A storm in paradise

Typhoon Ketsana is sweeping through the Philippines and threatening the lives of millions of Filipinos. 7.5 richter scale earthquake hit Padang and Bengkulu in Indonesia, burying villages and villagers and flattening towns and destroying lives and properties. No amount of international aids can minimise the pain and suffering of these affected people. In paradise, our media were flooded with news of a storm in the form of boomz and rats. Some had a good laugh but some were dead serious. On reflection, we are very blessed as a little country. We are spared from the ferocity and rages of nature. We are blessed with an able govt that is working so hard to make this a better paradise everyday. Are we lucky? We have our little irritations and irritants in our midst but more like the itches of mosquito bites. Nothing earth shattering or crisis like except for the little recklessness in the financial flirtation with making easy money and with no regards to responsibilities. From the big picture we are indeed very fortunate and a paradise. We have good govt and public administrators working their guts out for the people. But there are still some little people with small hearts that are making decisions that will affect adversely the lives of our people. The earlier we get rid of them the better. We cannot have small people with small hearts to make public policies and decisions for the people. In govt and public services, we need people with a different mindset, people with ideals and with a big heart to serve the people, to want the best for the people. A good example is the expectation in public housing and the way it is heading. There are little people who think that the losers in life should be happy if they have a roof over their heads, even a dog kennel will do. And it is ok to pay a life time, spending a big chunk of their income just to have a roof and 4 walls around them. Whatever, a flat is just that. You do not need to pay a lifetime for it. The govt needs to relook at the housing policy, how small it shall go and no further, and how much it shall cost and no more. And it is bad to have people waiting for 3 years just to get a roof over their head. The HDB was very successful in their early days to provide a roof to anyone who needs it. It only took a few months from application to moving in. This is a good and excellent policy for the people. But some jokers think that this was bad. People must made to wait. Waiting for 3 years is good, or normal. I want to use the four letter word here. A little oversupply of public housing is good. A 80 sq m 3 rm flat or a 90 sq m 4 rm flat must be the bottom that we should go in building homes for our average citizens. Going smaller is bad. The small 1 or 2 rm rental flats must be temporary shelters for those who have lost their ways or their luck ran out on them. Those must not be considered as the standard for a decent living for our people. We are using state land and public money and we must use them wisely and with a little generosity for the good of the people. To have good public policies favouring the people, we need good govt. And good govt must not be contaminated with little people with small hearts.

Stupidity or good business sense?

The football fans are fuming at the recent successful bid by Singtel to host the EPL. They have to switch programme provider and inconvenience and cost immediately become an issue. It was reported that Singtel paid a bomb of $400m for the rights, more than Starhub's $212m. The fear of having to pay more by the consumers is justified. Singtel is not going to do charity and will have to recover the cost from somewhere, sometime. But the fear may be unfounded. Singtel said that the aggressive bid was done with the 'intent to hold retail prices stable'. So the consumers need not fear. They should cut out this phrase from the newspaper and paste it over their TV screen and when the time comes to pay more, they can bring this up to Singtel. But of course by then the circumstances will have changed and all the additional costs could be justified by many other reasons. Having said that, consumers and the public should praise Singtel for its successful bid and for its well meaning intent to keep cost stable. OK, I confess that I am not sure what is the definition of the word 'stable'. Just like the word affordable, it can mean anything to anyone. All things will come to a happy ending, stupidity or clever business strategy, someone will have to pay for it.

As China celebrates its 60th National Day

The little slant eye pigtailed Chinaman, destined to work as a cook, a housekeeper or a laundryman, and by American laws(at one time) forbidden to do anything more worthy, has stood up. The 1.4b of little Chinamen have rebuilt their devastated country into an economic and military power second only to the USA. The years of suppression and humiliation failed to imprison these little Chinamen to a fate of doom and deprived of their basic human rights. And they did it all on their own, with very insignificant foreign talents to count on. They deserve to celebrate every bit of their new found wealth and confidence and status as equals among nations. No longer would they be trampled by little countries. No longer would another country try to colonise or cut their country up to be shared by the foreigners. It is good to see an Asian country standing up on their own feet. Next to do so will be India, another sleeping giant that is awakening.

One week of shame

And the bashing of Ris Low continues without anyone saying enough is enough to this shameful episode. No, the shame is not on Ris Low but the people who think that it is righteous and the right thing to do to castigate her in the media, publicly. Would any immortal or demigod want to put a stop to it? Where is the moral authority or duty to prevent this shameful episode to go on and on?

HDB releasing 7000 units of flats in next 3 months

What a big deal. Is it enough? The pent up demand and frustration of our young men and women waiting to buy a public housing flat is threatening to blow up. Many have been waiting for yers only to see their dream flat disappearing further and further into the distance. And they were told, patronisingly, that they should scale down their expectations and go for something they could afford. This means smaller and smaller flats, and further and further away from the city. What have caused these problems? High demand, including new citizens and PRs and a flawed policy of building flats when there is enough demand as if HDB is baking cakes, ready in 30 minutes. Hey dummy, 3 years to wait and many things can happen. One thing for sure, some would have found that during their search for a new flat, their income has gone pass the $8000 ceiling and they would be kicked out of the queue. Not eligible anymore. And if they have only worked for a few years, there will not be enough savings to plonk as deposit for even a small and cheap private condo. How is HDB going to appease this restless and angry group of young people whose incomes just exceeded the $8000 limit but without a fat savings account to pay for private flats? Would there be any changes in HDB’s ruling to accommodate this new sandwiched class of first time home buyers? Force them to buy from the resale market, and not eligible for subsidies, at market prices? Many young couples are getting a starting salary of more than $3k on graduation and will be hitting a combined income of $8k in two or three years. How realistic is the $8000 ceiling when applied to these young people? Or is HDB so rigid, a huge mammoth that cannot change or would not change simply because it is the authority, another weeny warlord, and when it says it is fair, it is fair, like market pricing? There is nothing wrong with comparing the prices of 20 years ago as long as the basis is reasonable and logical. Nobody is saying that when it was $7k for a 3rm flat, we should be selling it at that kind of prices. We should be comparing affordability by comparing income over price. And it is very wrong to use recent data to justify that the prices are affordable when the basis is wrong. Why is a 30% expenditure of income be reasonable and affordable over 30 years? Why not 30% over 10 years or 10% over 30 years? Who should be the best judge of what is affordable, the buyer or the seller?