100,000 more jobs coming

We can expect 100,000 jobs to be created and some will definitely have to go to foreign talents. How many will go to them and how this will translate into more foreigners in the country and how this will affect our infrastructure and housing for our people is an urgent problem? Do we have the ability and people to compute all these and start doing the necessary so that no one will be caught off guarded again? A 50% of these jobs going to foreigners could add 200,000 people into the system, assuming each comes with a family of 4. The failure in our housing system to cater for such big inflows of residents here should be a lesson not to be repeated. Then the transportations, even COEs will be affected. The eating places, entertainment, ok we have two casinos to take in some of the influx, but many facilities will be stretched and stressed. Are we prepared for our targeted 6m population? I know many are and have already bought into properties and waiting for the prices to go through the roof. For those who are still looking for a property, better go and grab anything that is available. The shortage is unlikely to be met if history is to tell its story again. Before we bring in another 200,000, let’s get the housing sorted out first. This is the commonsensical thing that any simple mind would not fail to miss. At this moment I don’t think anything has been done on this area. Some people even believed that the demand for BTO launches were fake.

Human rights lesson from Singapore

Maxwell Coopers wrote an article in FreeMalaysiaToday forum with the above title. He was amused by the UN representative, Githu Muigai's recommendations about what Singapore should do to improve its human rights. I too agree with Maxwell. What Muigai should do is to look at all the countries around the world and see if any of them could have a better system and record than Singapore on human rights and treatment of minorities. Look at countries around Singapore for comparison. He should be there instead of in Singapore. There is one good reason for him to be in Singapore. And that is to study the brilliant and workable system that we have put to practice and how the general well being of our minority groups are better than the standard of living of majorities in other countries, and how they could practise their customs and cultures freely as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. The majority is also subject to this restraint. This will be the best testimony that Muigai could bring to the UN and recommend that the Singapore system be used as the model for other countries plagued with discriminations against their minorities. I think he would have done a great job in doing this and will receive a standing ovation at the UN instead of his ridiculous recommendations to improve a system that can only be found workable in paradise.

Myth 221 - Singaporeans are hard to please

Is that so? The official line is that Singaporeans are fuzzy, choosy and very difficult to please. I don't know how people got that impression. My impression is that Singaporeans are so easy to please. They can be easily appeased and will feel very grateful if given a few dollars. The 1% CPF hike is an excellent example of how easily contented are Singaporeans. The $10 to $40 hike in CPF contribution is already a call for celebration. They were so happy, even when they cannot touch the money for another 30 years. So how can Singaporeans be called choosy and fuzzy and hard to please? Actually there are some Singaporeans that are hard to please. Even with salary that can buy them a million dollar private property every year and they arestill not happy, and asking for more. But these are few and should not be generalised. So the fuzzy, choosy and hard to please Singaporean is a myth or a legend?

Banks should do the right thing?

The Obama govt is trying to cut down the banks to size. Banks should return to do traditional bankings, ie deposit taking and not investing activities. Banks should not be allowed to do all kinds of businesses and grow to a size that they cannot afford to fail. Smaller banks will make the banking system safer. Making the banking system safer is THE right thing to do. The last financial crisis is a warning that if it is not done, the next one could wipe out everything. But no, no one is taking heed even if it is the right thing to do. The popular thing to do is to continue with the looting. The bigger the banks the better as they could muscle in to all deals, conflict of interest is never a consideration. Moral righteousness is not an issue. The issue is to make as much money as possible, at all cost. The looting mentality is so prevalent that it must have sicken the Obama administration. And it is reported that the legal fees for the bankruptcy proceedings of Lehman is now US$730m and will hit $1b. And those in the know knew that many of the charges were exorbitant and questionable. But that is the game big financial thieves are playing. And people just smile and say that's the way it is. Join in the game and have fun. Who cares about whether it is the right thing or wrong thing to do. This join in and have fun mentality of irresponsibility is sweeping across the world. We can also see it manifesting in our way of life. Everyone is also grabbing whatever they can. That's the way it is. It is not a matter of doing the right thing but what and how much one can get out of it. This is the new morality of the 21st Century.

Hanging modern day thieves

The New York SEC is throwing charges at Goldman Sachs for financial frauds and selling fraudulent CDOs out to cheat the innocent investors. So far there appeared to be strong prima facie evidences to bring Goldman Sachs to the courts, but whether anyone will be put behind bars is another matter. The final outcome could be a hefty fine on Goldman Sachs as an organisation and not a single thief found guilty. And they could continue with their game of deceit and theft. What the public have failed to see or not led to see is the role of the SEC. Is SEC culpable, an accomplice to all these big thieves, abetting and helping them in their fraudulent ways? The SEC is a regulator to provide a set of rules and regulations, and a sound system, a level playing field, that is fair to all players in the finance industry, including the stock market. What if the SEC connived, innocently or uninnocently, undestood or misunderstood the dangers of a system that they approved for the investors, should they also be hanged? The Senate and Congress must investigate the role of the SEC as well, the financial systems, rules and regulations and practices to see if the SEC is also at fault. Looking at the unfair practices, a far from level playing field, and the unfair advantages of the big funds against the small investors, the SEC is as guilty as Goldman Sachs and must be answerable to their misdeeds, if proven. All thieves, whether they be big financial organisations or regulators, are thieves if proven so and must be hanged.

May Day rejoicing

Our CBF workers were rewarded yesterday with a gift that would make them happy for the next 30 or 40 years. The employer will raise their CPF contribution by 1%. Half of this will go to Medisave Account and the other half will go to the Special Account. As these accounts are not to be touched for a very long time, the workers will have a very long time to enjoy that special smile on their faces when they received their CPF monthly statements. For a worker earning $2,000 pm, he would get $20 more monthly in his CPF. This will work out to be $240 pa and $2,400 for every ten years. Adding interest, this will be quite a significant sum to appear in his Medisave and Special Accounts. Now they are celebrating this windfall in the May Day Celebration.

Reflection on Labour Day

Labour was a big thing in the early part of the last century. The workers traded their muscles for food. They included the peasants and farmers and the industrial workers. Today we are talking about skilled workers and not much of labourers. Labourers are nearly non existent in the Singapore context. There are labourers, but mostly foreigners. This is a great achievement that we may find Labour Day a misnomer. Our workers have progressed up the skilled and economic ladder and are much more better off than in the past. In 1965, the average wages of a worker was more like $400 pm. Today it is like $800 pm with skilled workers getting $1,500 before overtime. A higher skilled worker could get $2,000 and the supervisory level about $3,000. A clerical staff was earning $400 and now $1,800. All these is good on paper if we don't factor in inflation. Are our workers that much better off than their predecessors? The biggest portion of their income has gone to housing and transportation, the basic needs. A 3 rm flat used to cost $7k and now $200k, or 30 times what it used to be. Their salary is at best 4 or 5 times what it was before. But overall, living conditions and quality of life have taken leaps and bounds for the better. The upper end of the labour curve, or the brain labour, the managers and professionals too took a bigger leap forward. Their gains are more significant, from $3k to $10k/$100k, depending on how high up one is. This professional and senior managerial group enjoys the biggest improvement in their income and lifestyle befitting that of a first world talented manpower. We have many who are very comfortable in where they are and with income equivalent to those in America and European countries. But in certain areas there are some misgivings. Our top echelon of talents is somehow still found wanting. For so many years, many of our establishments still found our locals not up to mark and the necessity to fill those positions by foreigners is still a norm. It is quite sad to see the top notch local financial professionals still unable to fit the shoes of our large local corporations. Are they duds or really that incompetent? Quite an embarrassing thought really. Why are we still unable to find our local boys and girls good enough to fill CEO positions and why are foreigners found to be better? Perhaps we should continue to celebrate Labour Day for as long as our local professionals are still regarded as labour, in a way, until the need to replace them with foreign talents is no longer needed. I wonder when that day will come or will never come. In the meantime we continue to build our local corporations into giants competing in the international arena and find suitable foreigners to run them. I wonder how our corporations could have grown to those size on local talents' contribution but then found that they have outgrown our local talents and needing foreign talents to pick up from that level. And the foreign talents rode in like knights in shining armour to teach our local boys and girls how to run the corporations that they have started and built up. They are have skills of gods acquired from heaven.

Do we need losers and rejects in Parliament?

Parliament is where the elected representatives of the people sit to discuss national issues and decide on what should be done for the good of the people. Do we then need losers, people who are rejected by the people, or people who are not elected by the people, to sit there and engage in schoolboy debate? This schoolboy debate was not coined by me. It was reported in the media. What is the point of debating when they cannot decide anything? What is the point of being in Parliament when they don't represent anyone except themselves? If they want to speak out, share their views, won't starting a blog be simpler and be sure of being heard, every word, with commas and fullstops? What kind of Parliament do we want? A Parliament of elected representatives or a make belief group of representatives representing no one?

China is doomed. What about Europe?

Everyday one cannot escape the deluge of doomsayer's reports about the imminent collapse of China. China is plagued by all kinds of enormous problems and troubles that it is only a matter of days before it falls down like a house of cards. Not only western media are at it, even local media are also at it. These are the China experts and their intelligent opinions. What about Europe? What about America? Nay, these are the world's best managed countries, and they are all in the G8 and the G20. What about the PIGS? It means Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain, what's happening there? Oops, I think PIGs should be spelt PIIGS, to include Iceland. Heard that these countries are at the verge of collapse, just like the US? And some are talking about a dominoe effect when one by one, countries in the EU will just collapse. Maybe some are already except that they are not discovered, or still kept under seal. Maybe they are waiting for China to collapse first. If China does not collapse, none of the European country can collapse. China must come first.

A higher god descended on paradise

Why did we invite a higher god to mark our report cards on how well we are doing? Is it because we believe that we have done so well and the higher god will be so impressed that he will go back to the kingdom of gods with a glowing report of the fabulous job that we have done. Now our demigods are in for a little nasty surprise when the higher god is not so impressed. And some recommendations were made by the higher god on how we could do better. One of the most sensitive area touched on by the higher god is race and affirmative actions. Our feathers were ruffled for sure. Maybe our demigods would like to ask this higher god how well he did in his own backyard? Did they add 20% or 30% to the marks of their minorities so that more of them could go to universities? Or are their minorities as able and affluent as our minorities? How about their own inter racial/religious relations? Also, they may want to check the credentials of these higher gods. Do they have straight As or do they got their straight As also by affirmative actions? Higher gods that got to become gods through affirmative actions cannot hold a candle to our demigods who got their supertalent credentials on their own merits.

An interesting affordable table

New HDB flats still affordable mah! And this is the table provided by Mah Bow Tan. 2 rm $100k Median household income $1,380 3 rm $162k Median household income $2,100 4 rm $263k Median household income $4,100 5 rm $338k Median household income $5,300 Below is the price and income level in 1974 of mine. 3 rm $18k Median household income $1,500 4 rm $22k Median household income $1,800 5 rm $27.5k Median household income $2,500 Of course Mah Bow Tan is right. The flats in 1974 and the flats today are all affordable. It is how much one is paying and getting in return. Money getting smaller or quality of housing improving? The flats that the people are getting are worth every cent they paid for it, then and today. Are the life of the people getting better? Swiss standard of living in price? Is this what is meant by being better off? Maybe it is not fair to use 1974 statistics. Let’s be honest, even 1984 or 1994 statistics are not fair. We should use something more recent, like 1995 or 1996, to be relevant. I can project that in the future a $10,000 household income would probably afford only a 2 rm flat. And I will call it affordable still. As for today, a $2,500 household income could only afford a 3 rm flat while a $2,500 income could afford a 5 rm flat in the past. So please do not disagree with Mah Bow Tan that the flats are now unaffordable. He is absolutely right. The flats today are affordable and will be affordable even in the future. Maybe then for the same money one will get a dog’s kennel and pay in 100 years.

How about a Tombang Scheme?

I would like to take up on what Kan Seng said about making the cake bigger so everyone can have a share of it. How about turning this NCMP scheme into a bigger scheme called the Tombang Scheme? The Tombang Scheme shall work this way. The best losers in a constituency or GRC shall be made NCMPs. In this way we can have 84 elected MPs and 84 NCMPs. Then we will have good quality debates in Parliament. And the ruling party has nothing to fear as when voting on any issue is needed, they could easily win by 84-0. The voters knowing that there will be guaranteed with oppositions in Parliament will just vote for the best party and the best party will likely get all the 84 MPs in. And we have a bigger cake to share with the opposition parties. And the opposition party MPs can make all the noises they want in Parliament. This could be an improved system from what we are having now. And if the NCMPs can prove that they are really good, the voters will vote for them in the future. This is good for the country, surely. It gives the people a chance to observe and assess the NCMPs before voting them in. Good huh?

Parliamentary debate is not schoolboy debate

How so? What is the difference between a parliamentary debate and a schoolboy debate. Let me figure. In the case of a school boy debate, the opposing teams will debate for or against an issue. And they stood by their positions. If they were to vote, both sides will vote accordingly. In a parliamentary debate, you can have opposing sides debating until their faces turned red or green. But when comes to voting, all can vote for one side. Then one starts wondering, why? There were two parties arguing and strongly believing in what they said. Then how come when they have to take sides, all took only one side? This is what parliamentary debate is all about. You just debate for the sake of debating, but they don't mean a thing. One can say no but vote yes. So I say, parliamentary debate is not schoolboy debate.

Let's be honest, its schoolboy debate

There were many clever arguments in Parliament yesterday in particular over the issue of NCMPs. The media lauded it as brilliant debate. I scratch my head and say, huh? Shanmugam told Sylvia Lim, Let's be honest, that the WP was afraid that their arguments in the election campaign could not last the scrutiny of a one day cooling period. I was waiting for Sylvia to say, Let's be honest, if the PAP could not convince the electorate after seven days of campaigning, one day of cooling would not help either. Let's be honest, for those who have made up their minds, one day of cooling period will not make any difference. And if it is really for people to think through carefully after what were said during the campaign, would one day be sufficient? Why not 3 days or 7 days? But I am going down to the level of schoolboy debate. And let's be honest, how many voters would really sit down and review what were said and take out a piece of paper to jot down the points before deciding who to vote for. Let's be honest, I do not see what is the dif with or without the one day cooling off period. No need clever arguments and going to Parliament over something that is so arbitrary. Let' be honest I can't find anything clever in the whole debate.

A remarkable comment

'...more Opposition voices might not improve the quality of Parliamentary debate.' With the standard of debate so high, not necessary really. I can agree with that. But I can't agree with the suggestion that the time given to NCMPs for debates be limited. What, NCMP cannot debate or not good enough to debate? How can a Parliamentary debate be meaningful if the NCMPs are not given the same time to debate with other MPs? Ok, NCMPs don't represent anyone so should not be given too much time. This sounds more reasonable. Let's give them enough time just to ask questions. That should be good enough. Aren't the purpose of NCMPs be that they be there to give an alternative voice? They can't vote and the only thing for them to do is to speak. Limiting their time to speak defeats the whole purpose of them being there. Wall flowers?

What problem is this?

‘This govt is truly hopeless. Not only has it squandered billions and billions on stupid schemes it has now allowed the property market to rise to unsustainable levels and create a disastrous lack of availability of homes. It has been aware of the DRAMATIC increase in overseas investment in residential property but wanted to shaft all those ignorant sheeple aka 'working families' even further. It's time to contact your local senator and demand they put an end to the rest of their mad plans. No more looking after foreigners before Australians. No more overseas property investors when Australians can not even purchase homes. No more large unskilled migration when Australians can not find work. No more supporting welfare shopping asylum seekers when Australian pensioners can barely afford food. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.’ The above was reported in news.com.au. There is an uncanny similarity in what is happening in the Australian property scene and what is happening here. But the difference stops right there. The Australians are really facing a serious problem and they are very unhappy with the govt. On the contrary, we don’t really have any problem. If there is any problem, it is a happy one. The people are all laughing to the bank and inviting more foreigners to invest in our properties here. It is a win win situation. The foreigners speculate and make money from their property speculations. The Singaporeans are all happy that their properties are gaining in value. There are no losers. This is the big difference and the quality of the govt shows. We are so fortunate to have a good govt that could turn an otherwise bad situation into a happy one. Thumbs up to the govt, especially Mah Bow Tan, for making so many Singaporeans rich and happy, and to the property speculators too, both foreign and local. The Australians need to send a team of their govt officials to study how we did it.

It was fun and good for a laugh

Several PAP MPs spoke strongly against the principle behind NCMP and NMP. They ridiculed it as a backdoor entry to Parliament, elected by nobody, representing nobody and speaking for nobody. Basically they opposed the scheme. So did Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim who opposed it for basically the same reasons. The inconsistency and contradictory stand of the opposition MPs were picked up by Kan Seng who questioned Low Thia Khiang on his inconsistent stand. Why opposing a scheme and still support it? Ya, how silly for people to oppose an issue on grounds of principle and support it still. Low Thia Khiang stood his ground and said he would resign if his party wants him to take up a NCMP position if he lost his election. And all the MPs had a good laugh. It was all fun, and wayang I supposed. Well at least Low Thai Khiang stood to his principle. This is something that is hard to come by. What about the NCMPs and NMPs who were lambasted for being backdoor entrants? The criticisms thrown at them were unkind and rude in many ways, lack of credibility and speaking for nobody except themselves. Did the NCMPs and NMPs stand up to defend their pathetic positions? Or did they allow the attacks to go on and accept that the criticisms were valid, that they don't really have any right or business to be there? Actually they were not the only ones to get in by the backdoor. Many got in in the same way and crowed like a cockerel that they were more equal than the NCMPs and NMPs. In reality they were there, by back door or front door, because of the system. It is the system that puts them there. And who voted for the system, the same cocks and hens who criticised the system. Is this also a joke or another wayang?

Is my impression correct?

Reading from the interviews with PAP MPs as reported in the ST, I got this impression that the PAP MPs do not think highly of backdoor MPs, ie NCMPs and NMPs. Does this implies that they do not agree with the system of bringing in non elected MPs, representing nobody, into Parliament? If this is so, would they dare to vote against the bill that is planning to increase the number of non elected MPs? Or would they just go along and vote for it despite expressing strong misgivings and being condescending to those backdoor MPs? Calvin Cheng is a great example of this 'disagree but be part of the system' syndrome. He accepted the appointment as a backdoor MP but spoke against it. Could we find people who will stand by their principles, take a stand on issues or things they don't agree and lump them? Or is this how our pragmatic people have been brought up to be, don't agree never mind lah, just accept it, kpkb a bit for show, and just play along? Is being strong about one's principle an important factor in a person's character or value system?

Should HDB dwellers pay property tax?

With the property prices shooting to the sky, many HDB owners are also celebrating their good fortunes for sitting in an ever appreciating property. Quietly in another corner the Inland Revenue is also celebrating as property tax will go up accordingly. And for those who cannot capitalise on their good fortunes, cause they only have that property to live in, they can only smile when reading how much their properties are worth now, but at the same time seeing their property taxes going up in real terms. The question is whether HDB dwellers should be paying property tax at all as their flats are technically on 99 year rental. The 99 year HDB leasehold is very different from a private 99 year leasehold that does not come with so many restrictions and regulations. It straddles somewhere between a genuine leasehold and a rental flat and the property tax paid should be much lower than what it is. For the moment I am not too sure of the formula. Is it based on rental potential or the market value of the flat? Even if it is based on rental value, different location fetches different rentals and most units cannot be fully sublet. The most sore group would be those that are living in their HDB flats but ended having to pay ever higher property taxes while not benefitting from any rental income. So, is higher value really good?

The Helix, a piece of art

The Helix is a piece of art good for walking on. Its utility value as a bridge is nothing more or less than placing two pieces of planks across the river. But looking at it from the point of view of a functional piece of art, one may agree that it is money well spent. Look at the surroundings, the Marina Sands, the new business and financial centre and all the glitz in this new downtown of the future, anything less will not be befitting of a place there. Definitely not two pieces of planks for sure. We have in the Helix a piece of engineering that deserved the time and money spent on it. And from the angle of arts, now we have a major piece of object to show the world. As a young chap, I had done many pieces of scrap metals trying to make them resemble art forms but to no avails. Little engineering skills and cheap material just would not do. You need high tech and good material to make it look really good. The closest piece of scrap art that my creation could match was the piece facing the NTUC building in Finlayson Green. I really hope that our workers have better taste in art appreciation than to put a piece of scrap metal in front of their multi million dollar headquarter. Well, it is just my layman impression of what a piece of scrap metal is. For the sophisticated art connoisseurs, that piece could still be a great piece of art and worth millions. I try imagining placing that piece side by side with the Helix and see the reaction of the public, layman who could not appreciate the beauty of objet d'art and could not see the difference between a piece of scrap and a piece of art. Their reaction, spontaneous, would be the best judge of what the two pieces symbolise. We have removed the slums and replaced them with pieces of fine arts. Soon we will have an open air museum and the tourists can go on a conducted tour downtown to look at the art pieces on the road sides.