Disproportionate reality and disproportionate truth

Properties in Singapore are cheap, especially the high-end ones that are built for the super rich. At $3m or $5m a piece, it is too easily affordable. Many of the super rich will find properties at $20m or $30m a piece affordable as well. At the employee level, i.e. workers who earn a salary, this includes ministers and top civil servants, properties at $3m or $5m are actually as expensive as peanuts. They could buy one every year or every other year with their annual salaries. Isn’t that fun? Life is really good for these highly paid workers. Then we have workers, the genuine low down working class, complaining that a $300k flat is expensive and unaffordable. And the ministers and top civil servants are telling them it is not so. These flats are really and truly affordable. It makes sense when one could pay a $3m to $5m property with one or two year’s salary. But the disconnect is quite obvious. Why are the workers complaining? Simple, their incomes are just too little relative to the price of the flats they have to pay. And they need two incomes and 30 years to be able to pay that miserable $300k. So, is their complaint genuine or they are just a pain in the arse? To these low paid workers, their perspective of affordability must be different, and real. They think so anyway. The cheap flats are expensive, very expensive to them. And the reality of the cheap private properties is also real, as the buyers need only cough out a couple of years' income to pay them off. No need to take loans at all. The disproportionate reality and the disproportionate truth divide the real workers from the surreal workers in paradise. Quite funny huh?

Battle of Tampines 2

Chok tong has came into the battleground and fired his first salvo. Let's talk policies and let's offer alternative solutions instead of criticising. It is easy to criticise but what about offering alternative solutions? Sounds fair? Of course it is easy to criticise. But before anyone, who does not have the resources of all the supertalents, attempts to offer solutions, let's ask if this kind of familiar challenge is fair. In the first place, why should people who are not being paid a single cent come up with alternative solutions, and a better solution? Solving national issues is not going to the jamban to shit. It takes a lot of information, data and considerations, demanding a lot of time and resources, to come out with something that is workable. On this point a lone I think it is an unfair challenge. What I think the critics can do is to criticise. Yes, critics only need to do that, nothing more nothing less. But if the govt is willing to pay the critics, provide them with the resources, maybe they can venture into trying to find an alternative solution. What about the politicians? My view is that they should just offer a new direction, of where they want to go, what they want to do. The details and how to go about in achieving their objectives and policies should be left to the talented pool of civil servants to help them to work out the sums. Without the resources, they should not attempt to offer solutions that are likely to be inadequate. Just talk policies and objectives, what they want to do for the people. That should suffice.

Anything new from the ESC Reports?

With 25 high power supertalents in the Committee, including 9 ministers, and 6 months of deep and challenging thoughts, is there anything new coming from this Committee. I am quite disappointed actually. To me there is nothing new. One Winsemius could probably come up with more and enlightening suggestions to change our landscape and lead us to a brighter future. But not all is lost. At least the Committee discovered that the high dependence on foreign workers is a dangerous road to take. This is probably their one and only major contribution to reverse course. Without this Committee we will still be plodding along happily with more foreign workers. PS, the whole cyberspace netizens knew this long ago and have been kpkb about it for quite sometime. A side contribution is of course more money for the govt in terms of higher foreign workers levies. Can't think of anything else that is near to a revelation.

The Battle for Tampines

It is not about the person but the policy. Mah Bow Tan is just a policy maker and should not be the issue in the election. Some may want to make it one but that is a private matter to those who want to do so. Let Tampines be a contest of ideas, a contest for the people to decide whether the HDB housing policy is good for them or a daft one. From the govt's perspective, it is an excellent policy that is good for the people. So, who should decide if this policy is good for the people? The people or the govt? The election will allow the people to say so, to make sure that they are heard, to tell the govt what they want and what is good or no good for them. It is the time for the people to say, 'I say so!' What are the issues at stake or what are the components of this HDB policy? 1. High HDB price is good. 2. HDB flats should be priced at market price with a market subsidy. 3. HDB will build flats only if there is demand for it. And demand is defined as applicants putting in their applications. HDB will not project demands and plan their building programmes on available information and demographic data. 4. Flats will only be available to move in after 3/4 years on application. 5. Affordability means 2 incomes and 30 years to pay for a smaller flat as sky rocketing prices means paying more and getting less. 6. Your children will get to pay more and more for HDB flats. 7. The actual cost of building HDB flats will remain a mystery. No need to know. These are some of the key features of the current HDB policy. Would the people be daft enough to vote against this policy. Or would the people be smart enough to vote for this policy?

Are the people going to accept this Medisave increase quietly?

A week of silence after Boon Wan sounded the idea of raising Medisave contributions and finally I read a letter in the Today forum by a Alex Chan. Chan was concerned that the increase will hurt the young home owners as HDB has already targeted 30% of their income for its flats. These home owners have already budgeted what they could afford to pay for housing to the max. Anymore design on their CPF will mean touching on their disposable income or for those still waiting to buy a flat to revise downwards and look for a smaller unit. But surprisingly not many complain letters were sent to the ST forum. Maybe there is no problem really and Alex Chan's concern is misplaced. So far from the govt side, only Halimah Yaacob raised some concerns that it will affect the workers if this thing is pushed through. She is the only voice against the increase. So what about the rest of the MPs? Are there still studying the proposal and getting feedback from the people? It will be good to know which MP is for or against this proposal. It will also be good to know how they vote after they have expressed their views in Parliament. I am deeply concern about this raising of Medisave contributions and locking up more of the people's money. It seems that the govt is bend on holding on to the people's money for as much as they can lay their hands on and for as long as possible. This is the message I am getting. Is the govt so hard up of money? Obviously no. GIC and Temasek are still globe trotting around looking for good buys and absorbing whatever losses in their stride. Still, the people will have their ways of looking at these monetary measures as a way of snatching their money from them and will have many negative thoughts and feelings. And to some it is not just feelings but very painful. I would like to suggest that Boon Wan make it more painful by raising another 5%. A big pain for once instead of creeping pains every other year. This is textbook Machiavellian strategy. Or is it to make it less painful like raising property taxes every now and then instead of all at one go? Looks like I am going to here for a while and I will just go on posting.