Are the grievances real?

There seems to be a lot of criticisms against the govt policies, and people felt that they are disadvantaged. How true are these? Are they just noises from a small unhappy minorities or are they genuine? Read the main media everything seems so rosy and good. Everyone seems to be very happy making their millions, buying expensive cars, going for holidays, and still jamming up at property launches. I think the PAP has nothing to fear. Grousing and kpkb by small groups of unhappy people will not be enough to swing the votes against them. They will still ride to power with comfortable majority.

New immigrants for Civil Defence

40 years ago, when I walked the streets of London, I could pick up a newspaper and threw 2 shillings into a box and walked away. No one was there to guard the money. Today, I don't think we can leave newspapers on our streets and expect people to drop money into it and the money still remains there for the rightful owner at the end of the day. We are affluent and may not think too much of a couple of dollars. Would any newspaper vendor dare to do this? Would anyone dare to ask foreign workers to look after their homes when they are away on holiday? There could be some exceptions and pre conditions. I would not. I would not even invite them to my home to familiarise themselves with what is inside my home, with extremely rare exceptions of course. If we can farm the guarding of our homes and country to foreigners, we don't need citizen soldiers. I cannot imagine if security guard agencies are still hiring ex convicts or people with criminal records to be guards.

The best speaker in Parliament

Guess who? It hit me straight away when I tuned in to the 9.30pm news on Channel 5. Lim Swee Sway was propounding his Theory of Productivity in Parliament and the audience was dumbfounded. The camera panned across the House and the MPs and NMPs were wide eyed, mouth opened, and written on their faces was the sign of shock disbelief. They listened to him intensely and probably thinking to themselves how come they did not know of such a great Theory. Ok, I shall not put words into the Minister mouth. He did not call it the Theory of Productivity. I will rate this 'Theory of Productivity' in the same category as the Theory of Relativity in its profound and impactful implications. Let me put it briefly, 1% increase in productivity of 3m workers equals 30,000 workers (I can understand this part) and this can be translated into something like 50% of something, or call it output. He went on so fast, with so many numbers that I could not grasp what they were. I scoured the papers this morning to confirm the numbers Swee Say quoted, but those buggers did not think it newsworthy to be printed. Nothing was reported. I can't believe it My lesser brain could not understand the implications of 2% or 3% productivity growth. Now I understand. If 1% productivity growth can lead to 50% of whatever growth or output, 2% will give 100% of whatever! This is simply phenomenal. Forgive me for not knowing what this 50% is all about. But I will try to trace this amazing speech and theory and correct this post when I find it. Whatever, Swee Say was able to captivate the attention of all the Parliamentarians when no one could. PS. I appeal to the Straits Times to print Swee Say's speech in full.

Selling snake oil to gullible Asians

British insurer Prudential is tapping sovereign wealth funds in China and Singapore to help finance its 35.5 billion dollar buyout of US insurance giant AIG's Asian arm, a report said Tuesday. It said the Singaporean and Chinese sovereign wealth funds had not made a final decision but their response was positive...From Sydney Morning Herald I hope we have learnt our lesson and stop buying more snake oil products when nobody dares to touch. All the oranges bought so far are lehmons. If we ever commit to another lehmon and lose another few billions, it is like begging to be screwed.

Myth 216 - The Rajaratnam Myth

In a main article in the Editorial section of the ST today, Kishore Mahbubani wrote an article in praise of S Rajaratnam, one of the key founding fathers of modern Singapore. He lamented at the lack of interest and knowledge of this pioneering leader of our country, or city. In honour of Rajaratnam's great contributions to the city or country, Kishore suggested that we should create more myths around this man for posterity and our history. I will not disagree with him for wanting to honour our great leaders of the past and to remember them fondly for the good things they did. But why myth, a word that he agrees, connotes very negative feelings and meaning. The Myths of Rajaratnam! Down the road we may even create the Myths of Goh Keng Swee and the Myths of Lee Kuan Yew. I want to protest and disagree with him on the word myth. Kishore is a great artist in the use of words. But I would rather Kishore choose the word legend instead. Legends may also not be true and can be created, dressed up, but the feelings are more praiseworthy and positive. The Legends of Davy Crockett, the Legends of Huang Fei Hong, the Legends of Rajaratnam, the Legends of Goh Keng Swee, the Legends of Lee Kuan Yew! Sound better right? The Myths of Rajaratnam! Sounds awful to me.

Lower standard of Chinese for easy learning

There is an interesting article in Viewpoints in mypaper by a Chua Chern Nee on teaching and learning Chinese in Singapore. Many parents have been so frustrated and desperate as their children just could not learn the language or find it so difficult and boring. And many fled to foreign countries where they don't have to learn Chinese. And we have come out with a solution, lower standard of learning to fit the ability of different students. The writer quoted the case of a Korean boy who came here without any background in basic Chinese and he aced the subject after 10 months of learning the language. How could this happened? My guess is that the Korean boy ate rice as his staple food. And for those who have difficulties learning Chinese, it must be their diet, eating too much kantang. Maybe changing their diet will make a difference. As for those who went overseas, it may become compulsory to learn Chinese as a second language in America and Australia in time to come. Ok, it is a new myth. I like creating myths and I have a column dedicated to myths, all 200+ of them. And I am going to add one more, the Rajaratnam Myth.

The correct definition of Productivity

There have been too many confusing definitions of Productivity. Some believe that Productivity means up skill, re skill, multi skill, be cheaper, better and faster. These are myths. We have been doing all these for so many years but our Productivity remains flat. I think my definition to increase price like my char kway teow example is better. And some workers think that slogging longer hours, work harder or staying longer in the office to show the boss are equivalent to higher productivity. Here is the correct version by Amy Khor. Productivity = doing more but in the same timespan or less. She forgot to post her credential as an example of what is higher productivity. She is MP, Mayor, Chairman of Reach, Chairman of countless committees, Advisors to countless committees, her own profession, and maybe, I am not sure, directors of some companies. And she did that within her 24 hours a day like everyone of us. Now that is productivity, doing more in the same timespan. So those office workers who stay behind to slog late into the night, please think again. You are very unproductive, doing the same amount of work or a little more, but taking so much time. And those who are still thinking of multi skill and mult tasking, please do it within the same timespan or less. Now I can see the brilliance and productivity of people who are directors of many companies. The more directorships or chairmanship the more productive.

That's the way it is! Ah ha, ah ha, ah ha....

China has declared its intention to be the world's number one military power, to overtake the USA. And this ambition will be reflected in the new military budget to be announced. The confidence in the way the Chinese are standing up to face the oppressive bully is a sign that they are already on par with the US. Yes, the US may still have a big edge in military hardware and technology. But China has enough to neutralise the threat of an open war with the Americans. Both can only claim superiority in numbers and on papers. Both knows that they cannot afford to fight each other. They will simply wipe each other out of this world, together with the rest of the world. What does this open declaration of China means? It says that China will no longer kowtow to the US and will stand up for its rights and will take on the US head on in any challenge or threats the Americans throw at them. The Chinese are not going to accept all kinds of rubbish attacks quietly. There will be more tic for tac as the US gets more uncomfortable with China challenging its dominant position and status. What is damaging is that the US will have to spend more for defence which will hasten its downfall when its coffer is already empty. The American strategy is for 10 times or 100 times superiority in hardware and soldiers. And for every dollar or soldier the Chinese add on to their arsenal, the US is going to pay 100 times more. And the US just cannot compete in this expensive game anymore. It can continue to publish its rhetorics that China is an aggressive power and will threaten the smaller countries. Many no longer believe this threat any more except the unthinking tin pot dictators of fictitious demoncracy countries. The aggressive nature of the Americans and the wars it is waging against small countries around the world is testament to its hostile policy of bully small nations. They even force peaceful nations to go to war with them, to share the killings and the guilt, with hands dripping with Arab and Muslim bloods. Go for it China. It will be good for the rest of the world, to keep the bully in check. And to prevent more regime changes and interference with other countries domestic politics.

Can we accept 3% productivity growth?

With the best talents in the world, in monetary terms of course, can we accept 3% productivity growth as our target? I believe we are not paying peanuts for average talents. And we have been told that the last few years of growth were contributed by the foreign workers. And should we be happy and claim to have done well if we can get 2% or 2.5% growth? I am still pondering over this very ambitious goal of 3%, like climbing Mount Everest. Didn't I say that a char kway teow stallholder could increase his productivity by 17% if he raises his price by 50c? Maybe we are being modest and by the end of next year we will declare an achievement of 8%.

Productivity at its lowest ebb

For the past decade or so our productivitiy has reached a point of zero, save only by the influx of foreign workers. They contributed to practically all the growth numbers to our economy. Taking them out of the equation our growth is zero, yes zero. That's why everyone in the know is so grateful to the foreign workers. I am not going to ask what have the supertalents contributed if our growth came from the low down and poorly paid foreign workers. Now we are going to increase or boost productivity. And it seems so simple, a few training courses will do it after languishing for all these years. I think there are easier ways to improve productivity than training courses. Just follow the examples of the property industry. Every 4 or 5 years, the price could be double. That should be the kind of productivity numbers we be looking for. How to go about it? We used to call it asset inflation. But there are many areas that we can inflate the prices, the consumers just pay. By increasing the prices of things and services here and there, productivity will simply go up proportionally. A plate of char kway teow can be increased from $3 to $3.50, giving a 17% increase in productivity without having to do anything except changing the price tag. Some measures could be more ingenuine, like erecting another few toll gates and money will keep rolling in. That is productivity. One thing that will reduce productivity and should not be thought of is pay rise. Any increase in pay will definitely lower productivity unless there is also an increase in goods or services produced, or increase in price. The latter must be more than the hike in pay. Whenever the rental goes up, the stall holders simply raise their prices, several percentages more than the rental hike. So the productivity of the landlords and the stall holders also go up disproportionately. Now we can understand why stallholders are not complaining. They constantly raise their productivity to improve their income. I must add that this kind of productivity growth is only possible in a monopolistic or near monopolistic environment, or insular market when supple and demand can be managed.

Talents or changing fortunes?

Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton, Yales, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Steve Jobs and all the eminent academics and intellectuals and financial gurus, are what America is famous for. It is a land of talents and world best institutions nurturing more best brains for the country and the world. What people did not want to see or acknowledge is that America is turning into a huge Titanic waiting to be sunk. America is now running in trillions of debt which it believes confidently that it could pay now or later. And it is still spending daily in the billions on wild hunting adventures in the Middle East and military excursions in the high seas, thinking that it is an Empire ruling the world and it needs to be in every corner of the world, with its soldiers and guns guarding the interests of the Empire. It took America more than 200 years of uninterrupted development and growth to reach this peak of achievements. And it took America the last thirty years to become the most corrupt nation in the world, with corruption concealed under a veil of respectability and legal framework. It is all legal, when all the 'knows who' have their hands in the cookie jar, and taking whatever they deemed fit, under the spotlight, and smiling to the banks. From Congressmen, bankers and CEOs, all are in for the quick bucks, grabbing everything they can that are within their control. Overseas they are sending our their armies of hedge funds to suck away the liquidity in foreign markets using technologies and the heavy hands of big bucks. They steam rolled the stockmarkets of the world to fill their pockets with instant millions and billions. In short, America’s brilliant minds are focussed on making instant billions for themselves at the risk of bankrupting America and countries that naively welcomed them and their system of operations with open arms. On the other hand, China is guarded and is carefully guarding what it has built up over the last 30 years. No, they will not blindly let in the Americans to mess up their economies and financial system. In the last 30 years, unknown peasant leaders from unknown universities that were partially ruined during the years of revolution have turned around a poverty stricken agriculture economy to compete with America for world supremacy. They are now number two, coming from nowhere. Until recently, what is Beida, Tsinghua, Jiaotong, Zhejiang, Nanjing, names of universities that were not even ranked, and could never smell the prestige of the Ivy League universities in America and their strings of Nobel Laurette and prominent thinkers and professionals. But the products of these universities, many still unknown, are now running a tight ship and running at good speed to challenge America as an economic power. While America is in debt of several trillions, China has surplus in its reserves of several trillions. Is it talents or fortune changing, or winds of change, that a country blessed with all the finest talents and a system of education that is churning out the best brains for tomorrow, is running aground or out of steam, while a third world country, rising from the ashes, with little known universities and talented individuals is giving it a run for its money? Are the Chinese more talented than the Americans or does China have more talents than the America? The answer is an obvious no. It must be fortune smiling on them. When fortune favours, even a beggar can become a king. When fortune smiles, whatever touched will be turned to gold. When fortune frowns upon the best, no matter how well conceived are the plans, no matter how talented are the executors, they will failed. Pundits are expecting China to overtake America in the near future. Could it really happen with America hoarding an abundance of talents and resources and a superior infrastructure in all areas, except finance and govt? One is infested with crooks and another with dunces. Will fortune smile for China and imbue it with more talents? So far none can be spoken of as talent in the American sense. The only Chinese talent is probably in America, in Yahoo.

Stop the crap about relative affordability logic

Several MPs are going to Parliament to kpkb about housing affordability. They are going to question HDB about its original role in providing affordable housing for the masses, high prices, supply and demand, inefficient system and allowing rich private property owners to buy HDB flats. These are reported in the ST today. Are they crazy or what? Do they take all the kpkbs in the internet seriously and really think that there is a problem? Didn't they read the reports of HDB and Mah Bow Tan about how affordable HDB flats are and how efficient and perfect the system is? Even this morning, two eminent scholars from NUS Dept of Real Estate, Tu Yong and Yu Shi Ming, reported that 'Housing in Singapore still affordable'. And they have authoritative figures to prove their point. How could MPs ignore such well research reports even if they don't believe in the comments of politicians? Unbelieveable! Why did these two academics say that housing is affordable here? They compared housing data of London and Hongkong and found our data much better than theirs. 'In terms of affordability, Singapore has achieved a lower housing price to income ratio. On the whole, the figures reveal that the housing system here does deliver comfortable and affordable housing to the majority of Singaporeans.' Brilliant conclusion. Flawless arguments backed by indisputable facts. So, who is still complaining about housing here not affordable? The MPs should better withdraw their intended questions in Parliament. They are going to get the same answers. Period. According to the two academics, Hongkong and London's housing ratio are 19.8 and 7.1 respectively while ours is 5.8. Housing ratio is housing price to median annual household income. See, ours are cheaper and more affordable. Tiok boh? In terms of comfort, we have 27 sq m for one person while Hongkong and greater London have 12.5 and 31.9 sq m per person. Ok London has bigger space than us because Europeans believe that comfort means more space. Don't compare with Australia when comfort means 300 sq m per person. That is not comparing apple with apple. Using this kind of #$%@ logic of relativity, when Hongkong's housing ratio is 30, then we can push up the prices of HDB flats to 20 and pat ourselves that we are still cheaper. And when Hongkong is squeezing their people into 5 sq m dog kennel, we can build smaller flats and sell at higher prices and say we are still comfortable. The same logic goes to the toxic bonds. Other people are selling it, especially the West, then it should be ok for us. The Americans are designing their stock markets to fleece the small investors with programme trading, and unfair advantages for the big funds to cheat the small investors, would these also be acceptable for us? Can we use a more independent set of criteria of our own to define what is affordable and comfortable for our people instead of relatively logic and shifting goal posts? My simple definition is 30% of one income and repayable in 20 years and a space of 50 sq m person. No space? Who is the bum that said we have a lot of space? Or stop the influx of more immigrants to this little piece of rock. Our population density is now more than Hongkong, 6,814 to 6,460 and greater London's 4.761. Want to make it worst? It is madness. And some MPs going to Parliament to ask why so many traffic congestions on the road? Wait till the lunatics increase the population to 8 million, then you will know what is congestion. Now it is so good, relatively speaking of course. Can't call it congestion. Even the packed MRT trains are soooo comfortable.

Kenneth calling for abolition of GRC

I totally and vehemently disagree with this call to abolish GRCs. Yes, it used to be advantageous to the PAP to run in GRCs and with strong ministers carrying weak and newbie MPs into parliament. That was long long ago. History. The ball game today is completely different. The GRCs are no longer that formidable and favourable to the PAP. I can sense fear in the vulnerability of GRCs. What could happen today is that GRCs would be the nemesis of weak ministers, and there are quite a few, and the GRCs will present them to the oppositions, plus the weak and strong MPs. Looking at the mood and situation today, two or three GRCs could easily go to the oppositions. And with a few more if nothing changes from now till the GE. The opposition should just go with the GRC system. The time is never better than now. Believe me, the GRCs are favouring the oppositions instead.

Demographic growth determines the new economic powers

According to Dr Helen Qiao, the economist from Goldman Sach, China's rapid economic growth will peak by the end of this decade and subsequently decline. Her prediction is based on the dependency formula which shows the relationship between the number of dependents and that of the working population. China's one child policy will reduce this ratio and thus works towards its decline. Japan is facing the same problem and so are the old European countries. Countries that have low dependency ratio will go on a decline and vice versa, countries with a high dependency ratio, ie, more working populations than dependent population will do well. Extrapolating this relationship we can see the new emerging powers of the 21 Century. India will overtake China as it does not have a population control law to limit reproduction. Other countries that will also rise to become economic powers will be Indonesia, Malaysia and many African countries where population growth is nothing short of phenomenal. The higher the birth rate, the higher the potential for growth and sustainability. Singapore will also decline in double quick time as we are not reproducing ourselves fast enough. The more proactive Singaporeans should make plans to migrate to the higher growth countries quickly before the decline sets in. The first sector to be hit will be properties as there will be lesser new population to purchase properties, unless we keep importing more foreign talents.

Singapore's 50 Most Trusted Individuals

The Asian Reader's Digest conducted a poll on 760 Singaporeans and asked them who they trusted most. 50 individuals finally emerged as the top most trusted men and women in Singapore. They include a top judge, a top cop, ambassadors, doctors, businessmen and women and comedians. I did not see the full list but some prominent professionals of eminent Singaporeans did not make it to the list, eg lawyers, bankers and people from the finance industry etc. But most notable was the absence of politicians. I thought, my god, the people have no trust for their politicians. Then I read further and it said 'the general elections have proven the country's leaders already rank highly...' and thus were omitted. I don't know what this statement means. It would be interesting if politicians were also included to give the people an insight into how well regarded they were. Then again it will be quite pointless if we end up with a survey when the top 50 most trusted individuals were all politicians. It will be quite embarrassing to the other professions and individuals. It will be equally embarrassing if one or two politicians did not appear as these are the most honest and highly regarded individuals we can find in our country. Anyone not in the list could be a slap in the face. Another reason for the exclusion of politicians in the survey could be a kind of self censorship. Ranking politicians with the mortals is unbecoming and can be sensitive. Better stay away from controversy. Whatever the reasons, the reason given for their exclusion is the most enlighten one.

More BS in Marina Bay

MBS will be the number one tenant at Marina Bay. It will compete with RWS headon for the gamblers comes April 27. The Marina Bay is going to be an exciting locale. And one can expect more BS to move in and stake a claim to this prime land. DBS is likely to be there, maybe OBS and KBS too. CBS another potential. Then there are the IBS, RBS, SBS, and the UBS. Not forgetting that NBS will also be there. Now, what is NBS, No Bull Shit? Isn't it interesting that gamblers are now hot personalities and being courted everywhere, and some being flown in and driven by Rolls Royces to the resorts! Soon we will be reading more great stories about the exploits of gamblers and how much they made every minute they spent in the VIP rooms. And the greatest gambler of the island will soon come out from this resort in Changi to join the fray. Many Singapore students will write composition of what they want to be when they grow up, 'I want to be a gambler". Now the cool thing is not to be in the company of royalties and politicians but be seen with top notch gamblers.

We never learn1

Everyone seems to be blowing the property bubble and fanning it. High prices are good. We can hedge against inflation and our savings for old age. I don't believe people can be so simplistic. The series of repercussions and consequences are unimaginable when asset inflation leads to asset deflation. During the last financial crisis, many people went bust, bankrupt. Many lost their jobs, many could not service their mortgages, many properties were forced sold, many ended with negative assets. And of course many downgraded. Just because things were looking better, and the property prices have recovered, with some making profits and some lowering their losses, we should continue to blow the bubble. The next crisis can come even sooner than expected and the impact could be worst when the loans are getting bigger. 90% of our people lived in HDB flats. This is their home, the roof on their heads. When HDB flats become an element in the speculative circus of boom and bust, when it busts again, and serious enough, we are going to have many frustrated and angry people. And if they cannot afford to have the roof over their heads, we are going to have a real social problem of our own creation. As we keep feeding the unsatiable appetite of the developers and the speculators, we may want to ask why or what for? Making all those profits for what? To make developers and speculators rich and happy? To make foreigners coming here to swoop up the properties rich and happy? Our main concern, or the main concern of both the people and govt is good homes for the people. Not 'AFFORDABLE' homes that are not affordable. But looking at today's news, the two launches of BTO flats are 10 times oversubscribed, saying that they are indeed affordable. And is there a high demand or the demand is fictitious? Many of these buyers are still frightened that if they can't get one now, the next one will be more expensive. Many needed a home, genuine buyers, but the supply is coming in in drips and draps. If they don't register, no building of new flats. The frenzy to grab anything that is available is hot. Who dares to wait when the mantra is that property prices can only go up and up and away? I really hope that another big financial crisis hits us soon and this time people really learn that playing with people's homes and blowing the property bubble is dangerous and bad. The flat is the people's home and should not be a factor in the housing casino.

Racist director and racist movies

In the Life page of ST today, director Pierre Morel was accused of being racist by casting all his villains as Asians or Pakistanis or Eastern Europeans. His latest film From Paris With Love also have non whites as villians, including Chinese or Vietnamese I think. It is so funny really, to accuse a director for being racist just because he casts the heroes as Anglo Saxons and the badies as non whites. The non whites should be grateful for the roles and the doles he is offerring them. Come to think of it, they should go back to the 50s and 60s when movies were so wholesome and non racial. I particularly enjoy the great movies of how the West were won, with American cavalries always arriving in time to kill the bad Red Indians and save the European immigrants, their families and little children from being slaughtered. And they always have happy endings too, with the Red Indians either shot or fleeing into the prairies or having their wigwams burnt to the ground. Let's have more soldiers and Red Indians movies, more remakes and in grander scales. I am sure no one will complain about racism. And the Red Indian actors and actresses will be most happy with the jobs and doles. Provided they don't cast Europeans as Red Indians.

Is there a property bubble?

The commercial cum residential site at Choa Chu Kang and Woodlands junction fetched a cool $164m yesterday. Two years ago the bid was only $64m and not accepted. What does this tell? Cheap don't sell, no bubble? When is a bubble a bubble? As can be expected, there will be all kinds of definition of what and when a bubble is formed. For the moment, one can expect 90% of Singaporeans between 30 to 40 years and owning a property to be in debt of $200k to $1m. This is likely to be the bank borrowing to acquire their dream home, a roof over their heads. Presumably they are servicing their mortgages at 30% of their incomes. As long as the economy is running smoothly, no crisis or wars, they will have no problem paying their loans. When there is a crisis, two things could happen, one, losing their jobs, and two, property prices plunged. This double whammy will suddenly reveal that their properties are worth so much lesser in value, and they have no income to pay for their loans. Maybe then people will say, it was a bubble. At current prices, most properties are priced way too high and this will give them ample room to collapse when the time comes. The gap between the current price and the value it will settle is another measure of the balloon that has been built in. Inflated prices in good time and realistic prices when people will not dare to splurge. Do we have a bubble now? From $64m to $164m in two years! The developers will keep pushing the limits thinking that they can keep on charging more. And when in trouble, hoping that the govt will help them out so that they will not go bust. In the meantime who is going to help the people who need a roof over the head from having to pay a lifetime for it, at the prices the developers demand? Who is the profiteer or who is causing the price to shoot to the sky? Must be the developer lah.

BTO is the best system

Ho Geok Choo asked Mah Bow Tan whether HDB should return to the old system for flat application. Mah Bow Tan said negative. The BTO is the best system and it even reduced the waiting time from 7 or 8 years to the current 3 to 4 years. How can anyone argue against such logic? In the past the queue was 150,000 long and ended up with 31,000 surplus flats that needed 5 years to clear. Today we still have many times oversubcribed flats on launching but still not all flats are sold? How come? I think I can try to explain about the old system, the 150,000 queue and 31,000 surplus flats built. It was badly managed in the first place. There was genuine demand in the early stages when the baby boomers were starting to grow up and having families. And there was acute housing shortage. Of course some idiots allowed the flats to be overbuilt to the extend of 31,000 flats. If we have the talents like we have today, no such thing will happen. And the facts speak for itself. No more surpluses and more more 150,000 queue today. So Ho Geok Choo must have been satisfied that her question was answered. No more question. I ponder again on why there was no queue when a new launch was often oversubscribed many times over? Phantom buyers I think. And all the kpkb about young people not getting their flats are just false noises. What about those who could not afford to buy the affordable flats and thus never even make it to the application stage? Would they be considered as not applicable to the demand equation? What about those that were ruled out of the HDB scheme by virtue of their income, those exceeding $8k or $10k, or those who may meet the money criteria but because of their family commitments, could not afford to buy the flats they wanted to? These are not demands since they did not apply to HDB. And all the singles and those that cannot get together a family unit but still needing a place to stay, not part of the demand too? The BTO scheme is indeed very neat and clean. Those who for whatever reason, needing flats, but ruled out or cannot afford to, and never apply are not part of the demand and no need to bother or look at. So, since there are no application, so no demand and no need to build. Where got housing problem?