The latest cry of resale prices of HDB flat still soaring and that supply is shrinking, or demand is rising, tells of a picture that nothing has changed. Whatever that have changed were merely cosmetic or stop gap measures. The fundamental position of the govt on housing has remained intact.
From providing cheap and good housing, today it is housing for profit, and maximum profit if possible. Housing is also an instrument for speculation, for fictitious wealth creation when the gains are quickly swallowed by higher cost of living and inflation, and for fattening the state coffer.
Under normal circumstances there is nothing wrong with such policies and economic enterprise. Housing becomes an economic good for trading, for people to make money and lose money, for the govt to generate revenue to feed the high salary of the system. Housing is a cash cow that must keep on churning out cash that is badly needed in the system, like all other sources of revenue. When the expenditure is so high, it must be matched by an equally high income.
Unless there is a structural change, the huge growing population and the reliance on housing as a major source of govt revenue, nothing will change in the property market. Like the Stop At Two policy, the No Casino policy, the restriction on foreigners buying landed properties, $90 NS allowance, etc, they were good and relevant at one time but no longer relevant today.
Housing, as a speculative economic good, needs to be reviewed in view of the changing socio economic and infrastructural limitations of the country. The govt needs to house the people well and cheaply. The runaway cost of living, the high cost of housing, cannot go on and on without breaking the social fabric of our society.
Would there be any fundamental changes to how housing is to serve the people’s need, to provide the people with good homes that are really affordable, to give the people a better quality of life? To continue squeezing the limited finances of the people for 30 years, to empty their wallets when the money could be used for many other more important things in life, and for retirement, is harming the welfare and well being of the people in the long run.
Would the govt relook at housing as a basic core item for the people’s good, without killing them in the process, without compromising the quality of their lifestyle? Would govt see housing as an essential item, not for speculation, and its responsibility to ensure that there is an abundance of housing to keep the price down at least in public housing, where every citizen who wants a flat will have his flat minus the pain and anguish?
Would all the silly terms and conditions be removed once and for all? Singles, married, unmarried, broken family, big income, small income, all will be eligible and can afford housing at their own discretion by virtue of being a citizen of the country? The issue is supply, in building enough to meet the needs of the citizens, with wise policies, and managing the demands from the reckless influx of foreigners and a population that is too big for the people’s good.
Let the pain and anxiety of acquiring a home be removed and no longer be a daily frustration in the life of the average citizen. When housing is no longer a bugging emotional and financial issue, the people can move on to indulge in other pursuits of living, to live an excellent life. Removing housing from the equation of life’s struggle will be a major positive change in the life of all Singaporeans. It will save a lot of time and financial resources for a better quality of life.
10/28/2011
Shanghai property prices falling 27 Oct 11
SHANGHAI: Hundreds of angry home buyers launched a series of protests in China's commercial hub of Shanghai this week, as owners decried falling prices for their properties, state media said on Thursday.
Hit by weak demand and lack of funding, developers have slashed prices for some new projects in the city by more than 20 percent, the China Business News said, causing an outcry among those who bought at higher levels.
In the latest incident, some 200 home owners on Wednesday besieged the sales office for a project of leading developer Greenland Group, demanding refunds, the Shanghai Daily said.
"We require a refund because the loss we are suffering now is too great for us to afford," the paper quoted a protestor as saying.
He paid 17,000 yuan ($2,678) per square metre last year and claimed the developer had cut the price by around 30 percent to boost sales.
In a another incident, 30 home owners stormed the sales office of a project of Hong Kong-listed China Overseas Land & Investment Ltd on Wednesday, the Global Times said, repeating a similar protest from over the weekend.
In at least one case, protests have turned violent. Home owners smashed a glass door over the weekend at a sales office of Hong Kong-listed Longfor Properties Co Ltd for another project in a Shanghai suburb….
The above should be a warning to those who mindlessly went ahead to buy properties at ridiculous prices. When it comes tumbling down, don’t kpkb.
Hit by weak demand and lack of funding, developers have slashed prices for some new projects in the city by more than 20 percent, the China Business News said, causing an outcry among those who bought at higher levels.
In the latest incident, some 200 home owners on Wednesday besieged the sales office for a project of leading developer Greenland Group, demanding refunds, the Shanghai Daily said.
"We require a refund because the loss we are suffering now is too great for us to afford," the paper quoted a protestor as saying.
He paid 17,000 yuan ($2,678) per square metre last year and claimed the developer had cut the price by around 30 percent to boost sales.
In a another incident, 30 home owners stormed the sales office of a project of Hong Kong-listed China Overseas Land & Investment Ltd on Wednesday, the Global Times said, repeating a similar protest from over the weekend.
In at least one case, protests have turned violent. Home owners smashed a glass door over the weekend at a sales office of Hong Kong-listed Longfor Properties Co Ltd for another project in a Shanghai suburb….
The above should be a warning to those who mindlessly went ahead to buy properties at ridiculous prices. When it comes tumbling down, don’t kpkb.
May 6 a good day
According to Boon Wan, May 6 was a good day when good people would be elected to Parliament. I believe all 87 of them who were elected by the people are good people. So Low Thia Khiang and his Gang of 5 must also be good people. And if one is to include Yaw Shin Leong and the 2 NCMP from the Workers Party there were 8. This gets even more interesting, 1 lady and 7 guys, like ‘ba xian guo hai’, or the Eight Immortals crossing the sea.
Sure they will be causing waves when they have to face the Super 7 or the Fantastic 5. Not forgetting Zorro and ESM in Parliament. Comic books can be written based on such titles, like Hongkong and their 4 Heavenly Kings.
Don’t be surprised with such headlines in the MSM, ‘The 8 Immortals cross swords with the Fantastic 5.’
Sure they will be causing waves when they have to face the Super 7 or the Fantastic 5. Not forgetting Zorro and ESM in Parliament. Comic books can be written based on such titles, like Hongkong and their 4 Heavenly Kings.
Don’t be surprised with such headlines in the MSM, ‘The 8 Immortals cross swords with the Fantastic 5.’
Cronyism in the US
Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times wrote an interesting article about Occupy Wall Street Movement and corruption in the heart of capitalism, Wall Street and Washington. The article is in mypaper today. During the Asian financial crisis, the finger was pointed at Asian crony capitalism as the main cause of the crisis. Today the cause of the American financial crisis is exactly a result of American crony capitalism.
What is so unfair in the American system is that it allowed the cronies to more than their fair share of reward in the American financial system. As a result, it’s human for them to grab as much as they could. This is unlike Asian culture where there is propriety and no one will grab as much as they can just because the system allows them to. To make matter worst, the cronies privatized the profits and socialize the risk to the public or American citizens. And when they failed miserably, billions of taxpayers’ money were used to bail them out. But the moment they rigged up profits they started to pay themselves crazy again, without having to repay the public debt.
That is how brilliant the American system is. Fortunately the Asian countries knew of the rot in the American system and are not imitating them. The Americans like to point the finger at Asians for being corrupt when they were the most corrupt in the world. The only thing that is saving them is that they control the western media and the media would not write about them.
We don’t have problems with too big to fail institutions. And we do not need to make our tax payers bail out the big losses during the world financial crisis. And our big fund managers are doing so well that they deserved to be paid handsomely since no public funds were used to bail them out.
There is no such thing as privatizing profits and socializing risks here. We are safe. Our money, our reserves are safe. And we may even consider bailing out the Europeans if they come knocking at our door.
PS. Please feel free to disagree with me if you think I am writing nonsense. Writing nonsense is an art and also my forte.
What is so unfair in the American system is that it allowed the cronies to more than their fair share of reward in the American financial system. As a result, it’s human for them to grab as much as they could. This is unlike Asian culture where there is propriety and no one will grab as much as they can just because the system allows them to. To make matter worst, the cronies privatized the profits and socialize the risk to the public or American citizens. And when they failed miserably, billions of taxpayers’ money were used to bail them out. But the moment they rigged up profits they started to pay themselves crazy again, without having to repay the public debt.
That is how brilliant the American system is. Fortunately the Asian countries knew of the rot in the American system and are not imitating them. The Americans like to point the finger at Asians for being corrupt when they were the most corrupt in the world. The only thing that is saving them is that they control the western media and the media would not write about them.
We don’t have problems with too big to fail institutions. And we do not need to make our tax payers bail out the big losses during the world financial crisis. And our big fund managers are doing so well that they deserved to be paid handsomely since no public funds were used to bail them out.
There is no such thing as privatizing profits and socializing risks here. We are safe. Our money, our reserves are safe. And we may even consider bailing out the Europeans if they come knocking at our door.
PS. Please feel free to disagree with me if you think I am writing nonsense. Writing nonsense is an art and also my forte.
10/27/2011
Asian anxiety
I was reading an article by Michael Auslin in the Today paper on the cut of US military budget and how it will impact the security of Asian countries. It portrayed a concern that there will be more wars in
Asia if the American military presence is reduced. The author did not question that since the end of WW2, who was responsible for all the wars in Asia? Did anyone tell him it was the Americans that started all the wars? So, if America was the fire starter, would there be more wars or lesser wars with their reduced presence? They are still fighting in the Middle East and Afghanistan and instigating the two Koreans to fight another war with their intimidating military exercises in the Korean seas. They are also trying their luck for a war between China and Taiwan.
The author took the standard western view that everyone’s interests will be threatened with the rise China and its growing military power. It rightly said that ‘Beijing is trying to shape a favourable balance of power in the region by preventing smaller nations from allying with each other or creating effective partnerships with larger powers like the US.’ What the writer conveniently ignored is the unfavourable balance of power against China in its own economic zone, that China was bullied, humiliated, and robbed of it territories by foreign powers because of its weakness in military power. What the writer did not say is that the US and the smaller countries have been encroaching into China’s territorial and economic rights in the surrounding seas. What he did not say were the numerous incidents of intimidation by the US and the smaller powers against China, including Japan, the Phillipines, Vietnam and now India.
What is so wrong about a strong China having a balance of power in its favour? What is so right about a balance of power in favour of the US?
Freedom of passage of the seas has never been compromised. The writer claimed a few incidents of China harassing other military ships but would not say how often the Chinese fishing boats were harassed and arrested by the smaller countries with the backing of the US.
Now that China is strong, it shall not continue to take bitter medicine from the US and the smaller littoral states. It is only natural and right for it to reclaim its territories that were robbed from her by gunpoint. And should these be the flashpoints for future wars, is it the fault of China or the fault of aggressors violating China’s territorial integrity and occupying Chinese land?
Should China remain docile and allow the US to dominate over her, dictate terms on her by bullying tactics, and allow the smaller countries to claim its land?
What is the source of Asian anxiety? The unfavourable balance that saw China being cowed, being bullied, with its islands being claimed by smaller countries giving way, and with China staking its rightful claims for their return? The wrongs of the last century against China would have to be righted, the excesses against China, the lands and islands taken away from her would have to be returned. Those countries that seized China’s land would have to act honourably to return what they took from China. Otherwise the tension and anxiety will be there. No country would allow their territories to be taken away from them at gunpoint.
Would Japan, Russia, India return their occupied land to China, and would the small Asean states stop their wild and baseless claims on Chinese islands and remove their own anxieties?
This is what the writer also said, ‘Not unlike Europe in the late 19th century, nations large and small are seeking to enmesh themselves in webs of protective relationships that in turn feed the insecurity of others. The result is the worsening of the risk cycle…’ Who is trying to enmesh the smaller countries in Asia with protective relationships and feeding on the insecurity of others all these years?
Asia if the American military presence is reduced. The author did not question that since the end of WW2, who was responsible for all the wars in Asia? Did anyone tell him it was the Americans that started all the wars? So, if America was the fire starter, would there be more wars or lesser wars with their reduced presence? They are still fighting in the Middle East and Afghanistan and instigating the two Koreans to fight another war with their intimidating military exercises in the Korean seas. They are also trying their luck for a war between China and Taiwan.
The author took the standard western view that everyone’s interests will be threatened with the rise China and its growing military power. It rightly said that ‘Beijing is trying to shape a favourable balance of power in the region by preventing smaller nations from allying with each other or creating effective partnerships with larger powers like the US.’ What the writer conveniently ignored is the unfavourable balance of power against China in its own economic zone, that China was bullied, humiliated, and robbed of it territories by foreign powers because of its weakness in military power. What the writer did not say is that the US and the smaller countries have been encroaching into China’s territorial and economic rights in the surrounding seas. What he did not say were the numerous incidents of intimidation by the US and the smaller powers against China, including Japan, the Phillipines, Vietnam and now India.
What is so wrong about a strong China having a balance of power in its favour? What is so right about a balance of power in favour of the US?
Freedom of passage of the seas has never been compromised. The writer claimed a few incidents of China harassing other military ships but would not say how often the Chinese fishing boats were harassed and arrested by the smaller countries with the backing of the US.
Now that China is strong, it shall not continue to take bitter medicine from the US and the smaller littoral states. It is only natural and right for it to reclaim its territories that were robbed from her by gunpoint. And should these be the flashpoints for future wars, is it the fault of China or the fault of aggressors violating China’s territorial integrity and occupying Chinese land?
Should China remain docile and allow the US to dominate over her, dictate terms on her by bullying tactics, and allow the smaller countries to claim its land?
What is the source of Asian anxiety? The unfavourable balance that saw China being cowed, being bullied, with its islands being claimed by smaller countries giving way, and with China staking its rightful claims for their return? The wrongs of the last century against China would have to be righted, the excesses against China, the lands and islands taken away from her would have to be returned. Those countries that seized China’s land would have to act honourably to return what they took from China. Otherwise the tension and anxiety will be there. No country would allow their territories to be taken away from them at gunpoint.
Would Japan, Russia, India return their occupied land to China, and would the small Asean states stop their wild and baseless claims on Chinese islands and remove their own anxieties?
This is what the writer also said, ‘Not unlike Europe in the late 19th century, nations large and small are seeking to enmesh themselves in webs of protective relationships that in turn feed the insecurity of others. The result is the worsening of the risk cycle…’ Who is trying to enmesh the smaller countries in Asia with protective relationships and feeding on the insecurity of others all these years?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)