Boon Wan is talking about the BTO woes. When has it been a woe? Everything was fine until he took over. The housing policies were perfectly tuned to the needs of the people. And the people were happy queuing up for the new launches religiously, and willingly paying more for each new flat knowing very well that the prices could only go up. And they stood to make a pretty hefty gain on their valuable purchases.
It is kinda strange to talk about woes after barely two months in his new job. And he is ramping up BTOs to the tune of 25,000 units and possibly more, building ahead of demand. What demand? There was no demand before, or was there? And HDB was only willing to build when there was genuine demand. Obviously there wasn’t and the housing programme was scaled down.
It was great time for property developers and property owners then. Everyday they were counting on how many times their properties had appreciated in value. A couple of hundred thousand dollars price hike for public housing was the norm. And the owners were quietly happy.
There was some panic in a little corner, particularly among the young and those who are not property owners. They literally panic every time they failed in their ballot for a new public flat, peeing in their pants. The next one would mean another few more years of savings just to pay for the increase in price. Yes, there were fears. The fears of runaway housing prices that they could not catch with every passing day. Many jumped into whatever they could get hold of, private properties or resale flats. Better get it today or gone tomorrow.
Boon Wan was trying to restore some calm into the lives of these sweet young things trying to start a family. But don’t expect the prices to fall. It is sinful if prices should fall. 90% of the property owners would not want that. Boon Wan is happy, believing that his policies are good. So was his predecessor. If Boon Wan’s policies are good, then his predecessor’s must be bad, or vice versa.
The things that Boon Wan is doing are a result of the people’s voices in the last GE. The people had spoken and changes are taking place. Are they enough? What if the people did not make their concerns heard in the last election? Would the housing policies be the same as before, and Mah Bow Tan still writing his columns praising his achievements?
I am still puzzled by the two sets of policies. One must be good and one must be bad. Can’t be both good or both bad. Are the people having their first taste of bad govt?
7/19/2011
7/18/2011
Putting our oldies away in a foreign land
I read Andrew Loh’s articles on the number of senior Singaporeans having to make do with nursing homes across the causeway. It was much cheaper and more caring staff, but a resting in a place so far from loved ones, so far from everything that is familiar.
In Singapore, the cost of nursing home has rocketed from slightly over a $1k to $2k or even more over the last few years. The oldies have little practical values and no economic value at all. It may be a little different if we can house them in a $200m state of the art building for them to narrate their stories as living history to the young and paying visitors. They all have a story to tell, a rich past that connects the present from what it used to be.
What we need is a living museum of sort, well equipped with the best sound and visual systems to share the contributions of the oldies. I think they have more value and should be better care for than some bones from Wyoming and needing a $300m building plus $12m public donations to acquire.
The old are living assets, if we care to look at them from a proper angle. They can be turned into money generating specimens too if money if the only reason for their existence. But maybe they would attract the oohs and the aahs and the whoas. Maybe JB is where they should be.
PS. The strays are much better taken care of.
In Singapore, the cost of nursing home has rocketed from slightly over a $1k to $2k or even more over the last few years. The oldies have little practical values and no economic value at all. It may be a little different if we can house them in a $200m state of the art building for them to narrate their stories as living history to the young and paying visitors. They all have a story to tell, a rich past that connects the present from what it used to be.
What we need is a living museum of sort, well equipped with the best sound and visual systems to share the contributions of the oldies. I think they have more value and should be better care for than some bones from Wyoming and needing a $300m building plus $12m public donations to acquire.
The old are living assets, if we care to look at them from a proper angle. They can be turned into money generating specimens too if money if the only reason for their existence. But maybe they would attract the oohs and the aahs and the whoas. Maybe JB is where they should be.
PS. The strays are much better taken care of.
It is easier to get a BTO flat
Boon Wan showed some statistics that first timers applying for BTO flats are finding it easier than before. With his ramping up of the housing programme, more units are being built to meet the demands of first time flat owners. This is good news as it will mean that these new buyers(citizens and reservists) will be able to get relatively cheaper govt flats than from the private sector and not be forced to take up a big mortgage that could make life quite uncertain and draining their savings.
For almost 10 years, HDB had scaled down the building programme and cost many first timers many trying times to get their flats. Some were unfortunate and ended being pushed out of the public housing programme after several years of unsuccessful attempts. Some could have bought into private properties. Some are still stuck without any, with their income ceiling exceeding the HDB limits but not enough to hang themselves with a frightening loan when buying private properties.
These young people, some with genuine financial obligations, some being prudent and not wanting to be high in housing debt, are still waiting for a little mercy from HDB to be allowed back into the public housing programme. It was never their fault to wait till their income ceilings exceeded. When they first applied, for the first 3 to 5 years, their incomes would definitely be within the HDB limits. But with the passing of every year, the eligibility slipped away.
They should thank Boon Wan’s predecessor for their plight when the queuing system and building programme were drastically altered. Would Boon Wan make an exception, in his compassionate best, to accommodate those who are still left in the lurch? Or would he adopt his predecessor’s famous logic, that these people should buy private and not add into the public queue? It is the faults of these first timers for not buying a public flat when they could. Good riddance.
For almost 10 years, HDB had scaled down the building programme and cost many first timers many trying times to get their flats. Some were unfortunate and ended being pushed out of the public housing programme after several years of unsuccessful attempts. Some could have bought into private properties. Some are still stuck without any, with their income ceiling exceeding the HDB limits but not enough to hang themselves with a frightening loan when buying private properties.
These young people, some with genuine financial obligations, some being prudent and not wanting to be high in housing debt, are still waiting for a little mercy from HDB to be allowed back into the public housing programme. It was never their fault to wait till their income ceilings exceeded. When they first applied, for the first 3 to 5 years, their incomes would definitely be within the HDB limits. But with the passing of every year, the eligibility slipped away.
They should thank Boon Wan’s predecessor for their plight when the queuing system and building programme were drastically altered. Would Boon Wan make an exception, in his compassionate best, to accommodate those who are still left in the lurch? Or would he adopt his predecessor’s famous logic, that these people should buy private and not add into the public queue? It is the faults of these first timers for not buying a public flat when they could. Good riddance.
The Devil’s Advocate
I am trying to put myself into the shoe of the devil and to understand his logic and motivation as the master planner of our transport system.
Let me start with cars for motorists. Being the devil, he would want to make as much money from the motorists as possible. These can come from road tax, PARF, ARF, petrol tax, car parking and even motor insurance. But the two schemes for easy money must be COEs and ERPs. For COEs, make sure that the supply is always limited. And this must be the easiest thing to do and all the right justifications given the space constraint. The pumping in of more foreigners is a god sent backup that would ensure that the number of cars on the road would always be critical. Then play on the rich who are able to afford to pay more and more to have the roads for themselves. At the same time tell those who cannot afford to take public transport. At $50k per piece of paper, without production cost, negligible manpower and material cost, what a sure win formula.
As for ERPs, just keep shifting the gantry points. Another easy scheme to make money. Put up one and shift the jam to the next bottle neck. That would be good justification for a new ERP. And when the jam builds up at the peripheral roads, more good reasons to erect more ERPs. It is kind of a never ending opportunity to make more money by simply putting up money collecting points.
What about public transport system? Just make it look good but never allow it to undermine the price of COEs and people wanting to drive their own cars. What does it mean? Don’t make it too comfortable or cheap enough as a substitute. It must look like a substitute, but weighing all the costs and inconvenience, the motorists will still want to pay the $50k COEs and the multiple ERPs to get around.
Also, it will increase the profits if the buses or trains are packed like sardines. It will be maximization of every inch of available space, for the same number of drivers and trains or buses.
The public transport system and the availability or convenience of private transport must be carefully managed to give the best yield in terms of profits. The ability for both systems to lay the golden eggs must not be undermined.
The above scenario is only valid in the minds of the devil. Luckily we have a good govt constantly trying to improve public transportation and to minimize the cost for the good of the people. And a minister had to pay the price for the people’s unhappiness in public transport. Actually it is very unfair. Why remove a minister who have made our transport system world class? The same logic should apply to our world class healthcare system that made Boon Wan an icon.
We now have a new minister who even tried to feel how it is to travel in public transport, off peak and during peak hours. More improvements will be on the way.
Let me start with cars for motorists. Being the devil, he would want to make as much money from the motorists as possible. These can come from road tax, PARF, ARF, petrol tax, car parking and even motor insurance. But the two schemes for easy money must be COEs and ERPs. For COEs, make sure that the supply is always limited. And this must be the easiest thing to do and all the right justifications given the space constraint. The pumping in of more foreigners is a god sent backup that would ensure that the number of cars on the road would always be critical. Then play on the rich who are able to afford to pay more and more to have the roads for themselves. At the same time tell those who cannot afford to take public transport. At $50k per piece of paper, without production cost, negligible manpower and material cost, what a sure win formula.
As for ERPs, just keep shifting the gantry points. Another easy scheme to make money. Put up one and shift the jam to the next bottle neck. That would be good justification for a new ERP. And when the jam builds up at the peripheral roads, more good reasons to erect more ERPs. It is kind of a never ending opportunity to make more money by simply putting up money collecting points.
What about public transport system? Just make it look good but never allow it to undermine the price of COEs and people wanting to drive their own cars. What does it mean? Don’t make it too comfortable or cheap enough as a substitute. It must look like a substitute, but weighing all the costs and inconvenience, the motorists will still want to pay the $50k COEs and the multiple ERPs to get around.
Also, it will increase the profits if the buses or trains are packed like sardines. It will be maximization of every inch of available space, for the same number of drivers and trains or buses.
The public transport system and the availability or convenience of private transport must be carefully managed to give the best yield in terms of profits. The ability for both systems to lay the golden eggs must not be undermined.
The above scenario is only valid in the minds of the devil. Luckily we have a good govt constantly trying to improve public transportation and to minimize the cost for the good of the people. And a minister had to pay the price for the people’s unhappiness in public transport. Actually it is very unfair. Why remove a minister who have made our transport system world class? The same logic should apply to our world class healthcare system that made Boon Wan an icon.
We now have a new minister who even tried to feel how it is to travel in public transport, off peak and during peak hours. More improvements will be on the way.
Myth 229 - The myth of objectivity
It is a taken, a belief, that in order for a person to perform the role of checks and balance, that person has to be neutral to be able to act objectively. It is also a practical consideration. The last thing you want is a person in such a position to have kinship relations or be beholden to the parties that the person is supposed to check on. Thus a person coming in from the cold, with no attachment, is the ideal candidate, provided the person has all the qualifications needed. Between one that is completely unrelated versus one that is related or connected, it is clear that the former is best suited for the job.
For many years, an independent director of a listed company, someone who is called such, and must be independent, often are picked and appointed by the management, paid by the management who could fire him at will. Often the independent director could be a family member or a good friend or a close associate. And he is expected to watch over the management and blow the whistle if they did wrong. It looked very untidy.
This was the happy arrangement for many years and nothing or very few things went wrong. Only recently that someone thought it should not be the case and an independent director must be truly independent to act as checks and balance over the management. If past experience over all the years gone by is a good indicator, such a concern for neutrality is superfluous. All or most of the independent directors, despite being handpicked by the management, despite being ‘pally pally’ with the management, seemed to have done their jobs well within the law.
With the new regulations, family members, relations, friends, golfing kakis, would most probably be ruled out from being independent directors. If such a reasoning is extended to the management of an organization, you could not have a CEO being the husband and the spouse being the Chairman or vice versa. Or in a worst case, the Finance Director is the wife, the CEO is the hubby and the Chairman is the father or father in law. Such a situation will undermine all the concerns of independence and transparency and give grounds for suspicion. Then again, given the lack of talented individuals in paradise, if such arrangement is not allowed, most organizations will have problems filling up senior positions. And the alternative will have to be foreign talents.
Our historical and empirical evidences have proven that as long as the person in charge is an honest and upright person, incorruptible, there is no problem even if one is father and the other is son, or between husband and wife. The key is the uprightedness of the person. The rest of the conditions and precautionary measures are hogwash. Just pick a person with good upbringings, all the right values, integrity, all the problems will go away.
The current issue of an Elected President may come under the same scrutiny for neutrality and free from attachments from the ruling govt. The Elected President has a check and balance role over the nation’s reserves that he is supposed to guard against an errant govt. We have 3 candidates that have one time or another been part of the ruling govt. So will they be suitable to place the custodian role to guard their former comrades in action?
The answer is not to worry. It has been proven that an ex PAP member, even cadre member/minister, could execute his presidential duties independently without being corrupted by past relationship. The honourable President Ong Teng Cheong had proven that it could be done. The only condition is the right person, with high personal integrity and a commitment to carry out his duty honestly, righteously, free from any encumbrance or association. It is the person that will determine whether the Elected President will do his job well and as expected of him.
So, all the three ex PAP candidates should have no problem acting the role of an independent Elected President. Their past association is not material. The criteria of neutrality is not applicable, just a myth. They will act independently, like independent directors, watching over the govt, and protecting the nation’s reserves for the good of the people.
With this doubt being removed, the people can go on and vote any of the candidates standing. Go for the one that looks good, look presidential, looks like a president. And we will have a good looking President that can fill our family albums and the pages of the newspaper across the world. Looking presidential is a great quality.
For many years, an independent director of a listed company, someone who is called such, and must be independent, often are picked and appointed by the management, paid by the management who could fire him at will. Often the independent director could be a family member or a good friend or a close associate. And he is expected to watch over the management and blow the whistle if they did wrong. It looked very untidy.
This was the happy arrangement for many years and nothing or very few things went wrong. Only recently that someone thought it should not be the case and an independent director must be truly independent to act as checks and balance over the management. If past experience over all the years gone by is a good indicator, such a concern for neutrality is superfluous. All or most of the independent directors, despite being handpicked by the management, despite being ‘pally pally’ with the management, seemed to have done their jobs well within the law.
With the new regulations, family members, relations, friends, golfing kakis, would most probably be ruled out from being independent directors. If such a reasoning is extended to the management of an organization, you could not have a CEO being the husband and the spouse being the Chairman or vice versa. Or in a worst case, the Finance Director is the wife, the CEO is the hubby and the Chairman is the father or father in law. Such a situation will undermine all the concerns of independence and transparency and give grounds for suspicion. Then again, given the lack of talented individuals in paradise, if such arrangement is not allowed, most organizations will have problems filling up senior positions. And the alternative will have to be foreign talents.
Our historical and empirical evidences have proven that as long as the person in charge is an honest and upright person, incorruptible, there is no problem even if one is father and the other is son, or between husband and wife. The key is the uprightedness of the person. The rest of the conditions and precautionary measures are hogwash. Just pick a person with good upbringings, all the right values, integrity, all the problems will go away.
The current issue of an Elected President may come under the same scrutiny for neutrality and free from attachments from the ruling govt. The Elected President has a check and balance role over the nation’s reserves that he is supposed to guard against an errant govt. We have 3 candidates that have one time or another been part of the ruling govt. So will they be suitable to place the custodian role to guard their former comrades in action?
The answer is not to worry. It has been proven that an ex PAP member, even cadre member/minister, could execute his presidential duties independently without being corrupted by past relationship. The honourable President Ong Teng Cheong had proven that it could be done. The only condition is the right person, with high personal integrity and a commitment to carry out his duty honestly, righteously, free from any encumbrance or association. It is the person that will determine whether the Elected President will do his job well and as expected of him.
So, all the three ex PAP candidates should have no problem acting the role of an independent Elected President. Their past association is not material. The criteria of neutrality is not applicable, just a myth. They will act independently, like independent directors, watching over the govt, and protecting the nation’s reserves for the good of the people.
With this doubt being removed, the people can go on and vote any of the candidates standing. Go for the one that looks good, look presidential, looks like a president. And we will have a good looking President that can fill our family albums and the pages of the newspaper across the world. Looking presidential is a great quality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)