When paradise beckons

We are into the second month of 2010 and things are gradually transforming. The stalwarts of first generation Singaporeans are fading away one by one. Ng Teng Fong, the richest man here, has been called home to the Lord like many before him. Our Olympian Tan Eng Yong, also went home when the Lord sent a driver to fetch him. Both men, given their health and wealth, should technically live forever. Their departures are a reminder that paradise is where we should be, our home. Funny thing is that no one wants to return home to paradise. I was at a funeral service of a young friend whom the Lord loves so much to take her back in her thirties. And all was grim and gloom. All wore black to show their sadness when paradise beckoned. And our good friend Boon Wan is working tirelessly to provide us with the best medical services, facilities and treatment to keep us here longer. And he unknowingly think that with more money in our Medisave, we can remain here longer and happier, better taken care off in the nursing homes, with first class nursing care. Does he think that his hospitals and nursing homes are better places than paradise where the Lord had gone ahead to prepare his mansions for us? This is an issue that is most confusing and most contradicting in the minds of mortals. Paradise beckons and no one is tempted. Hell is where they want to be. Or hell on earth is where they want to hang on, for as long as they could, even forgoing their little comforts, saving as much as they could to cling onto life in this hellish world. I can't blame those who have found paradise on earth and refuse to go. But many would have been better off returning to the ultimate home in paradise. While the Lord prepares his empty mansions in anticipation of our return, Boon Wan is preparing his nursing homes with great comforts in his imaginable ways, to show us how much he cares. He also makes sure that we have the money to pay for it.

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?