For advertisement

Sample

12/02/2008

Providing the people a good life

It is very difficult to define what is a good life for a Singaporean. There are the intangible, religious or immaterial aspects of living that some people will find more important than others. I know that this is very controversial but from the perspective of a govt, maybe a simpler definition base on material comfort could be a useful guide as a national objective. Spiritual or religious wellbeing is something that is beyond the govt. In my opinion, a govt that can provide the average Singaporean with an affordable 4 rm flat and a small car(OPC also ok) and live comfortably without having to make ends meet every month would have been very successful. A supervisor or executive is a good reference point to take as they form the base of the population, and it is not unreasonable to expect them to live at a decent standard of living. If at this level they can say that they have a good life, the higher income Singaporeans would have nothing to complain about and the lower income would not be too badly off except for the extreme end. If the govt can focus on such a standard of living for its people and design all the policies and cost around it, then Singaporeans can look forward to a better future, and more good years. If there is no such reference point, and cost is allowed to run away, and the bulk of the population falls to a level where everyone is struggling to make ends meet, then the govt has failed despite all the beautiful infrastructures and all the wealth accumulated by the nation. The 4 roomers are the average Singaporeans. Their well being is an indication of the well being of the country, of whether the govt is doing its job and implementing its policies correctly. Why did I feel that a simple objective like this has been forgotten and govt agencies, private or public, only think of how much money to make from the people instead of how well they are living?

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

i believe that a lessor of a leasehold flat is more a tenant than an owner of the title. becos he merely pays in advance his rent for x number of years for the enjoyment of the facilities. i am not sure if they have such convenient arrangements in the US or other developed countries. maybe one day all hdb flats would be freehold?

redbean said...

you are right on this. the good thing here is that once the price is fixed, there is no landlord to keep pushing up the rent.

but here the landlord will push up the price whenever they could to max their profits.

this is the ugly part of the govt. hey, hdb may be private, but still a part of the govt, with a minister calling the shot.