Celebrating Singaporeans - Dr Lim Hock Siew

Stories of the victors and the vanquished The APEC Meeting was a scintillating example of what life can be for the victors of a political contest, a gathering of fine wine, fine people and fine company. Everything is so beautiful and glamorous for the victors. Last night I viewed the video of Dr Lim Hock Siew who told his story of the vanquished. He was detained under the ISA for nearly 20 years. His was a life moving from one dungeon to another. He spoke of the miserable conditions that he went through for being a political prisoner on the losing end. He spent all those years in darkness, no friends, no niceties, no finer things in life. He could have got out much earlier if only he was willing to repent, to confess, to say something like quitting politics or things like that. He had the choice, if he was willing to go with the tide. He did not, chose not. He stood by his principles, beliefs and ideals. He would not be beaten or compromised on his ideals. He was no criminal but a contestant in a political game for power, or for the right to govern a country. In Africa, the dark continent, they made people like him into President and honoured with the Noble Peace Prize. In paradise, he is history, forgotten and lost among the debris. Or is he part of our history? I did not read the MIW book and do not know if his name was mentioned. If it was, then he is part of the new history. If not, he will have to wait for a new history to be written. His parting shot in the video was about man and ideals. Man without ideals is hollow. He paid a very heavy price to live his ideals, 20 years of his prime life under detention.

Supply and demand of HDB flats to be raised in Parliament

Several MPs will be raising questions on the supply and demand of HDB flats in Parliament. And their key concerns are young couples, first timers being forced out of the public housing markets. Some have tried several times and had to give up when their salaries exceeded the $8k ceiling and forced to buy private flats that are beyond their reach or stretching their incomes. And there is also the issue of profits which Chiam See Tong wants to know, and what is meant by affordability. First question that came to mind is why is it necessary to raise such questions in Parliament when Mah Bow Tan and the HDB had painstakingly explained that the problem of shortages in public housing was only a perceived problems, or due to the choosiness of the applicants? Data were given to prove beyond any doubt that there are enough public flats to meet the demand, and first timers, more than 90% will get their flats in the first try or at most second try. And many media professionals also chipped in to confirm with their brilliant articles that there is no real public housing problem. Would the questions to be raised in Parliament superfluous or a waste of time? Why raised when there is no problem, or is it that the MPs do not agree with the public explanations, that there is a real problem, not simply perceived and to be swept under the carpet? Why, when Chok Tong had also came out to assure the people that the govt would ensure that the flats would be there and affordable? The other question is, what do the MPs expect to achieve? To get a few explanations from Mah Bow Tan and close the case, duty done for speaking out in Parliament? Would it be more meaningful and constructive for the MPs to not just raise questions but come out with ALTERNATIVES of what they want the minister and HDB to do? Wasn't it a common reply that if anyone is not happy they should come out and offer a better solution, not such criticise the policies? I would like to hear the MPs saying why they are unhappy, and what alternative solutions they are proposing instead of simply asking questions. Tell Mah Bow Tan what they want done, that they don't agree with the HDB policy of selling at market price subsidy, that public housing is for the people, the core pillar of our country, to keep the people housed and rooted here. It is not a commercial enterprise to make huge profits and should not be one. Without a good and decent home, what is there to defend this country for? How would people living in expensive mickey mouse flats and shoe boxes feel about the affluence around them, that they are a part of the affluence and well being? The bulk of the country's population are housed in public flats. When these are no longer affordable and no longer comfortable, according to the hardlanders definitions, not defined by people who do not live in them, what is there to hold them to this piece of rock and call it home? Would the raising of this issue in Parliament just another of those question and answer sessions and nothing comes out of it?

Blogging - Severing the shackles of dependency

The MOH has taken a big step into how it disseminates information through its blog. In a way it has not only by passed the tedious and slow process of depending on the old media to inform the consumers, it has taken full advantage of what new media can do for the ministry, freedom, speed, efficiency and in full control of what they want to say. No need to brief reporters on what to write, no need to vet for accuracy, no need to wait for the editor's approval, no need to depend on the printing schedule of the media and no fear of no space available for their articles. They can say all they want to say at and when they want it. By breaking free and doing it on its own, and with other ministries probably following suit, this mode of communication will eventually become more widespread and even a norm. In the not too distant past, some professional media personalities have been scornful about the new media, questioning their accuracy and integrity. The tune has changed and I have heard some saying that it is the way to go forward. And people can be accountable and responsible for what they posted, with a name behind the article instead of a faceless directive from an organisation. The move into new media is gaining momentum, though still in a small way.

New corporate governance council in the making

I have kept this thread alive in redbeanforum since March 2007. I have written to a couple of organisations on the issues of corporate governance and directorship. Few days back, Ho Kwon Ping wrote a long article about what was going on in the Board of companies. Today we are hearing the MAS talking about setting up a body to look into raising the standard of corporate governance. Is this an exercise that is more in form or substance? What had happened in the past few years had seen many investors losing their piles in the stock market with dubious companies and dealings and fraudulent accounting. And where does the fault lie? It is, in a way, something like corporate America. The practice of 'I scratch your back you scratch mine' is only a small fraction of a system going out of control. It all boils down to lack accountability and lack of clout. From the board of directors, top management, auditors, financial analysts and banking advisors, everyone is being paid a fee to monitor and be watchdogs to corporate faults. Some participated in the frauds, some just simply resigned when something smelly popped up. No one is responsible for anything or hardly anyone was taken to task for the failures or frauds. What is needed is not only a revamp of the whole corporate governance formula, but a need to pin responsibilities on the shoulders of those carry it and being paid for it. The SGX has come out with draconian rules and fines for simple and often innocent mistakes made by equally blur investors or careless remisiers. Such an approach should be adopted in corporate governance and corporate frauds when the consequences are much grave. Make everyone who is paid to do a job be accountable. Heavy fines is a way. Resigning and washing their hands cannot be allowed. Accepting the payment must come with accepting the punishment for a job not properly done. Rip Van Winkles cannot go on sleeping and get away with it. People who don't have the time to be execute their management, advisory or watchdog's role should not take on the job. Would something like this happen with the setting up of a new corporate governance council?

Good news to HDB owners

The tax department has confirmed that the annual value(AV) of their flats have gone up because the values of the flats have gone up and also, these flats can now fetch higher rentals. And the increases were very small given the huge increases in the resale prices of flats. Compare to increases in values of tens or hundreds of thousands, a hundred dollar increase is chicken feat really. I am sure all flat owners would not mind paying more taxes if their flats can be sold for a million or two. And good news for the smaller flat owners. They don't have to pay for the higher property tax. There is a one year rebate! Only the bigger flats need to pay, and the bigger the flats, the bigger the tax increases except for bigger executive flats. But the statisticians will have reasons to be argumentative when they look at the percentages of increases. A 3 rm flat will have to pay $72 more from $2.17. Now how many hundred percent increase is that? Every $2.17 is 100%. The number is too big for my calculator. A ball park number is like 3,600% increase! 4 rm flat will pay $97 more from $46.96. This is easily 200%! 5rm and executive flats have smaller increases of about 100%. I am not going to split hairs on these increases and why the smaller and obviously poorer flat owners should be hit with that kind of percentage increases. What I am looking at is that the majority of HDB flat owners are living in their own flats, their homes, not for letting and also there are many rules prohibiting them from renting their flats. The AV can shoot to the sky, but many HDB flat owners cannot benefit from them. No renting, cannot rent. Only those who need the money or those who have many properties can benefit from the high AVs. Why lump all HDB owners into the same category and make them pay higher taxes when the benefits of high AV is academic and perceived, unreal? For those who are waiting for the flats to hit $1m, no problem. Let the AV go higher. When the $1m target is rich, just sell and get out of the property ownership trap. Oops, 99 year property leasing trap to some.