National Conversation topic

One major topic to be addressed in the National Conversation is the amount of authority to be given to an elected govt of a 5 year term. A democratically elected govt with a short life span of 4 to 5 years is very different from a dictatorship or a dynasty where the country in a way belongs to the dictator or the royal family. The people living in a dictatorship or a dynasty have no choice but to live with whatever decided for them by the dictator or the royalty. They can do whatever they want with the country without the consent of the people. They owned the country, not the people.

In a democracy, the country belongs to the people and the elected represenative govt is only a caretaker govt that can be kicked out of office in the next GE. Should such a govt be given so much authority to decide the future of the country and its people without the latter's consent? Issues that will affect the people for a long time is the population, property ownership, freedom, the people's savings, the national reserves, among other things.

This National Conservation should look into the power of a democratically elected govt and remind such govt that the country belongs to the people, not the few elected representatives, and major and far reaching policies must have the consent of the people, preferably through a referendum. Bringing in so many foreigners as new citizens, selling land and properties to foreigners are critical issues that should not be decided by a few without the consent of the majority shareholders.

Of prudence, prudence and prudence

This funny word seems to be appearing more often on the lips of people in authority. Prudence is taking on the image of a good word. It used to be a good word to the old and wise. Prudence or being not wasteful, careful in words and money, not extravagance, is an old value of goodness.

Prudence can be practiced by the govt, by organizations and by individuals. Prudence in the layman’s view is not overspending, or spending within one’s means. Extravagance is just the opposite, spending beyond one’s means, spending without a care of tomorrow or spending every cent one has.

How is this word prudence being practiced here? Are the govt’s policies based on prudence? Is the govt extravagant, encourages over spending instead of prudence in its own spending and in policies dictating to the people to over spend, or to be prudent?

Think of hospitalization and mean testing? Are they policies of prudence or extravagance? I think they are of extravagance than prudence. Any disagree?

Similarly, housing policies, despite all the crap calls about affordability and buying within your means, it is all about extravagance, buying at max with what one has in the CPF or according to one’s income. See the hypocrisy? The pricing of public housing cannot be prudence, and the income ceilings dictating one to buy more and more expensive flats according to one’s income, are all about extravagance.

Prudence, anyone talking about prudence? If prudence was the intent and purpose, why are people now finding that they savings are not enough for retirement? It must be the result of extravagant spending. It cannot be otherwise. If the people are prudent in their spending, they must have a lot of savings for retirement. What has gone wrong? Prudence? Yes it must be prudence that has gone wrong.

Developing properties for investors

I was kind of, er, uneasy when I heard someone from the property industry talking about developing properties for investors as the next big thing. This statement came after the announcement on changes to allow banks to manage the conveyancing money of buyers. We had a few too many cases of honorable lawyers running away with their clients’ money.

Properties are perhaps the only local produce that we can sell to foreigners for huge profits. We cannot prevent the property developers or anyone who want to make big bucks from selling this product. But we need to be very careful as land is a very limited resource here. Once sold, especially in freehold properties, it is sold forever, like selling Alaska to the Americans by the Russians. We need a policy to limit how much land and freehold properties can be sold to foreigners. If not, all will eventually be sold. The foreigners have all the money to buy up everything on the table.

The other main concern is the public housing market. In the absence of a long term policy to protect housing for the citizens, we may plunge into a deep hole and unable to climb back up. Like it or not, when private property prices shoot to the sky, they will drag prices of public housing along. Good huh?

For now, everyday we are hearing people trumpeting that our public housing prices are affordable. Even so, there are already people living without a roof on their heads. Blame them on their stupidity, losers, misfortunes, luck, etc, they are still citizens of the country and they need a roof over their heads.

And as the prices hit the roof, the number of homeless will only increase. Not everyone is born lucky to be a minister’s son, not everyone is able to inherit a fortune, not everyone is born with super talents. Then there will be the silly ones, the couldn’t care less ones, the ones that live for today and think about tomorrow when tomorrow comes, and the irresponsible ones. Still they need housing.

At the moment the problem is small and a few of these homeless can be kept away from sight. When the problem snowballs, they will be in every corner, every void deck, and the parks and beaches. Someone selling a 4 rm flat the second time could still downgrade to 3rm flats. Those selling 3 rm flats can only hope for a rental flats as the money could not buy them anything in the resale market and neither would HDB sell them a third time.

There must be safeguards and protection of the people’s housing. Public housing must be sheltered from the greed of developers and speculators. If public housing is also thrown into the ring, many will become victims of circumstances and their own wrong doings. In a sea infested with hungry sharks, the hapless will quickly fall victims to the predators.

The superficial huge profits to be gained by some will soon be the misery of many. Don’t play with people’s homes and run people to the streets or the beaches.

The APEC Meeting in progress

Leaders of Asia and the Pacific rim countries are huddling in Vladivostok for their annual powwow to solve the contentious issues in the region. There are territorial claims stretching from the Sakhalin Islands in the north, Dokdo, Diayu and the Spratleys and Paracels in the South China Seas. These are potential flash points that could be ignited by the provocative acts of any party involved in the disputes.

In other parts of the world, the flash points that are boiling in full heat are the Middle East, that somehow is in a perpetual state of warfare. When one flash point died down, another would somehow start to burn.

In South America, the last flash point was in 1982 in the Falkland Islands that somehow belong to the British and not to the Argentines. This is part of the legacies of colonialism and finder’s keepers past.

What is amazing and coincidental is that these flash points are away from Europe and North America. Anyone cares to guess why North America and Europe are free from such flash points but were always involved in one way or another with such conflicts?

Maybe the rest of the world are countries that are contentious, belligerent and enjoying bickering and war. Maybe they are foolish and cannot establish good neighbourly relations. Or maybe there are some other reasons.

And now we have the Americans, in the form of Hillary Clinton, working so hard, flying everywhere, trying to prevent these flash points from bursting into flames. She and the Americans are really the angels, and the saviours of the quarrelsome Asians. Without the Americans, these countries would have gone to war many times over.

In another way, the Americans are like a dog owner with several dogs on leash. Every now and then the dog owner would release the dogs and let them go people chasing. Then they would pull back the leash and those being chased by the dogs would be so grateful that someone is there to control the dogs. The dog owner is the good guy.

Myth 231: The Inclusive Myth

An inclusive society was broached as a national policy only quite recently, perhaps during the last election or the one earlier.  When inclusiveness became a national policy, it was like an acknowledgement that exclusiveness was being practised before. So there is a change now, to include all Sinkies as one people, no alienation, no one is left behind.

For how long and how many people were excluded by govt policies and in what areas are difficult to account for. This morning’s paper confirmed that 4 groups of citizens have been excluded and fell victims to govt policies in public housing. But only 3 groups were mentioned and the fourth group is conveniently not spoken of and would probably be left out again, excluded in an inclusive society when no one is left behind, except this group.

For the mismanagement of the public housing policies that victimised many citizens financially and in a way also the fate of baby making and TFR, 4 groups of people were not eligible to buy HDB flats on the false justification that the supply was not enough. The real reason for the shortage is not building enough. But the daft Sinkies ended up fighting against each other for priority and seeing other groups joining the queue as their enemies. They are so daft that they would not think or could not think, and would not see that the real culprit for not building enough public flats for the people is not the demand but the supply. And they blamed themselves, the buyers, and accused each other, and to exclude others from the queue to protect their own interests and priority.

The 3 groups identified as victims of systemic discrimination are, ‘those who have never married, single parents and those married to foreigners’. The fourth group is silent and would remain as the victims of a system that bragged about inclusiveness but excluded them. The pain is greater when foreigners turned new citizens are favoured against them. Who make up this group?

How could a govt policy exclude single parents from buying HDB flats and did not think it is nasty? It really describes the kind of people formulating such policy, totally devoid of compassion. Are the single parent families not human beans and need a place to stay as well? Do they have any alternative if they could not buy HDB flats? Imagine how long this group has been leading their lives like lepers? They have been written off, no one wants to know of their plight till now. Can our caring govt be so uncaring?

The same kind of inhuman touch applies to those who are married to foreigners. They too need a place to stay. For the family to be half citizen, there could always be a formula to differentiate the level of subsidies and this need not be the same as citizens, but they must have a chance to buy a flat to stay. They can’t camp at the beach or Vivian will come visiting.

The singles may see a reprieve. But it may not be much of a reprieve at the end of the day. Don’t forget that there is a $10k income ceiling in place for households. Would this mean singles can qualify if his/her income is $5k? And quite a big number of these singles are professionals and high income earners, due partly because of their jobs and partly because they cannot buy when younger when income was lower. Many could still be excluded by the income ceiling like those newly married couples who married late and ended with higher income that kicked them out of the system.

Nobody, single or married couples, started work with income exceeding the $10k limit. They have to work their way up. So if they married earlier, or buy their flats earlier, they would all be eligible. But for one reason or another, definitely not their faults, they ended up with higher incomes and become victims of an inclusive myth. It was a systemic failure that would not be admitted and would likely not be put right.

Out of the 4 groups, one is forgotten, the singles will hardly be a solution, those married to foreigners who are high income earners too may still be excluded. The solutions may still be found wanting with many still excluded from the public housing scheme.

Did someone say every young married couple, first timer, will be able to buy a flat? The inclusive cry is mainly for foreigners who have become new citizens. They are the ones that benefited most at the expense of original citizens.