The mission of HDB is to build flats for all Singaporeans

Really? Ask the singles. Oh ask the young professionals who happen to be earning a bit more, exceeding the arbitrary ceiling of $8000/$10,000 pm income. Are they not Singaporeans? Are they less deserving than the new citizens? What is their crime? The premises for creating such rules have changed. Solutions need to be found to look after all Singaporeans so that no one is left out for whatever creepy reasons. After all these years, have the policy makers become enlightened, betterer in their thinking processes, bigger hearts, or still living in the closets? The prices of HDB flats are no longer cheap. And the private sector is a killer. Why forced these people to buy from the private sector? To help the developers to get richer, or to help to shore up the prices of private properties by increasing demands so that speculators who own many private properties can be assured of higher profits? The reasoning that they will add to the demand for public housing and compete with the lower income HDB buyers is bull. They will be looking at the more expensive flats, the DBSS and Exec condos. And the rulings can be tweaked to see to that. Then of course more flats can be built to cater to the demands of those who want smaller and cheaper flats. It is a supply and demand issue. The biggerer the demand, more flats need to be built. Blaming on a small group of Singaporeans is silly, a poor excuse. If HDB does not want to build enough flats to meet the increasing demand, it is unfair to put the blame on other deserving citizens.

What Hsien Loong did not say

We all know that he did not talk about the recent hike in transport fare. We know that he did not say anything about the high cost of living or the high medical fees. There are many things which obviously he did not touch on. More pertinent are the sources of feedback that he depended on and acted on. The frustration of first time flat owners, the jam packed trains, the overwhelming presence of foreigners leading to a citizen versus foreigner controversy and tension, the high property prices, the concerns of parents of their children’s education, these were some of the key issues that he spoke about intensely and announced measures to deal with them. What he did not say is that these issues were the daily grinds in cyberspace, the kpkbs, the whinings and gripings that were hardly reported in the main media. If left to the main media, or if Hsien Loong were to rely solely on the main media for his feedback, there were no problems to talk about. Everything is perfect and blissful. Report only the good stuff and hear only the good stuff. Only the irritants in cyberspace are complaining incessantly, deafening at times, on these issues that really hurt them badly. What Hsien Loong did not say is that he read the feedbacks from cyberspace, probably mainly from Reach for sure. He may also read some of the frustrations and whinings from other non govt blogs and forums. How else would he come to know that the people were grousing if the grouses were not reported in his normal channels of communications? The whinings and gripings are important. Who say not so? Without these kpkbs, the problems will not have surfaced or taken notice of. No complaints means no problems to look into. And what Hsien Loong did not say is that he took these kpkbs seriously as well. And if the complaints are legitimate, the govt will take actions to resolve them. There is an important role for the alternate media or new media in throwing real issues for the govt to tackle. The new media can tell the truth and can be a good source to listen to. They may be the messengers of bad news, but still important news and can be taken seriously by the govt. Relying just on the main media is a handicap and many problems may not be given the appropriate airings. And lastly, what Hsien Loong did not say is to tell the new media to shut up. There is a complimentary role for the new media as a source of feedback to the govt.

Hsien Loong’s National Day Rally

The main media will have a good coverage of what Hsien Loong said last night. Cyberspace will have a diametrically opposite version from the main media. What should I add to the yin and yang of reporting the same event? I must say that he made my life quite difficult, from the point of writing something that is expected from the new media perspective. And I am trying hard and still fumbling as to how to be critical with what he said. I can’t blame him for not listening to the people’s grouses and brushing them aside or calling Singaporeans names. I can’t blame him for not doing anything towards the people’s complaints. He covered most of the issues that we have discussed here, from NS men, housing issues, immigrants, transportation and education. More recognition will be given to NS men, more substantive and tangible than just mere talks. Of course, it would be better if more were given. $9000 could not even pay for the first down payment, only meaningful if buying direct from the HDB. The issues of immigrants and transportation were tackled, explained and the follow up actions and plans were revealed to minimise the problems. New citizens and PRs will be managed more stringently and at a slower pace. More MRT lines are in the pipeline. Then the runaway housing prices and the promise of more flats to be built. He reiterated the original mission of HDB, to build affordable flats for ALL citizens. Mah Bow Tan will be coming out with his new plans to clear up the mess that should not be there in the first place. This appointment is inappropriate. Mah Bow Tan has his own definition of affordability that no one agrees except those in the party. He has his own queer ways of interpreting supply and demand for housing. He has his own convenient time frame while the anxious flat buyers would be biting their fingers as housing prices soar to the sky. Many ended up buying more expensive flats, paying excessively more than necessary while the more unlucky ones were kicked out of the HDB queue because they waited too long and their incomes exceeded the ceilings imposed. My main misgiving is that no sacred cows were slaughtered. He never did what LKY did like removing retirement age once and for all. The HDB income ceiling stays. It would be more refreshing and exciting if he announced that there will be no more income ceiling and ALL Singapore citizens shall be entitled to at least one bite of the cherry. No citizens shall be excluded from buying his first flat from the HDB. But that was expecting too much. A little tweak in the income ceiling like retaining the $8000 for the cheaper HDB flats and those earning above $8000 can be eligible for Design and Build or Executive Condos will be a better change. The silly $8000/$10,000 ceiling is irrelevant given the high cost of private properties and HDB flats. It is becoming an irritating anomaly. What more when multi millionaires are now allowed to buy HDB flats, though in the resale market! This Rally speech came out as one that promises more actions, acknowledging the problems raised by all the whinings and kpkbs, instead of words or excuses and nothing can be done as in the past. It is more pleasant to the ears.

How political or apolitical is our Civil Service

We inherited the British system of govt where there is a separation of power between the judiciary, legislative and executive branches of the govt. The three are supposedly to function independent of each other. The assumption is that while the political leaders could change at every election, the judiciary and executive branch could continue to function without being embroiled in a political tussel for power and control. Somehow it works in the British system and to a certain extent even the American system. Our system is designed or copied to work the same. Our civil servants are apolitical in this sense, not part of a political party and will serve which ever party that comes to power in the electoral process. When Vivian Balakrishnan spoke to a university crowd of students, an innocent student popped out the innocent question of how political are our civil servants, are they able to continue to function when there is a change of govt? Vivian did not answer her question directly but gave the standard reply that no one can deny the party from picking the best talents for the job. The adult population will not ask such a question. They have a clear understanding of how our political system works. A student is still innocent and untainted in their views and idealism. They expect things to work the way it is said to work. Why should the students have such a notion and popped such a question? Are they seeing things in a different light? Our civil servants are completely neutral to party politics. The govt has made sure that they are not politicised. The People's Association and the PAP's kindergarten are also not political. They are there to serve the people in general, all, regardless of political affiliations. Our Civil Service is definitely apolitical in this sense. The fear in the student's mind is that should there be a change of govt like the tsunami in Malaysia, very unlikely to happen here, what would happen to the civil servants? Would they resign en bloc or be asked to leave by the new leadership? Or would they go on strike or mount a revolt? Whatever, it means that the country will be disrupted. These are just suppositions. The talents in the Civil Service are indispensable to the smooth functioning of the country and any new political party coming to power is likely to keep the Civil Service intact. And the civil servants only need to pledge loyalty to a new govt and continue as per normal. It is good for students to raise such idealistic questions. Idealism is only for the youth. The pragmatism of the adult world does not have room for youthful idealism. Anything goes for one's personnel benefits and interests. Most adults will be asking what is in it for me instead?

Not just economic growth

People are expecting a miracle speech coming out of Hsien Loong’s National Day Rally. It is like waiting for a sermon by one of the miracle healer in the National Stadium, where the sick and woes of human suffering will be lifted away into thin air. Unfortunately a National Day rally is likely to be more down to earth. And if problems and issues are raised, if they can be solved, the better, if not, they will be simply explained away. The two key issues of immigrants and housing prices are expected to top the list of concerns. Both are problems of economic growth and economic data. Looks good on paper, but they come with intrinsic and long lasting repercussions if other factors are not carefully looked into. Not economic growth alone, for the superlative data of growth can be deceiving, in the sense that the growth came from where and how and how it benefits the society and people in general. We are building a country and with real people, not running a casino where the winners take all and the losers lose all. Take housing for example. It seems like a happy problem. Then why the angst and pain and complaints? Maybe they are inconsequential and can be conveniently ignored. Maybe not. Over the years many policies have changed, from the policies of building flats, from definition of demand and supply, the definition of affordability, the eligibility criteria, the private property owners allowed to buy another HDB flat, the uses of HDB flats for subletting and speculation, market pricing etc etc. All these have contributed to the mess that the affected people are complaining. This could be an issue that could swing votes in the general elections. Despite all the big changes, there are some that are seen as fundamental and unchangeable. The eligibility of singles, the income ceilings, the building of smaller flats. There is still this blinkered mindset that HDB prices are affordable which are obviously not. The income level of the lower segment of society lagged far behind the price inflation of HDB flats. They can only keep downgrading and lower their expectation, but up to a point. The income ceiling is bull. The fact that many are still able to buy higher priced flats is because they were upgrading and had a base to spring from. The young couples buying their first flats, even with a $10k income, will be hard pressed to put down that huge deposit and COV. At best it will clean up their savings. Going to the private sector is jumping from a frying pan into the deep blue sea. Same as the singles that are crying for a decent place to stay without bursting their bank accounts. And every day they failed to get their flats, their worries get worst as the prices keep on escalating. While these citizens are grappling with their plight against unthinking robots replying that they should lower their expectations and policies cannot be changed or are good, the foreigners are happily swarming into the market to pick up bargains to be sold later to the locals that missed the boat, at a quick profit. While we bent all over to welcome and accommodate the new citizens, should not the govt think that they need to take care of the citizens first and foremost, especially when housing is a critical factor in their lives? Would Hsien Loong come out with earth shattering changes in govt policies like LKY did to retirement age? Would Hsien Loong take the casino road and say old ways that are irrelevant must give way to the new? Or would he just explain the current problems faced by the people as something that they must lived with, market forces, nothing can be done, or pack up and go somewhere? Is there anything new in the coming National Day Speech or more of the same? Will there be any sacred cows to be slaughtered to make way for a better tomorrow? Or the premises of the sacred cows are still relevant and necessary, and not sacred bulls that must be kept at all costs?