Blogging is a waste of time (part 2)

I was lambasted by a friend for raising the controversial issue of LUP in the two opposition wards. To him there was nothing wrong with the way it was done and the govt had the right to appoint whoever they want to announce the LUP. Raising such issues in a blog is a complete waste of time. Using the same argument, the half page article by Sue Ann Chia in the ST today must be a bigger waste of time, and ST must be wasting time and money allowing the issues to be printed on its pages. Why would ST choose to air this issue over again? I think the editors or someone up there must be feeling uncomfortable that if Singaporeans are so dumb, or choose to be ostriches, and refuse to question controversial issues affecting their lives and the political development of the people, the continued existence of Singapore and Singaporeans as a thinking people is questionable. Is it a good thing for Singaporeans to just shut up when they are confronted with controversies or even questionable decisions by the govt? Some may think so, assuming that everything is in good hands. So they can sleep in peace, happily making money. What kind of Singaporeans will we have if this be the case? Why are we complaining that Singaporeans are apathetic and apolitical and regretted that this is not a good thing? Should Singaporeans be more political, more aware of the political developments and affairs of their country? Should those who are raising issues and questioning controversial policies be called fools or the other way round, that the greater fools are the silent majority who allowed themselves to be pushed around like sheep, not knowing, not wanting to knowing, not to bother and think that all is well? I thank Sue Ann Chia and the ST for raising this issue again to stir the dull and numb minds of Singaporeans and to educate them to be thinking citizens.

136 loan sharks arrested

Almost half of these arrested, according to Eng Hen, are youths. And if I am not mistaken, the rest are in their early 20s. I will not call them loan sharks but ikan bilis. The sharks are still safe, hiding in deep waters or away in safer zones. When will the sharks be caught?

Apathy in Law Society Elections

More seats than candidates available for the Law Society Elections. The media reported that there were 8 seats and only 4 candidates standing for them. And the President and another incumbent in the senior category were returned unopposed. Also in another category two candidates were the sole nominees. The former President Chandra Mohan was lamenting at the state of apathy in the society and liken it to the general apathy in the population. What I would suggest is for the society to revamp its election rules. The President be only reserved for candidates that have incomes of more than $10m or have more than 20 years of practice. And the critieria for the next few candidates be slightly lower, say $8m annual income and 15 years of practice and so on. For the general committee members level, they can stand as a group of 5 or 10 candidates. Would these suggestions be of help to improve the apathy and more candidates coming forward to stand for office?

Elevating terrorists to cult status

With shocking disbelief I kept reading flattery comments about the great limping terrorist and the expert suicide bomb maker in the media. In the case of the former, his greatest achievement was to escape from detention, while the later was credited for several bombings in Indonesia and the death of innocent people. They were showered with praises as charismatic, super intelligent, great in deception and disguises, experts in their arts of sabotage and military skills. If the little military training and knowledge they had should qualified them to be so glorified, we should better do some glorifications for our own combatants and leaders or they will pale in comparison to these two terrorists. The bad consequences of flattery remarks on two terrorists could raise them to cult status and attracting more naive and gullible recruits into their cause. Would it be better to call a spade a spade, like a half baked school dropout limping terrorist, a killer of innocent people in suicide bombings, misfits of the community, mad men, criminals etc etc? We do not want a Che Quevara and his guerilla fighters fighting the govt do we?

A serious proposition by a blogger

Below are some recommendations by Gerald Giam on how to solve the high prices of housing. The full post is at his blog http://geraldgiam.sg. It shows that bloggers can put up serious articles that are as good as those in the paid media or papers submitted in Parliament. Here it is. I have a few suggestions on how we can lower the cost of public housing for Singaporeans, without causing asset destruction or panic selling. Sell new flats at cost-plus pricing The first thing HDB should do is to reduce the price of its new flats. HDB maintains that flats remain “affordable” and that it still provides a “market subsidy” for buyers. The market subsidy simply means that new HDB flats are priced lower than existing resale properties in the same area. It is not based on the cost of construction and land. Mr Leong Sze Hian from The Online Citizen has calculated that HDB could be making a profit of over $170,000 per flatin the new Punggol development. Mr See Leong Kit, in a letter published in TODAY, also arrived at a similar estimate of $140,000 profit per unit for the Pinnacle@Duxton development. For a start, in the spirit transparency, HDB should disclose the profits it makes from each project ─ by showing how much exactly it cost them to build the flats alongside the prices that they are being sold for. HDB is a government agency. It should not behave like a profit-maximising corporation. There is no reason why new HDB flats cannot be priced at cost plus ─ no more than 5% above the cost price of building the flat and acquiring the land. Reducing the price of new flats will immediately make it more affordable for many more lower- and middle-income couples who do not have the savings to pay over $300,000 for a new flat. It would also have a knock on effect of slowly lowering the price of resale flats, which would also benefit home buyers. Perhaps HDB is concerned that these homeowners will sell their flat 5 years later for an obscene profit in the open market. To prevent this from happening, HDB could require that the flats cannot be sold for more than 10% above the cost price (adjusted for inflation) for the first 10 years. This will prevent home owners from profiting excessively after receiving the government subsidy. Another way of reducing costs is to build flats without all the frills. In recent years, HDB seems to have taken on the mindset of a private developer, coming up with ways on how to meet the apparent demand from yuppie Singaporeans for condo-style living. This is treading down the wrong path. HDB flats should remain no-frills public housing. There is no need to provide posh condo lookalikes and price them like private apartments. Those who want a more high-class living environment should consider buying private properties. Build more new flats During a parliamentary debate in September, opposition leader Low Thia Khiang questioned whether HDB is under-building flats to meet the demand of flat buyers. Mr Mah Bow Tan dismissed it, saying simply that there was “no basis to say HDB is under-building”. He fanned out statistics that showed that the HDB built 2,400 flats in 2007, 8,000 in 2008 and another 8,000 this year. As always, government statistics don’t tell the full story. Just last week, the Sale of Balanced Flats launched by HDB received over 20,691 applications for only 2,132 available flats ─ almost 10 times oversubscribed. The recent Punggol Residences Built-to-Order five-room flats released in August were also 10 times oversubscribed, with 1,587 balloters for just 154 units. The PAP government has dismissed these clear indications that there is a shortage of flats by suggesting that most of those people who applied were just trying their luck and not really interested in buying a place to stay. This is an insult to the thousands of home buyers who have tried numerous times but failed to find a flat that fits their basic requirements. It is likely that the main reason why the HDB does not want to build more new flats is because it will lower the overall price of even the resale market, which may be politically troublesome for them. The HDB needs to examine whether it’s mandate is to provide affordable housing for Singaporeans, or feed voters with unsustainable promises of constantly increasing home asset prices. PRs increasing flat demand Part of the reason for the high prices of resale flats is the large influx of foreigners who take up permanent residency, thus making them eligible to buy HDB flats in the open market. A recent ERA report revealed that 40% of resale flat buyers are permanent residents (PR). This is a phenomenal proportion, considering that HDB flats were built to house Singaporeans, not foreigners. It’s questionable whether all of these PRs intend to sink their roots in Singapore or whether they see Singapore as a stepping stone to better opportunities in the US, or Australia, or back in China when conditions there improve. I welcome foreigners to come to Singapore, to contribute to our economy and add to our social diversity. Many of my friends and colleagues are foreigners, and I have seen the benefits many of them have brought to Singapore. However, I am strongly opposed to the government’s policy of allowing in so many foreigners in such a short amount of time, as this has put a severe strain on the housing market, the public transport system and the job situation. The immigration policy is so liberal that within weeks of arriving in Singapore, a foreigner with the right qualifications can apply for PR and get it approved within three months. Without having contributed even a year to Singapore, these PRs are eligible to buy public housing and benefit from a system which Singaporeans have spent a lifetime building up. Impose waiting period for PRs to buy flats To rectify this, I propose that all PRs must have lived and worked continuously in Singapore for at least three years before they are allowed to buy HDB flats. This would filter out all those PRs who have shown little commitment to our country and are just taking up residence in order to be able to buy a subsidised flat, save on rental and sell it a few years later for a huge profit. Lest this proposal causes alarm to skilled workers who are considering applying for PR, I would point out that under this proposed policy, HDB should look at the entire duration that the PR has been in Singapore, not just the period since he got his blue NRIC. Skilled foreigners who have demonstrated a commitment to making Singapore their home should have no worries about this new policy disadvantaging them. Conclusion I have laid out in this article just a few suggestions on reining in unaffordable public housing costs for home buyers. It is a work-in-progress and by no means comprehensive. I hope that policy makers will consider some of these suggestions for the sake of the thousands of Singaporean home buyers ─ including future home buyers ─ who are just seeking for a decent roof over their head.