Property Values and Your Choice of Political Party

When I read about Low Thia Kiang leaving Hougang to run for elections in Aljunied GRC, I felt fear and dismay. Low is well-known and very well-loved in Hougang, and if he had chosen to remain in Hougang, his seat in Parliament would be almost guaranteed. However, when Low comes to Aljunied GRC, it's a different ball game, especially with the PAP's gerrymandering tactics.

If Low should lose in Aljunied GRC, then this would be a disaster for Singapore. It would be a very dark day in the history of this nation.

For so many years, Low has been the (almost) lone Opposition voice in Parliament, one man standing up and bravely  speaking up against a pack of 80+ PAP MPs. It takes no courage whatsoever to be a Mah Bow Tan or a Wong Kan Seng in Parliament, but it takes great courage to be a Low Thia Kiang. To his immense credit, Low has done his job and served Singaporeans well, not just for a year or two, but for the past 20 years. 

If Low loses in Aljunied GRC, then even that one lone voice in Parliament might be gone, silenced for good. It is possible that parliamentary debate might then degenerate into an utter sham. Nothing but a puppet show with PAP MPs posing nice, friendly, pre-arranged questions to each other and giving nice, friendly, rehearsed answers to each other. There would be nobody to challenge them, nobody to act as a check and balance, nobody to ask the tough questions that really need, for the sake of the nation, to be asked.

Honestly, if we come to that stage, Parliament House might just as well shut down. On weekends, the PAP MPs can just gather at Hsien Loong's living room or Kuan Yew's garden to have some cakes and coffee. There they can plan their next salary increases; chit chat about golf and BMWs; and casually make a few national policies for five million citizens. So much for public accountability and transparency,

--------------------------------------

Regular readers of my blog know that I moved house a few months ago. What I didn't mention was exactly where I moved to. I now live in Tai Keng Gardens, a small quiet residential area near Paya Lebar, and I recently learned that my new address is under Aljunied GRC.

There isn't the slightest doubt in my mind who I need to vote for. After all, I am intelligent, educated, well-informed and concerned. So effectively I have no choice. I have to vote for the Workers Party. Because I can see so clearly that the PAP's performance over the past five years is just taking this country on a one-way trip into slow deterioriation and gradual collapse.

Things have already reached such a bad stage that I can sincerely say this: if you genuinely support the PAP and want them to succeed, then you must vote for the Opposition. For the PAP can improve and do better - it has that potential. What the PAP needs is to be shocked out of its own complacency.

The best thing that can happen for the PAP is that they lose 10 seats in this election. Then suddenly they will wake up, remember the people whom they are supposed to serve, and start getting their act together. The PAP does have some talented, capable people in their midst. It's just that they have lost their way, over the past five years.

------------------------------------

I see from the newspapers that Kuan Yew has been busily making statements to create fear in the electorate. Something about how the Workers Party (if they win) will bring down the property values of Aljunied GRC.

What's that old saying about old dogs and new tricks? Fear-mongering is one of Kuan Yew's favourite tactics. Woe betide you, foolish Singaporeans, if you do not listen to me, then the sky will fall on your head. Some of his statements are so far-fetched that it's amazing he still has any credibility left.

Remember this stunning proclamation from Lee Kuan Yew, in 2007? The PAP ministers were just about to give themselves another fat pay raise, and Singaporeans were questioning this. Lee Kuan Yew's reply was that if the PAP ministers did not get their increase, the women of Singapore will become "maids in other people's countries".

Oh, come on, Kuan Yew. Can you at least try to keep your fear-mongering a little more .... rational?

Regular readers of my blog know that I am a keen watcher of the property market. I'd like to share a few personal observations on the content of Kuan Yew's latest fear.

LKY's basic point is that the WP is incompetent; that they will mismanage Aljunied; and the area will be so badly run that property values will fall sharply (relative to PAP constituencies).

But let's look at the facts. Low Thia Kiang has been MP for Hougang, for twenty years. If Low can ruin property values through his sheer incompetence, then Hougang should be a slum by now. But it is not. It is a clean, vibrant HDB town, with its own lively suburban malls, hawker centres, supermarkets, bus interchange, sport stadium, two MRT stations and more.

I can honestly tell you that, as a person who is familiar with the area. My brother lives in Hougang, my kids used to go for tuition in Hougang, and I still go there with my family quite often to eat and shop in Hougang.

Most Singaporeans wouldn't realise it, but I'll just say it straight out here. MPs do lots of important things, such as debate, discuss and shape national policies in Parliament and meet residents to help solve their personal problems. MPs and their grassroots supporters also organise community events like Plant-a-Tree Day and Chinese New Year dinners etc, and make appearances at schools' Prize-Giving Day to hand out awards and make speeches. All these types of MP work have their value and are important in their own way. But none of them has any direct bearing on the value of your property.

In other words, whoever you elect as your MP has very, very little influence on whether your property value will go up or down. May I quickly give you a big bunch of illustrations? Okay, let's go:

Your MP does not look after the roads in your neighbourhood (the LTA does that). 
Your MP does not look after the parks (the National Parks Board does that).
Your MP does not look after your public library (the National Library Board does that).
Your MP does not look after your sports stadium or public swimming pool (the Singapore Sports Council does that).
Your MP does not build shopping malls for you (property developers such as Capitaland do that).
Your MP does not manage your MRT line (SMRT does that). 
Your MP does not manage your SBS buses (SBS does that).
Your MP does not look after your electricity supply (SP Power does that).
Your MP does not look after your carpark (the URA does that). 
Your MP does not investigate crimes (the Singapore Police Force does that). 
Your MP does not put out fires (the SCDF and their NSmen do that).
Your MP does not ensure that top schools are near your home (whether a school is top or not depends on the students' efforts).
Your MP doesn't prevent mosquito breeding (the NEA does that).

Your MP does engage the cleaning contractors to clean the neighbourhood (which, in terms of level of difficulty, is not exactly rocket science and shouldn't be a challenge for any self-respecting MP, whether from the PAP or not). Apart from the cleaning contractors, your MP also builds playgrounds, fitness corners, maybe a couple of covered link ways here and there. None of these little projects require great ability or vast competence, nor will they have any significant influence on your property value.

There, hope it's all abundantly clear now. Abundantly clear that Lee Kuan Yew is mongering foolish fears. Don't be his sucker.

Baca Selengkapnya »»

Vivian Balakrishnan Casts Doubt on His Own Good Character

Oh, Vivian. SM Goh Chok Tong would be so disappointed in you.

Just a few days ago, Goh expressed his desire that the elections would be “a clean fight” with “no personal attacks”. Now here you go, with your cunningly crafted press statement on Opposition candidate Dr Vincent Wijeysingha.

"Cunning? But what was the cunning part?" you innocently ask.


Please, Vivian, we're not that stupid. All over the Internet, bloggers have already seen through it and are writing about it. For example, here is what ex-Nominated Member of Parliament Siew Kum Hong has got to say about it:

Today, it was this personal attack by the PAP.

The PAP can try all it wants, but the objective here is transparently clear to everyone: to tell the world that Vincent Wijeysingha is gay, and thereby win the votes of that part of the population that will vote based on just this single wedge issue, regardless of any other issue.

The rest of the statement -- in particular the allusion to an alleged discussion about "sex with boys and whether the age of consent for boys should be 14 years of age" -- is just outright unjustified mudslinging insinuation that seems designed to imply a linkage between Vincent Wijeysingha and that discussion. If you watch the video in question, you will find that ... Vincent Wijeysingha does not talk about sex with boys or lowering the age of consent for boys.

Vivian, I want you to know that as a Singaporean citizen, it matters a lot to me that the leaders are of good character and possess honour and integrity. Your conduct in this matter (and the conduct of your fellow team members) does not leave a good impression on me at all.

I don't think I'm the only one either. As I surf the Internet, this is what I find people saying about you:

".... building on misinformation and irrational and ill-informed fears, to perpetuate continual social and institutional discrimination of sexual minorities in Singapore. To associate this despicable insinuation with a man and a political party says a lot about the human being that is Dr Vivian." Sam Ho.

"Dr Vivian may be a shrewd tactician, but he’s certainly not winning the moral war." Terence Lee.

"Balakrishnan is as good as shooting himself in both feet, if he decides to play the religion card and the homophobic card at one go." Tatler.

"Basically Vivian must be damn worried about the serious competition he is facing that he has decided to personal attack. This is really demeaningful, it only shows our SUPER SCALE MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR MINISTER is a low esteem scumbag." Ben.

"Even the most apathetic layman can see that Dr Balakrishnan's accusation is an unwarranted personal attack WAY below the belt. If he thought this would divert attention away from his dismal handling of the YOG, or the neglect of our needy citizens, he is sadly mistaken. I only have this to say to him: Have you no decency?" SG Dino.

" .... I am saddened by the appearance of such gutter politics from one of our Ministers and his PAP teammates, Mr Christopher De Souza, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Sim Ann, who signed off on this misleading statement." Lisa Li.

".... a process of character desecration in what comes across as an attempt to appeal to particular religious lobbies. This is an unfortunate attack on the secular nature of our country. It is reflective of a colonialist dark age to divide and rule. It will hurt our society in the long run." Dharmendra Yadav.

"There are no words that can adequately describe the amount of contempt I have for this brand of gutter politics, from a man who heads a ministry that aims to foster community building." Ng E-Jay.

"Mr.Vivian has shown that he will sink to any depth, to win an election." Mr Owl.

"Vivian slithers in the gutter." Helluo Librorum.

Vivian, Vivian.

I want to let you know that I also searched and googled to hear the other side of the story, to find out if anyone had anything valid to say in your defence, or if anyone had anything good to say about you concerning this matter.

I found nothing.

__________________________________

UPDATE. Read the Online Citizen to see how Singaporeans expressing their criticism of Vivian Balakrishnan's conduct on his Facebook page are getting their comments deleted. Furthermore, the comments feature on Vivian's Facebook is now disabled.

Baca Selengkapnya »»

Please Look at the Fundamentals Before You Vote

From Channel News Asia:

SINGAPORE: Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has a simple message for voters in the heat, dust and clamour of the election campaign - he has urged them to look at the fundamentals.

In a statement issued just two days before Nomination Day, he reminded Singaporeans not to risk their assets, property values, and job opportunities.

He said the People's Action Party is fielding 24 new candidates of proven character, of high calibre, and with a track record of performance that showed they will not fail in taking on responsibilities.

This, after the Party combed the whole of Singapore to select those with the highest integrity and ability to chart the way forward for the country.

I also urge Singaporeans to vote wisely.

Not only that, I will provide a few concrete & useful tips about how to vote wisely.


My first tip to Singaporeans is not to fall into the trap of mistaking the past for the present. What do I mean?

If you look back far enough across the decades, you will see that indeed, the PAP has had an excellent track record. That is why you will find that nowhere in this blog have I ever said anything bad about the PAP leaders of yesteryear - for example, the likes of Goh Keng Swee, Lim Kim San and S Rajaratnam.

For these men were highly dedicated, capable and resourceful leaders, men with vision, and truly committed to the nation. The result of their leadership speaks for itself - in the history of Singapore, in the story of how this nation rapidly transformed itself from a developing country into a developed nation.

The mistake we mustn't make is to believe that just because the PAP has had its past glories, therefore today the PAP is as excellent and wonderful as it used to be. Or that, going forward into the future, the PAP will always be as excellent and as wonderful.

Goh is dead. Lim is dead. Rajaratnam is dead. Lee Kuan Yew is 87 years old. Political parties are always changing, the faces come and go. This year alone, Jayakumar, Lim Boon Heng and Abdullah Tarmugi are stepping down.

What I urge Singaporeans to do is to recognise this inevitable truth - that the party is always, always changing - and just because the PAP may once have been a good party doesn't necessarily mean that it will be a good party forever.

Look, just look honestly, at this statement by Lee Kuan Yew: "Our new candidates are of proven character, of high calibre, and with a track record of performance that shows they will not fail in taking on responsibilities" ...

.... and then watch this video:



Tell me, how is it possible NOT to doubt Lee's words?? The PAP "combed the WHOLE of Singapore" to find candidates of the "HIGHEST ability" ... and this was the best they could come up with? Honestly?

What Singaporeans should do is carefully scrutinise the PAP government's performance over the past five years since the last elections were held. This will give you a much better indication of the current quality of our leadership.

Five years of stagnant wage growth; five years of deteriorating public transport; five years of escalating healthcare costs; five years during the costs of public housing shot up immensely; five years during which the income gap between rich and poor widened more than ever before; five years of increased GST.

Five years of continued failure to improve fertility rates; five years when the inequities suffered by NSmen vis-a-viz competing foreigners working in Singapore remained unaddressed; five years during which the Home Affairs Ministry let a terrorist almost nonchalantly walk out of a supposedly "high security" prison; five years when GIC and Temasek remained as opaque and unaccountable as ever, about how they handle the people's hard-earned money ....

In the past five years, has the PAP government achieved ANYTHING good at all?

Baca Selengkapnya »»

Lui Tuck Yew Shocks a Citizen During His Walkabout

I saw this on my Facebook. The story seems to be getting a lot of attention in cyberspace. It's all about a Moulmein resident's unpleasant encounter with PAP candidate Lui Tuck Yew.

Dear Friends

I am forwarding you an email I sent to the incumbent MP for Moulmein, Mr Lui Tuck Yew, and his subsequent reply. (They are reversed in order below). I have only deleted my name/addresses and Mr Lui's address for the sake of privacy in the event that you may wish to forward this to your own friends. I trust you will not use this email to "flame" (hope I used the term correctly), but instead to educate and perhaps generate informed discussion.


I am sending my friends this because I feel that it is important that you hear what happened to me personally, and how Mr Lui reacted to me during what I thought was a simple, agreeable conversation. Those of you who know me well know that I do not go around deliberately antagonising people or creating trouble of any kind. So the flow of the conversation that took place left me shocked, and I must admit, sad. Mr Lui explains his "disengagement" in his reply attached below. I will leave you to read the whole story and the two emails and then come to your own conclusions.

First, the background to this whole incident.

I have been a resident of Moulmein my whole life, and not once have I ever had the chance or privilege to vote. So you can imagine how excited I was when I realised that there may be a strong possibility that Moulmein would be contested this time round. Prior to Mr Lui being the walkover MP, our MP was Mr Khaw Boon Wan. If Mr Khaw had still been our MP, I would most likely have voted for him as Mr Khaw had made his presence felt strongly in Moulmein, even at a social level, and it had always been a very reassuring presence. Mr Lui, on the other hand, has not had much of a presence.

So, on a recent walkabout in Moulmein, I happened to have what I thought at the time, was the privilege, to meet Mr Lui and get to know him better. He started off very friendly and handed me the Moulmein newsletter. He asked how long I'd been living here, and I let him know that I have been in Moulmein my whole life, and that this was the first time I may get a chance to vote. His immediate reaction was, "Yes, blame the Opposition! I don't know what they ..." and he went on to say something more which I couldn't hear because my brain was trying to process the fact that he had actually openly said, "Blame the Opposition" in a serious tone, laced with annoyance. He might have sensed my confusion (I'm guessing here). I then changed topic and pointed out to him that I had felt Mr Khaw's presence much more than his, and I requested for him to let me hear some of what he had done for Moulmein.

He told me to refer to the newsletter. I then said that I really wanted to hear from him, and not read what other people (ie his grassroots team) had created. He immediately started listing all the playgrounds they had done up (there was always the word "We") and spoke about a unique-to-Moulmein schools programme, which I liked very much. I interrupted him a few times to clarify a few things he had said.

I next asked him to let me know why I should vote for him. (I'm serious about voting, and I have thought this through so carefully. I told myself that no matter what, it was my duty to try and understand each candidate and approach them one-to-one before I cast my vote. And it was, and still is, my resolve to ask each candidate this question - why I should vote for them.)

I'm now going to recount the dialogue word-for-word as it is still clearly playing itself over and over in my head:
Me: Could you please tell me why I should vote for you?
Mr Lui: You should NOT vote for the Opposition because they ...
Me: The Opposition? No, I want to know about you. Please tell me why I should vote for you.
Mr Lui: You should vote for the PAP because we ....
Me: The PAP? No, no. I'm not interested in the PAP or the Opposition. I'm interested to know about you. Why should I vote for you?

At this point, Mr Lui shot me a look of pure anger, waved his hand about in the air, declaring, "We could spend all night talking about me!", pointed to the newsletter and snapped, "It's all in the the newsletter!" He then swung round and stormed off.

I remember standing there, in total shock, wondering what on earth I had done wrong to deserve such an intense reaction. I watched as he couldn't get beyond two or three steps as he was stopped by someone else wanting to meet him. I watched as he switched on his smile, said a few polite words, thrust the newsletter into her hand and disappeared, still angered. (Those who know me well, know I did my MA in nonverbal language, and know how accurate I am with "vibes".) I watched as his posse scurried after him, not one of them daring and/or caring to turn to look at me or say goodbye, not one of them.

I had asked a simple question. I was not expecting rocket science for an answer or any deep psychological profile to be shared. Just a simple answer from the heart would have sufficed, or even a more measured response. But not anger, never in a million years would I have thought anyone would have, or could have, responded to my simple question with anger.

And I feel sad.

Sad that after all these years, what people have been saying has finally been proven true to my face, literally.

I then turned to the Moulmein newsletter, ploughed through it in the hope that perhaps there was a lot about Mr Lui in the newsletter. No, there wasn't. Not a thing. Instead, I was left very impressed with the Moulmein Citizens Consultative Committee, the various Neighbourhood Committees and the Residents' Committees - all of which I am sure will not disappear if there is a change in leadership.

So I sat down, and penned an email, which I have since sent, to Mr Lui. I chose to be polite and measured in the email, and not angry nor accusatory because to be angry would have been to stoop to Mr Lui's response towards me, and that would not do anyone any good. If he's going to continue as Minister (and it does look like he's on the PAP fast-track if he's voted back in), then really, he needs to hear, he needs to understand, he needs to be educated. And he needs to learn how to answer simple, non-threatening questions!

It's such an irony that prior to the dissolution of Parliament, he was the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts.

You'll find the email below, and Mr Lui's response (in reverse order), which I just received a short while ago.

If you should choose to share my experience with any of your friends who need or would wish to read this, I request that you not include my email address and name.

Love and hugs everyone.

-

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tuck Yew LUI (MICA)
Date: 22 April 2011 16:53
Subject: Re: Moulmein Walkabout
To:


Dear - ,

i am sure this may not apply to you given that you have now taken the trouble to write this note but unfortunately I encounter some people whose minds are made up and whose main intent seem to be to slow us down in our outreach. And nothing, we say, no explanation we give whether to do with cost of living, etc will ever be good enough.
The pragmatic way to deal with this is simply to disengage at an opportune moment.
Dont worry, it didnt leave a sour note with me nor a poor impression of you.

Regards,

Lui Tuck Yew

Sent from my iPad


On Apr 21, 2011, at 10:18 PM, "-" wrote:

> Dear Mr Lui,
>
> We met briefly at the walkabout at xxxxxxxxxx last evening. Unfortunately, I seem to have upset and angered you which was not my intention at all.
>
> If I appeared rude or aggressive in any way, then I apologise. I don't usually take too well to answers that are off-tangent, they tend to confuse me, and I always re-direct answers back to my original question which often means that I can appear too direct or clinical and therefore somewhat aggressive. As a teacher by training, I have always emphasised the importance and merits of listening carefully and answering to the point questions that are addressed to my students.
>
> I hope you understand that this is the first time in my life as a Singaporean I may be asked to vote. I take that responsibility very, VERY seriously, weighing all factors involved. Each political party has its own aims and objectives and track record (or none where some of the opposition are concerned) all of which I am very well aware of. The ONE thing which is not clear, and which is difficult to determine, is the individual politician - the person who will represent me in my constituency. It is this individual politician that I am genuinely interested to know. I need to know and understand what this individual can bring to the table.
>
> That is why I was so keen for you to convince me why I should vote for you. Not why I should not vote for the opposition. Not why I should vote PAP. But why I should vote for you. I was genuinely interested to hear your answers. Instead, not only did I not get direct a reply from you, I caused you to turn away in anger. Maybe it was the end of a very long day for you, maybe my tone and questions threw you off-centre. Either way, it left a sour note behind, I believe, for both of us.
>
> Right after you left, I immediately sat down to read the Moulmein newsletter cover to cover (the bits in English) exactly as you suggested I should do to find out more about you. Unfortunately, it doesn't shed any light on your as an individual or as the leader of Moulmein. It tells me instead about the wonderful grassroots teams and wonderful committees that have come up with truly great ideas, which I like very much. But it doesn't tell me about you. And so I am still left clueless.
>
> The questions I asked you will be the same questions I will be asking whoever decides (if at all) to stand against you in the elections. If the opposition candidate is equally stumped and/or angered by me, then you can rest assured that I will be forced to find another way to come to a decision well-thought through.
>
> Before I end, I would like to stress that I am not against the PAP in any way, nor am I for any particular opposition party. I am merely a Singaporean, proud and excited at the thought of a chance at finally being able to exercise my right to vote.
>
>
>
> With Regards
> -

I couldn't help feeling surprised by Lui's email reply to the Moulmein resident. Specifically the part where Lui wrote: "Don't worry, [the incident] didn't leave a sour note with me nor a poor impression of you."

In my opinion, it is Lui's own behavior which would leave a sour note with voters, and a poor impression on them. Singaporeans don't owe you a living, Mr Lui.

Baca Selengkapnya »»

Singapore's Top Election Issue

This simple, heartfelt letter to the ST Forum reflects the nation's top election issue:

Apr 23, 2011
A senior citizen's musings...

SENIOR Minister Goh Chok Tong acknowledged that the prevailing high cost of living in Singapore would be a likely issue in the coming general election ("Rising costs a likely issue: SM"; Tuesday).

He asked the people to decide who they thought would have a better solution to such problems.

I appreciate his forthrightness and am thankful for his timely reminder on this matter. But his comments have evoked mixed feelings for me.

Every time we are assured that things are still affordable, we find prices rising higher. Now we are cautioned to choose the right team to provide the solution.

The ruling party has had ample opportunity to resolve these issues, but the problems still plague us. I may now be an economically unproductive senior citizen, but I still love my country.

Fu Jiat Joon

I'll add some perspective.

Right now, the cost of living is rising in many countries, not just Singapore. One cause is the US monetary policy - as they print more and more dollars to tackle their economic woes, the excess money supply feeds into the global system and leads to inflation worldwide. In addition, food prices are escalating around the world, for a complex host of different reasons that the experts are still debating.

Nevertheless, the rising cost of living in Singapore cannot be solely attributed to external factors. In fact, the average citizen's difficulty in coping with the rising cost of living is very closely linked to an intrinsic, uniquely local factor. That factor is the PAP government's policy on immigration and foreigners. I'll explain.

A rise in the cost of living is not a problem, if it is matched with a rise in average wages. Unfortunately, over the past five years, Singaporeans have NOT been able to earn more money. Singaporeans are working as hard as ever (and in fact, hold the current world record for working the longest hours), but their incomes have been stagnating. If you don't believe me, read this.

To put it simply, while Singapore's economic growth has arguably been decent, this simply hasn't translated into a better life for the average Singaporean in the street. Our reserves may have grown; our government ministers may be drawing bigger and bigger salaries; the Bangladeshi workers and the Filipino waitresses may be feeling satisfied - but the average Singaporean just isn't getting any benefits out of the nation's success.

Why is this so? Well, wages are related to productivity. To earn more money, the Singaporean has to raise his productivity by learning new skills and gaining more knowledge in value-added areas. Companies have a role to play in this too. They have to innovate, become more efficient, invest in new technology, and in training their employees. That's how productivity can increase, together with sustainable wage growth.

But this isn't happening in Singapore. On the contrary, our labor productivity has fallen to shockingly low levels. In 2009, for instance, labor productivity growth was worse than zero. It was negative (-14.9%). And why has labour productivity fallen so badly in Singapore? It's because the PAP government's policy on foreign workers actually discourages productivity. Instead of getting Singaporeans to increase productivity by learning new skills and knowledge, the focus has instead very much been on importing more and more cheap foreign labour to do the job. To quote the Wall Street Journal:

By some estimates, a third or more of Singapore's 6.8% average annual growth from 2003 to 2008 came from the expansion of its labor force, primarily expatriates, allowing Singapore to post growth more commonly associated with poor developing nations.

At the same time, though, foreign workers have driven up real estate and other prices and made the city-state's roads and subways more congested. Their arrival has kept local blue-collar wages lower than they would be otherwise, exacerbating Singapore's gap between rich and poor.

Some economists say the most damaging effect of the immigration is that the influx appears to be putting a lid on productivity gains, as manufacturers rely on cheap imported labor instead of making their businesses more efficient. Labor productivity, or output per employee, fell 7.8% in 2008 and 0.8% in 2007—a phenomenon that could eventually translate into lower standards of living.

Lee Ah Lee, a 58-year-old who makes 850 Singapore dollars a month (about US$600) clearing tables in a cafeteria, says the flood of immigrants has made it hard to make ends meet by pushing down blue-collar pay in Singapore, which has no legal minimum wage. Sitting nearby in a drab apartment block built by Singapore's Housing Development Board, a state-owned body that constructs and sells subsidized housing, 79-year-old Lee Kwang Joo says low-skilled foreign workers are often housed in corporate dormitories, meaning they have no housing costs and can survive on lower pay.

So I hope that the direness of the situation we face, as a nation, has become clear. Obviously, we cannot completely shut the door on foreigners, especially not on foreign talent. But there is a balance that should be kept. When labor productivity falls to -14.9% and Singaporeans' wages stagnate year after year after year despite the fact that the economy is actually growing, you know that the balance has not been kept.

Goh Chok Tong talked about the rising cost of living and posed this question to Singaporeans - "Which party do you think can solve this problem?". But here are the better questions to ask yourself. In the first place, which party caused the problem? Which party IS the problem?

If you are an intelligent person, you know the answer. Vote wisely.

Baca Selengkapnya »»

Mah Bow Tan is "Proud" of the Asset Enhancement Policy

While busily arguing with the Workers Party, Mah slipped up and uttered a blooper. He said that he was "proud" of Singapore's asset enhancement policy.

People who understand this topic will remember Mah's statement, long after the 2011 elections are over. For this statement is a very naive and foolish one.


If you are too young to know what the AE policy is all about, just click here to read Tan Kin Lian's old post. His explanation is simple, short and sweet.

Essentially, the AE policy makes HDB flats more expensive. According to Mah, this is a good thing because your home becomes more valuable.

For most Singaporeans, this statement is largely nonsense. That's because people need homes. If you cash out by selling your flat, you still have to buy another home. If you buy a similar home, it will cost as much. So obviously, the AE policy is not making you rich.

(God, this Mah person drives me crazy. To think that I have to explain such obvious things on my blog).

The real danger of the AE policy is that it will seriously drain your CPF savings. First, let's get back to basics. Recall that the main purpose of the CPF is to help you to save for your own retirement.

This is especially crucial in Singapore, because the government here (unlike most developed countries) has no safety net for the old. You have to look after you, in your own old age.

However, the government also encourages you to use your CPF to pay for your HDB flat. In fact, after all these years of stagnant wage growth, many Singaporeans would not be able to pay for their HDB flats, if they were not allowed to use their CPF.

Now, as the AE makes HDB flats more and more expensive, what does that mean? You will be forced to use more and more of your CPF money to pay for your HDB. In turn, that means you have less and less money for your retirement.

That is why older Singaporeans are often said to be "asset rich, cash poor". They have a roof over the heads, and it might even be a very nice roof. But they have little money to meet their everyday needs, and many of them will have no viable option to monetise their home.

(Please note that I do not consider selling your home and living in the void deck as a "viable option").

That is also why in recent years, the government keeps reiterating that you need to save more for your retirement, and that your CPF money is not going to be enough, for your old age.

For it is true. The asset enhancement policy (which Mah is so proud of) is steadily making the CPF system a failure.

Baca Selengkapnya »»

Mah Bow Tan is so Disappointing

The Workers Party had a few ideas about how to make public housing cheaper for Singaporeans. The main idea was to peg the prices of new HDB plans to the median incomes of Singaporeans applying for them.

I did not find this idea impressive. By that, I mean that the idea did not make me go "Wow, brilliant!". I did feel that the idea was generally okay - it was reasonable; sensible; not terribly exciting; and some gaps needed to be filled in. But overall, the idea was at least worth further consideration.

What appalled me was the PAP's reaction to the idea. More specifically, Mah Bow Tan's reaction. It was an utterly misguided, defensive and insecure reaction. The worst part was when Mah accused the WP of trying to "raid" the nation's reserves, as the government would have to sell land at lower prices.

To some extent, I can understand Mah's defensiveness. After all, he's been doing a terrible job at managing public housing. For years, Singapore's population had been rising sharply (due to the open-door policy to foreigners), but Mah forgot to build more flats. Consequently, HDB prices spiked massively, and lots of people couldn't afford a home anymore.

 Nevertheless, Mah's "raid" comment was entirely unjustified. (You can imagine that if Mah's and Low's positions were reversed, the PAP would have launched a defamation suit and sued Low to death or bankruptcy, or maybe locked him up under the ISA for speaking words to incite social unrest).

Firstly, "raiding" the reserves means that you're like a thief or a robber, taking out money from the national reserves in a dishonest or unethical manner. However, the WP's proposal has nothing to do with taking money from the reserves. It has nothing to do with the reserves suffering any loss. At worst, it means that the land sales give the reserves a lesser gain.

For those of you who are not clear, let me elaborate. Suppose that in a given year, the PAP ministers give themselves a 20% pay increase. The next year, they give themselves a 10% pay increase. This isn't a loss. This isn't a pay cut. This is a pay increase. The increase is 10% lower than the previous year, but it is still an increase, not a decrease.

Secondly, if you look carefully at the mechanics of the WP's idea, you will understand that in principle, it doesn't even necessarily mean that new HDB flats must become cheaper. Instead it just means that the price of new HDBs should move in tandem with Singaporeans' median incomes.

Thus if the average Singaporean earns less, then the price of new HDB flats should decrease. If the average Singaporean earns more, then the price of new HDB flats can increase. The WP formula is not meant to make the government poorer, or even "less rich". The WP formula is simply to ensure that public housing remains affordable at all times, for the average Singaporean.

Sounds fair and reasonable, right? LOL, no wonder Mah objected.

Baca Selengkapnya »»