Is Sinkieland a cheap third world joint?

Is Sinkieland a first world city or a third world joint? Are people and companies coming here because they see value in this island that could make their investments worthwhile as a package or just a cheap joint for low cost industries?

The picture painted is that this is a first world city where the talents of the world would like to be. And from the statistics on the huge influx of foreigners into the city to work, to become PR or citizens, this must be a choice place to be in. Surveys by international agencies also supported this view that Sinkieland is top choice for expats living and working.

If the finding is real, the city need not worry about companies setting up operations here and threatening to leave if foreign labour or half baked talents are not available. The city should be able to pick and choose and tell those companies that think low cost labour consisting of foreigners is the comparative advantage to set up operations elsewhere. But if we are being deceived and the reality is that this is another shit hole that no companies would want to locate here unless they can bring in third world cheap talents, then we have a serious problem to think about.

What is the truth? Is the city being held ransom by cheap labour intensive companies or really a choice destination, with good infrastructure, rule of law, ease to do business etc as the trump cards that put low cost labour as irrelevant?

One of the truths is that the high cost of operations is at the top and high rentals. Thus anything below top management has to be cheap. This makes sense to recruit more cheap foreigners to fill the ranks. And the reports that Sinkies are a minority in many foreign owned companies here is true. What choice do Sinkies have?

Are sinkies prepared to be a minority in the workplace eventually in the little island they called home? And not to forget, foreigners depressed wages but cost housing prices to go up, as well as cost of living. They are tearing away at the heart of Sinkies basic concerns.

Incestuous relationship and self gratification

The natives of Sin should stand up to applaud Prof Tommy Koh for his vocal support to the lonely voice of Prof Lim Chong Yah in his call for narrowing the income gap and inequality in our society. And thank the ST for publishing his view on this. One or two individuals, no matter how distinguished, could not make any ground against a pack of hyenas. There is an urgent need for the intellectuals with a conscience to stand together to make the voice heard.

In his article in the ST today, Tommy Koh was hitting hard by quoting British PM David Cameroon’s comment about incestuous relationship in high places, ‘I scratch your back, you scratch mine’ in the UK. Among the pseudo elite who are there to protect each other’s interest and pocket, there is a race to pay one another as much as they could. This kind of self gratification or in colloquial terminology, ‘pah chiu cheng’ is getting so serious and prevalent that it has become a norm. The elite thought nothing of it, that it is their right of passage to richness and instant gratification.

The pseudo elite are not blind or stupid. They knew exactly what they were doing, selective objectivity. Tommy Koh quoted the choice of using the flawed American model to pay themselves crazy instead of the more conservative Japanese model when the loot is much smaller. It is so glaring that the American model is running down the American and the world economy, but the pseudo elite are turning a blind eye to the dire consequences awaiting. They refuse to acknowledge or discuss the flaws of the system as long as they can continue to ‘pah chiu cheng’ and have a good time at the expense of the other extreme end of the social economic spectrum.

Tommy ended his article by saying, ‘In conclusion, I wish to thank Prof Lim for being our moral conscience. He has reminded us that our mission is to achieve growth with equity. Our mission is to build a fair and prosperous Singapore. What we have achieved so far is a prosperous but unfair society. Prof Lim has warned us that we have deviated from our original path and that we are dangerously close to a point when our inequality could adversely affect our cohesion and harmony.’

Thank you Tommy. To those elite with a conscience, Tommy added, ‘those at the top, should, however, reflect deeply on Prof Lim’s proposal and on their responsibility to society.’

Unfortunately many are busily trapped in the act of ‘pah chiu cheng’ and have no time to reflect and simply shoot off their hips at the proposal of Lim Chong Yah, without taking their attention off their act of self gratification for a moment. Just wait for the hyenas screaming in chorus to attack Tommy this time.

I don’t want to be a cab driver

Official media are written by paid professionals who carefully checked and verified their facts before printing. They even have editors and proof readers to go through their writings before appearing in prints. The quality and credibility of official media as far as factual reporting is concerned is unquestionable. Who would believe that NYT or Washington Post or CNN or Foxy News etc would print half truths or misleading articles to con their readers? No, they are very respectable media according to their believers and followers.

I was so convinced that a cab driver can earn $7000 per month less cost, which means his gross income was likely to be more than $10k, that I wanted to upgrade to become a cab driver. I am so lucky that I also read the unprofessional media written by unpaid and unprofessional bloggers. They are saying that this $7000 cab driver is a fake. Now I have to choose to believe the unprofessional whose information, not news, seems to be more reliable.

I am now changing my mind. I am not going to be a cab driver. I was almost taken in by a temporary or occasional truth. I am so gullible. Thank God there is the social media to counter check to find out the truth before I make a grave mistake with my career change.

The flexible truth

We have all been convinced that 30% of household income is the reference for affordable housing. What does this number really mean? To begin with, household income can be one income family, two incomes or several income family. This part is really very flexible and can be anything. The problem with the number of income in a family is that it is not a certainty and can vary over time. But the house/flat, when bought, the amount to be repaid in a 30 year mortgage is inflexible and will remain the same. So one day it is affordable within the definition of 30%, the next day could be very affordable or very unaffordable.

When breaks up, when children got married and left the family unit, the affordability reference can change drastically. Same as when a household loses one or more incomes. The affordability can become meaningless.

The other issue of this affordability is the rubber band of time. To be stretched to 30 years, 50 years or 100 years to be affordable is a playing of rubber time. This kind of interpretation of affordability is treacherous and deceiving and can be adverse to the home buyers.

What about the type of housing, rental or bought, 30 year lease, 60 year or 99 year lease, or freehold? Comparing a 99 year lease with freehold and using the same yardstick of 30% household income surely would make the meaning quite different. When a 30% income is for the purchase of a freehold property, and applying it to a 99 year leasehold, it is like comparing apple with orange.

Would the type of properties or size of properties matter in this affordable formula? 30% to buy a 1000 sq ft unit and a 500 sq ft unit surely must be quite different as the quality of living condition will be affected. To make this clearer, look at yesteryears fresh graduate spending 30% of his income for a landed property and today’s graduate spending an equivalent percentage to buy a 99 year leasehold shoebox flat. It is affordable in both cases, but are they the same?

This flexible truth is now being waved daily to tell the Sinkies that housing is affordable. Is this kind of truth acceptable and responsible? What kind of credibility is the person spouting this kind of reasoning? Is his or her intent honest, sincere and well meaning?

The testimony of St George

The ST gave George Yeo half a page of coverage and a great and adorable photo as dessert. George has put on weight, his hair is growing and getting darker. He is not only looking younger, he is looking more relax and happy, yes, genuinely happy. Life must be good for George in the private sector. His fallen from grace could be like the blinding of Paul to help him see the truth. At worst, George is now spared from the daily curses of ungrateful citizens.

The interview and George’s comments were very interesting. The more interesting part is not what he said but what he did not say. For instance he said, ‘When I look back on my various portfolios, there were opportunities to do good.’ He did not say whether he seized those opportunities or he did not. Later he added that he had more freedom now, and less of that constant pressure.

On the issue of credibility he added, ‘In the old days you’re protected by ritual, by hypocrisy, sometimes by ignorance. Today, it’s no longer possible. If a picture is too perfect, you know it can’t be real.’ Wow, in these few words he said so much. Great George!

How could people be protected by hypocrisy and ignorance? This is very interesting. Can hypocrisy really protect anyone? Or can anyone think he can be protected by ignorance? The part about being too perfect is just too much to be true. It is like the picture perfect Avatar Garden, so perfect, and yes, how real is it?

Singapore as the perfect city of growth and development is just perfect, economic growth every year, like 15%, a world record, property prices can only go up, the people all becoming millionaires, salary can only go up to make sure that all the properties are affordable and the people will have so much money in their CPF to live a rich and happy life in retirement when they are 100. Everything is so perfect.

It is great to read George Yeo in the ST in such a favourable mood.