Not owning a car is better quality living

One of the measures introduced in the 2013 Budget that will come down hard on the people is the control of car ownership. It hits the people in two ways, higher ARF, lower loan allowed and lesser time to repay. On face value many Sinkies aspiring to own a car as a convenient mode of transport will have red faces and veins protruding from their necks. Those that really need a car for business, for ferrying little ones or ancient ones, or physically difficult ones, will be less forgiving. I am expecting a public outcry on this alone.

But putting the anger and disappointment aside, not buying a car is really a good thing. Really, trust me. Look, this is a depreciating asset that will run out of value in 10 years. It runs out faster than the 99 year HDB flats. Why pay so much for it? Further, public transportation is so cheap, convenient and efficient. There is no need for a private car.

And with the prices of cars getting only more expensive, taxi fares, even if they go up, will still be so much cheaper. There are plenty of rooms to raise taxi fares as there is a big gap between the fares here and the big cities. So enjoy the cheap taxi fares when you can before someone claims so hard to get a cab.

Actually the Govt is doing the people a big favour by discouraging those that cannot afford to buy cars not to buy one. Too expensive lah. But if you can afford it, can pay for higher ARF and put up bigger cash payments, ok lah, go for it.

Many people will be saving a lot of money for not buying cars. It is like people saving money by not going to eat in restaurant. It would be different if people don’t eat or can’t afford to eat in order to save some money. Eat they must, just like some people cannot move without cars. For such desperate cases, just too bad. Sure the Govt will empathise with them, hand over heart. No, cannot say if cannot afford cars take public transport lah. This is a cruel thing to say. Politically incorrect. By the way, with another 1.6m talented foreigners coming in, they too will need cars. Let them pay the COEs and ARF and the Govt can redistribute to the needy citizens. Good huh.

The quality of life sure will not be affected, just like living in smaller flats will not affect the quality of life as well. Think quality of life will be better as promise in the White Paper.

No support for stay at home caregivers

'AWARE calls for greater support for women who have left or stayed out of the workforce due to their caregiving responsibilities. Ministry of Manpower figures show that as many as 68 percent of women who are not in the workforce identify caregiving responsibilities as the reason why they are not doing paid work.'

Let me try to explain, but let me clarify that this is just my opinion, I am speaking in my personal capacity. I think the Govt would prefer the well educated mothers to remain in the work force to contribute to the economy and the GDP. In return they not only pay taxes, they also help to make the maid industry more vibrant, employing more maids, and more levies to be collected, not forgetting helping to pay for the mortgage of our super expensive flats and properties.

I know that having the mothers directly and personally taking care of the children is a benefit that no money can buy. Nothing beats mothercare and the love and devotion of mothers caring for their children. But we need to be practical and pragmatic. The economy needs to be lubricated and it is second best to have the maids to bring up the children. Grandparents would be good too, as caregivers.

Remember that everything is about the economy and GDP. Even having babies is for the economy and GDP. We exist not to live but to support the GDP growth so that more people can be paid handsomely.

It is preferable to have caregivers contributing to the economy than looking after babies and children. There is always the reliable and dependable maids to take over mothercare.

Belligerent Japan and the evil Empire

Tension in East and Southeast Asia is mounting with the return of the Americans and its pivot to Asia military policy. Though its official comment is to remain neutral and not to be involved in the disputes between the countries in the region, covertly it is more than obvious that the Americans were behind the rising tension by agitating and coaxing its proxies to confront China and North Korea. Japan and the Philippines have taken on a very belligerent stance against China and the North Koreans that they would otherwise be more cautious, particularly the midget Philippines.

The rest of the Asean state, with Vietnam now adopting a less hostile position, are walking on tight rope trying not to take sides and ended as pawns in the big powers’ chess board.

By far Japan is the most belligerent of the lot, even threatening to take pre emptive strike against the North Koreans like they used to do during Imperial Japan. Let’s hope they carry out the threat and let the North Koreans dispense a few nuclear bombs over Japan to mean business.

The Japanese threat is not play play. Abe repeated it in Washington when he met Obama. And very likely they have tested water with China that found it serious enough to pay a visit to Russia to get an assurance that should it happen, both Russia and China would take the side of the North Koreans. Not sure if the South Koreans would allow their historical enemy to obliterate their brothers and sisters in the North. It would be so pathetic if the South Koreans would to allow the Japanese to kill Koreans again or even join forces with the Japanese to kill their own brothers and sisters.

With regards to China, the Japanese are increasingly getting more hostile and provocative, buying out China’s islands, chasing Chinese civilian ships and aircraft and increasing its military budget to add more military ships and aircraft in the disputed area. It even made demands to China like in the 19th and 20th centuries and calling China belligerent as if it was the good boy being oppressed by China. Abe said it would not tolerate China’s attempt to take back Diaoyu Islands. This was the same kind of Japanese rhetoric in the past when they bullied China and invaded China. China and the Chinese people would not take this lying down. The truth is that Japan is still occupying Chinese territories, chasing Chinese civilian ships and arresting Chinese fishing boats.

The Japanese are doing all these with the US behind the picture, thinking that the combined force could threaten and bully the Chinese and the latter would not be able to retaliate. They still believe that the Chinese would let them run wild in China.

The Americans will conveniently fly the American defence treaties with the Japanese and the Philippines to tell the Chinese they will come in if China would to act. The Americans think the Chinese will not act.

And they blame the Chinese for raising tension and become more assertive and belligerent. The Chinese have so far only laid claims to those that are rightfully theirs, those that were seized when China was a weak country. On the other hand, young upstart like the Philippines that only became a country a few years ago wanted to lay claims to territories that the Chinese have claimed long before the name Philippines was even known.

Who are the real trouble makers, the belligerent ones? The Chinese will fight the Americans when forced to. They have done that in Korea and supported the Vietnamese risking a direct confrontation with the Americans in the Vietnam War. The Chinese even openly declared that they would defend Iran if the US launches an attack against it. They would do so if the Japanese and the Americans would dare strike North Korea. So too would the Chinese fight the Americans if they are provoked to defend their territories in the East and South China Seas. The Americans know this.

The Americans and the Japanese are playing with fire together with some Southeast Asian countries in trifling with the new China.

Poor George

'An outspoken associate professor for journalism in Nanyang Technological University (NTU) has been denied tenure, sparking an outcry and raising questions over academic freedom in Singapore.

Cardiff University professor Karin Wahl-Jorgensen tweeted said that he was denied tenure “on the grounds of quality of teaching and research”.

…Wahl-Jorgensen, who revealed that she was one of the reviewers for George’s case, said she was “outraged” at the decision not to grant him tenure, and that it could have been “because he sometimes expressed political opinions”….'

The above is quoted from Yahoo News. All I can say is poor George. At the rate it is going, our universities will be staffed by the best professors from the US and Europe. It may be another measure to strengthen the Sinkie core in the Universities, be reducing the number of Sinkies and replacing them with quality professors.

Needing more land to avoid overcrowding

We need all the reclamation and yes, going underground, to expand the space for more gracious and comfortable living. The future of Singapore is underground, the new frontier of quality living. So Sinkies, this term is finding better relevance, sinking deeper into mother earth.

‘State media is already championing the idea. In September, the Straits Times newspaper characterized underground living as the "next frontier" for Singapore. It said Singaporeans may one day "live, work and play below ground in vast, subterranean caverns that make today's underground malls look like home basements." The Building Construction Authority, which oversees a new agency responsible for surveying underground, said it could become reality by 2050.’

Actually, what is the point of land reclamation and building downwards when the new space will be eaten up immediately by 1.6m more people? If only the population can be capped at this level and more space be created, there will be more space for everyone, bigger housing, more recreational facilities, more parks and greeneries to give one a sense of space and freedom. Similarly what is the point of cramming people into concrete jungles and with patches of greens, and with each housing unit getting smaller, everyone getting smaller space, in public and in homes? The quality of life must come with space and more space to move around to run around, to allow more roads and thus more ownership of private vehicles.

Creating more space only to stuff them up with more people is not improving anything or changing anything. More sardines in more sardine cans. Is that an improvement in lessening overcrowding or quality of life? Oh, my apologies, smaller space does not mean lower quality of life if well planned, like an airconditioned dog’s kennel.