has indicated Singapore's housing debt has constituted more than 51% of total loans from our financial loans! This is even higher than Hong Kong's 20%! We will be doomed if there is a property crash! The whole financial system will be burden with unperforming loans!
An economy cannot invest too much of its financial resources in assets like properties which are not "productive" for the economy. If the property sector takes up too much of the financial resources of the economy, it will crowd out resources for financing investments by our local entrepreneurs. It would also mean that the financial sector would be over-exposed to a potential bubble which would wipe off our wealth when it bursts.
Experiences from Japan, Ireland and even US have shown that over-exposure of the financial sector to the bubble-prone property sector will destroy the economy. Japan has hardly recover from its collapse of economy due to property bubble since 1990s!
It is up to every Singaporeans to judge on whether what I write here make any sense. It is easy to sell greed to the masses but it will create irreversible damage to our future generations. It is not easy to convince people that high property prices are BAD for them. I have waited this long for the opportune time to explain what I have learned throughout these years. I urge every reader who agrees with my views to help me to spread this message to your friends and relatives.
This unsustainable and potentially damaging HDB-retirement scheme must be stopped and ceased else our future generations will suffer in vain for our inaction.
Goh Meng Seng
One of the points he made has somewhat RETRACTED from his earlier position that it is alright to have high HDB prices because we could "monetize" or sell our HDB flats for retirement. He said that we may not need to sell our flats and downgrade for retirement.
I have explained why selling flat for retirement is NOT A WORKABLE and SUSTAINABLE OPTION at all.
Before I talk about why this scheme of "selling flat for retirement" is not sustainable in the long run, I would like to address the basic fundamentals of why such HIGH HDB PRICES under the guise of "asset enhancement" is the deliberate policy direction of PAP government.
High Property Prices to solve Aging Population Problems
Since early 1980s, PAP has suddenly realized that their aggressive "TWO IS ENOUGH" policy is flawed and it would create unprecedented acceleration of an aging population. By doing a demographic projection, it would mean that the CPF scheme may not be sustainable in providing adequate retirement financing for this aging population.
The burden of providing retirement financing lies on the government to give constant returns to CPF account holders. If less and less people are going to work in the work force while more and more people are going to withdraw their CPF money in future, it would create cashflow pressures on CPF. This problem will aggravate in time to come.
The brilliant idea of maintaining high HDB flat price comes about to solve a lot of these problems derived from aging population. The followings are the reasoning:
1) If Singaporeans have less savings in CPF, the government won't be burdened by interest payment to the account holders. i.e. the government will wash its hands off from retirement financing of an aging population.
2) How or who will finance the future retirees then? A 30 year mortgage plan will DEFINITELY force Singaporeans to sell their flats for retirement! This is basically because their CPF accounts will have very little amount of funds left! By allowing HDB prices to increase, these future retirees could well "withdraw" their "retirement funds" by selling off their HDB flats at high prices! This would solve their retirement financing!
Impact of HDB flat for Retirement Financing
Such simplistic thinking will have a few impacts. All of these impacts are unfavorable to Singaporeans but very favorable to the Government.
1) The Government could benefit from selling HDB flats at high prices to citizens and they no longer need to fork out money for any subsidies. All so call subsidies are basically on paper accounting, market subsidies.
2) The first adjustment is to raise land prices. HDB, on paper, is in deficits because it has to buy land from SLA (both under Ministry of Development) at market prices. Please note that SLA has become the biggest land owner in Singapore through forceful acquisition of private land with monopoly power to determine prices.
3) All proceeds from Land Sales go directly into the reserves and that is why our reserves grow at rapid rate since 1980s.
4) The government earns interests, instead of paying interests, from making loans to HDB buyers. This also means that while Singaporeans are paying higher HDB prices using almost all their CPF monies and they are also incurring mortgage interests.
5) The prices of HDB flats MUST increase substantially over time in order for this scheme to be sustainable. If not, the whole system will collapse.
Implications
What are the implications?
Apparently, the government benefited the most from such scheme. It relinquishes its responsibility of providing retirement financing for an aging population. It basically transfers this burden to the future generations in terms of HIGHER HDB PRICES. It MAKES PROFITS from these higher HDB prices which transferred into reserves which make them look good. On top of that, it makes money from interests collected from HDB buyers
What the government gains will be what the citizens will lose. HDB is the MONOPOLY of the new HDB flat market and it is also the lender who earns interests from all outstanding loans.
What the government gains will be what the citizens will lose. HDB is the MONOPOLY of the new HDB flat market and it is also the lender who earns interests from all outstanding loans.
Unsustainable
This model is NOT sustainable in the long run. The reason is pretty clear. In order to preserve the purchasing power of the amount of money Singaporeans have put into their HDB flats, the future price of their flats has to increase tremendously to cover the interest cost as well as inflation throughout the 30 years period.
However, wages of the working class will normally grow at the rate just enough to cover inflation. That is why we are witnessing this impact of wages lagging behind HDB price growth for the past two decades. From the following graph prepared by Lucky Tan .
Wage doubled while HDB prices grow by FOUR folds during the period from 1990 to 2009. It corresponds to the increase in the mortgage payment period from 15 years to 30 years. In time to come, our future generations may have to pay for a 40years or even 50 years mortgage for just a decent HDB flat
Is this sustainable?
There are CONFLICTING policy objectives. On one hand, in order for the scheme of utilizing high HDB prices as a means for retirement financing, we need HDB prices to outstrip wage growth but in order to maintain "AFFORDABILITY" for all generations, we need to maintain the price increase according to wage growth! How could these CONFLICTING policy targets be met simultaneously?
Nobody can guarantee property prices will grow forever at such rapid rate. With an aging population, demand will be lower while supply will be increasing due to the increasing number of elders trying to sell their flats. This will have downward pressure on relative prices.
This is really an ill-thought out HDB-retirement scheme by the PAP government. This scheme benefits only the present government by alleviating its burden to provide for the retirement funding needs for the citizens while benefiting from all the higher HDB prices and interests earned from loans to HDB owners. This is in the expense of Singaporeans both present and future.
Almost all present Ministers will not be around in 30 years time to take responsibility for the effects of their policies. It is important for Singaporeans to understand the great implications of this HDB-retirement scheme upon our present generations as well as future generations.
I have come to this realization of this scheme ever since PAP started to embark the so call "Asset Enhancement Scheme" back in early 1990s. I have written a number of articles in protest of this scheme but many Singaporeans were overwhelmed by the immediate gain of paper capital gains. There were even Singaporeans trying to capitalize on the sudden increase in their flat value by upgrading or multiple upgradings. In the whole process, they committed higher and higher debts.
The latest report has indicated Singapore's housing debt has constituted more than 51% of total loans from our financial loans! This is even higher than Hong Kong's 20%! We will be doomed if there is a property crash! The whole financial system will be burden with unperforming loans!
An economy cannot invest too much of its financial resources in assets like properties which are not "productive" for the economy. If the property sector takes up too much of the financial resources of the economy, it will crowd out resources for financing investments by our local entrepreneurs. It would also mean that the financial sector would be over-exposed to a potential bubble which would wipe off our wealth when it bursts.
Experiences from Japan, Ireland and even US have shown that over-exposure of the financial sector to the bubble-prone property sector will destroy the economy. Japan has hardly recover from its collapse of economy due to property bubble since 1990s!
It is up to every Singaporeans to judge on whether what I write here make any sense. It is easy to sell greed to the masses but it will create irreversible damage to our future generations. It is not easy to convince people that high property prices are BAD for them. I have waited this long for the opportune time to explain what I have learned throughout these years. I urge every reader who agrees with my views to help me to spread this message to your friends and relatives.
This unsustainable and potentially damaging HDB-retirement scheme must be stopped and ceased else our future generations will suffer in vain for our inaction.
Goh Meng Seng
Friday, December 10, 2010
The Battle of Tampines
Yes, I know, I am supposed to write about the unsustainable policies of PAP. But the Straits Time's constituency report on Tampines is just too interesting to be missed.
I have made a comment on The Online Citizen Facebook with regards to Minister Mah's column on TodayOnline and it is as follows:
I have written an article entitled "Basis of Meritocracy: Competency and Accountability" for the next issue of NSP North Star. This is to address the second part of the campaigning. I will put up this article in January 2011.
It is interesting to note from the ST report that "about half" in Tampines support PAP. To me, it actually means LESS THAN HALF supported PAP because if the figures are that great, it would have reported "MORE THAN HALF" supported PAP. This is in spite of the fact that 28 out of 30 don't "blame" Minister Mah.
It is also interesting to note the fact that the question of affordability of HDB flats is "no longer there": i.e. apparently, EVERYONE, including PAP supporters, has accepted that affordability of HDB FLATS IS AN ISSUE. This is a vast different from two years ago whereby people would pour scorn on me for raising high HDB prices as an issue.
The strange part is this: according to Mah Bow Tan's write up on Today, he is open to debate about HDB issues. I have requested a live debate with Miniister Mah but till now, no response from him just yet.
It is also interesting to note that Minister Mah has shifted his position subtly from his earlier assertion that "you could sell your flat for retirement" to "most probably you don't need to sell your flat and downgrade for retirement" because they have "savings, CPF" etc... BUT WAIT! With a 30 years mortgage payment to the max, how much money would an ordinary folk has in his CPF when he reach 60 years old? Well maybe the million dollar paid minister would have lots of other assets and savings, but for an ordinary folk, this is DEFINITELY NOT THE CASE!
The blatant truth is, with a HDB flat to be liable for a 30 years mortgage, Singaporeans would be FORCED to sell their flat and downgrade for their retirement financing!
It is quite surprising that after I have declared that Minister Mah's HDB policy is TOTALLY NOT SUSTAINABLE in the long run, he insisted that to remain "SUSTAINABLE" he needs to keep the present pricing policy! Scarcity of land is the reason he cited. But as I have mentioned before, this is NOT an issue when all LAND sold by the government comes with a 99 lease!
Minister Mah also claims that there is "hefty subsidies" for HDB flats. It is already a well known fact that HDB only gives "discounts" NOT ACTUAL SUBSIDIES to buyers. In fact, they overpriced the land which they have acquired DIRT CHEAP from Singaporeans. Then, they give discounts based on that price!
Contrary to what Minister Mah's assertion, pricing new HDB flats at COST WILL NOT COMPROMISE the BUDGET. This is basically because whatever revenue they gained via LAND SALES, go straight into the reserves, not the Budget revenue! Thus, by cutting down the price of the LAND sold to HDB will NOT compromise the BUDGET at all!
The Battle of Tampines is about the future of our children. It is also about defending our core values of Meritocracy, especially so when we are pay the HIGHEST SALARY in the world to our ministers.
Goh Meng Seng
I have made a comment on The Online Citizen Facebook with regards to Minister Mah's column on TodayOnline and it is as follows:
Two years ago, before TOC went into the homeless issue and I banging on the unaffordability of HDB flats, many people think that HDB under MBT is great. When I first started the fire on HDB issue coupled with my minister-specific strategy aiming at MBT Tampines, many people say I am crazy. They reasoned that Tampines has the best flats which is appreciating, why would they want to vote for someone who tell them their flats are too high a price?
I am glad that after one and a half year of banging on housing issues with the help of New Media blogs and websites like TOC (and Temasek Review), we manage to change people's mind and get this very important point across. So much so that even hardcore PAP supporters have to admit that high HDB prices are a grave concern.
We have successfully completed half of the mission of political education, raising issue like Housing into hot topic. Now, according to ST, there are still 28 out of 30 who thinks MBT shouldn't be blamed for this HDB blunders. The other half of the mission is to convince voters that we must safeguard MERITOCRACY as our CORE VALUE by voting out those ministers who have screwed up.
I have written an article entitled "Basis of Meritocracy: Competency and Accountability" for the next issue of NSP North Star. This is to address the second part of the campaigning. I will put up this article in January 2011.
It is interesting to note from the ST report that "about half" in Tampines support PAP. To me, it actually means LESS THAN HALF supported PAP because if the figures are that great, it would have reported "MORE THAN HALF" supported PAP. This is in spite of the fact that 28 out of 30 don't "blame" Minister Mah.
It is also interesting to note the fact that the question of affordability of HDB flats is "no longer there": i.e. apparently, EVERYONE, including PAP supporters, has accepted that affordability of HDB FLATS IS AN ISSUE. This is a vast different from two years ago whereby people would pour scorn on me for raising high HDB prices as an issue.
The strange part is this: according to Mah Bow Tan's write up on Today, he is open to debate about HDB issues. I have requested a live debate with Miniister Mah but till now, no response from him just yet.
It is also interesting to note that Minister Mah has shifted his position subtly from his earlier assertion that "you could sell your flat for retirement" to "most probably you don't need to sell your flat and downgrade for retirement" because they have "savings, CPF" etc... BUT WAIT! With a 30 years mortgage payment to the max, how much money would an ordinary folk has in his CPF when he reach 60 years old? Well maybe the million dollar paid minister would have lots of other assets and savings, but for an ordinary folk, this is DEFINITELY NOT THE CASE!
The blatant truth is, with a HDB flat to be liable for a 30 years mortgage, Singaporeans would be FORCED to sell their flat and downgrade for their retirement financing!
It is quite surprising that after I have declared that Minister Mah's HDB policy is TOTALLY NOT SUSTAINABLE in the long run, he insisted that to remain "SUSTAINABLE" he needs to keep the present pricing policy! Scarcity of land is the reason he cited. But as I have mentioned before, this is NOT an issue when all LAND sold by the government comes with a 99 lease!
Minister Mah also claims that there is "hefty subsidies" for HDB flats. It is already a well known fact that HDB only gives "discounts" NOT ACTUAL SUBSIDIES to buyers. In fact, they overpriced the land which they have acquired DIRT CHEAP from Singaporeans. Then, they give discounts based on that price!
Contrary to what Minister Mah's assertion, pricing new HDB flats at COST WILL NOT COMPROMISE the BUDGET. This is basically because whatever revenue they gained via LAND SALES, go straight into the reserves, not the Budget revenue! Thus, by cutting down the price of the LAND sold to HDB will NOT compromise the BUDGET at all!
The Battle of Tampines is about the future of our children. It is also about defending our core values of Meritocracy, especially so when we are pay the HIGHEST SALARY in the world to our ministers.
Goh Meng Seng
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
建屋局违背社会契约 祸害子孙后代
I have just written a Chinese article on the ills of HDB policy which is not sustainable. I will be reconstructing this article into English article soon as part of my promise of posting on the unsustainable policies of PAP government.
Goh Meng Seng
建屋局违背社会契约 祸害子孙后代
在建国初期，百业待兴。行动党在成为执政党后，便积极使用土地征收法，强制以超低价格向各个大小地主征收土地以便供国家发展。为了补偿这一些新加坡人为国家发展所做出的牺牲，政府与人民达成了不明文规定的社会契约，那就是政府会为人民提供优质廉价，甚至是受津贴的公共住屋。
政府把永久地契的土地以超低价格征收回来，然后以99年地契的组屋出售给人民，这种社会主义的土地改革和建制对于我们世世代代新加坡人的住屋需求提供了保障。如果没有我们先辈对土地的牺牲，我们千千万万的同胞和我们的后代便没法有足够的住屋了。
政府也从这以超低价格征收土地中得益良多。到目前为止，政府已从征收廉价土地中累积超过80%的国土！我国几千亿的储备金中，有一大部份是买卖土地的收益！这也就是为什么政府有责任和义务为世世代代的国人提供廉价组屋。我们也不期望政府亏钱，但至少必须以成本价提供住屋给国人。就算要从组屋用地赚点利息回报，它也必须以合理的计算法计算土地价格给建屋局。
政府与建屋局在建国初20年里的确履行了它对这社会契约的义务和责任。我们的父辈的确以廉价的价格向建屋局买到了组屋。我们父辈能以少过15年的按揭买到他们心仪的房子。这基本上解决了国人的住屋需求。
但是一踏入1990年代，行动党却以“资产增值”为利诱，说服国人组屋升值是好事，积极发展组屋转售市场，更以“组屋翻新”为竞选伎俩。但是新组屋价格也悄然地猛涨两三倍以上！以往行动党所依赖的“组屋津贴”政治资本逐渐站不住脚了。在反对党议员屡次挑战这“组屋津贴”的神话后，行动党才婉转的以“市场津贴”搪塞。说穿了，这“市场津贴”也只是从市场给以“折扣”而已。行动党政府还是从买组屋中牟利。关键就在土地价格的制定上。
新加坡土地有限，政府又是最大的地主。政府基本上垄断了土地市场的供应。从经济常理看来，土地价格在这种情况下肯定会随着时间以超过经济和国民平均薪金成长的速度飙升！
这也就反映在组屋价格与国民中间收入增长日益扩大的差距。从1990至2009的统计看来，国民中间收入只增长了一倍而组屋转售价竟然升超过三倍！由于新组屋是以市场转售价给以折扣，所以新组屋也应该升了三倍或更多！如果是以1980年代为基准的话，那这差距肯定会更大！
Source: Data compiled by Lucky Tan, http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/
这扩大的差距也反映在按揭年限逐渐的延长上。我们父辈只须15年或更低的按揭，在1990年代买组屋的我这一代就需付上20年的按揭。到了这世纪初至今，我们的新一代就必须给30年的按揭奴役了！
如今这30年房屋贷款将使我们年轻国人无法有足够钱在老时养老！如果他们30岁结婚，要到60岁才能把房贷还清！他们还能有多少公积金储蓄来养老？如果按照马宝山部长的说法，组屋可是“投资”，我们能卖房子养老，那么我们不是要祈求房价能一直勇往直前，继续往上狂升吗？姑且不谈这种期望屋价不断上涨的妄想是否不切实际，但是试想想，要是真是如此，我们的子孙后代是不是要付上更长的按揭才能买到组屋吗？40年还是50年按揭？如果让行动党政府继续如此搞下去的话，我们的子孙后代便须付出沉重的代价！
吴明盛
Goh Meng Seng
建屋局违背社会契约 祸害子孙后代
在建国初期，百业待兴。行动党在成为执政党后，便积极使用土地征收法，强制以超低价格向各个大小地主征收土地以便供国家发展。为了补偿这一些新加坡人为国家发展所做出的牺牲，政府与人民达成了不明文规定的社会契约，那就是政府会为人民提供优质廉价，甚至是受津贴的公共住屋。
政府把永久地契的土地以超低价格征收回来，然后以99年地契的组屋出售给人民，这种社会主义的土地改革和建制对于我们世世代代新加坡人的住屋需求提供了保障。如果没有我们先辈对土地的牺牲，我们千千万万的同胞和我们的后代便没法有足够的住屋了。
政府也从这以超低价格征收土地中得益良多。到目前为止，政府已从征收廉价土地中累积超过80%的国土！我国几千亿的储备金中，有一大部份是买卖土地的收益！这也就是为什么政府有责任和义务为世世代代的国人提供廉价组屋。我们也不期望政府亏钱，但至少必须以成本价提供住屋给国人。就算要从组屋用地赚点利息回报，它也必须以合理的计算法计算土地价格给建屋局。
政府与建屋局在建国初20年里的确履行了它对这社会契约的义务和责任。我们的父辈的确以廉价的价格向建屋局买到了组屋。我们父辈能以少过15年的按揭买到他们心仪的房子。这基本上解决了国人的住屋需求。
但是一踏入1990年代，行动党却以“资产增值”为利诱，说服国人组屋升值是好事，积极发展组屋转售市场，更以“组屋翻新”为竞选伎俩。但是新组屋价格也悄然地猛涨两三倍以上！以往行动党所依赖的“组屋津贴”政治资本逐渐站不住脚了。在反对党议员屡次挑战这“组屋津贴”的神话后，行动党才婉转的以“市场津贴”搪塞。说穿了，这“市场津贴”也只是从市场给以“折扣”而已。行动党政府还是从买组屋中牟利。关键就在土地价格的制定上。
新加坡土地有限，政府又是最大的地主。政府基本上垄断了土地市场的供应。从经济常理看来，土地价格在这种情况下肯定会随着时间以超过经济和国民平均薪金成长的速度飙升！
这也就反映在组屋价格与国民中间收入增长日益扩大的差距。从1990至2009的统计看来，国民中间收入只增长了一倍而组屋转售价竟然升超过三倍！由于新组屋是以市场转售价给以折扣，所以新组屋也应该升了三倍或更多！如果是以1980年代为基准的话，那这差距肯定会更大！
Source: Data compiled by Lucky Tan, http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/这扩大的差距也反映在按揭年限逐渐的延长上。我们父辈只须15年或更低的按揭，在1990年代买组屋的我这一代就需付上20年的按揭。到了这世纪初至今，我们的新一代就必须给30年的按揭奴役了！
如今这30年房屋贷款将使我们年轻国人无法有足够钱在老时养老！如果他们30岁结婚，要到60岁才能把房贷还清！他们还能有多少公积金储蓄来养老？如果按照马宝山部长的说法，组屋可是“投资”，我们能卖房子养老，那么我们不是要祈求房价能一直勇往直前，继续往上狂升吗？姑且不谈这种期望屋价不断上涨的妄想是否不切实际，但是试想想，要是真是如此，我们的子孙后代是不是要付上更长的按揭才能买到组屋吗？40年还是50年按揭？如果让行动党政府继续如此搞下去的话，我们的子孙后代便须付出沉重的代价！
吴明盛
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
