China sending its professors back to school

No, it is not another cultural revolution. China is unhappy that the academics, especially the professors, that are sitting in boardrooms as independent directors. They are ordering the professors out of the board rooms, to stop corruption. How could this be called corruption? The professors are contributing their expertise in the boardrooms and also to provide the right connections between business and the academia, for the business honchos to tap on the expertise of the professors.

The professors are not the only people banned from independent directorship. Top govt officials holding paid corporate positions in the education sector are also clamped down. The overlapping of govt/academia and business is not acceptable in the clampdown against corruption. ‘The ministry on Nov 3 ordered deans, deputy deans and managers at middle level and above to report their part time jobs, saying those who do not do so in a timely or accurate fashion will be punished based on the severity of violations.’ Bloomberg.

This is one of the things that China did not learn from Singapore. This must be the reason why Singapore is so progressive and China is not. Singapore businesses have no problem with who are their independent directors or where they come from as long as they are honest and incorruptible men and women with the right connections and expertise to add value to the companies. Perhaps this is something the Chinese did not have, honest and incorruptible men and women that can wear many hats and be independent directors and would not be accused of corruption because they are just incorruptible. Just pay them well to make sure they are not corrupt.

With the kind of pay the Chinese are paying, no wonder they have a big corruption problem. They must send more delegations to Singapore and learn from Singapore on how to keep people from falling to corruption. According to world surveys, Singapore is the least corrupt country in Asia. Just pay them not to corrupt.

The only thing good about China is that when it is clamping down on corruption, it is serious about it and big shots are also caught in the net. Xi Jinping was quoted to have said in his book that no one is immune from punishment. China still got a lot to learn.

Car free day, car lite society, healthy and happier Singapore

There were two forum letters in the ST on 5 Dec praising car free day and car lite society and how healthy and happier Singaporeans would be. The other letter wanted to make car driving more inconvenient, all for the purpose of discouraging car ownership and to encourage walking, oops, now taking public transport as a healthy and happier way of life. I can’t tell the difference between sitting in a car and in public transport except that the latter you would need to walk a short distance to the stations.

Anyway, this is the kind of Singaporeans that we should have for the future, very positive and very willing to change for the better. I can visualize what they would be thinking next to save the world and lead a healthier and leaner life. Eat less and exercise more. And they will also tell the govt to build smaller HDB flats to waste lesser of natural resources. They would probably sleep at 10pm every day to save on electricity. And they will even suggest to work less, or don’t work, to live better. Why work so hard? Living is good and people must enjoy life more instead of work and work.

Just hope they would not throw stones at people owning and driving cars to make it more inconvenience for the drivers, to encourage them to walk and stop driving. What would be the new slogan? Cars are bad, bicycles are good? Landed properties are bad, HDB flats are good, smaller HDB flats betterer? Oh, they may even say earn less good, earn lesser even better, cause no need to spend on expensive cars and big houses.

Singaporeans will soon lead a happier and healthier life without cars and without having to pay for millions to live in big houses. Teaching dogs to do silly tricks is easy. Teaching Singaporeans to think and act silly is even easier.

When would Singaporeans be shouting eat shit is good?

16,000 more BTO flats

Property prices coming down for so many months. Every month 0.5 per cent, 12 months 6 per cent already. So serious. If another 12 months, another 6 per cent, chiat lat man. Quick, tell the Minister things are getting bad. There is a property glut, must remove all the curbing measures to let property prices to rise again. Statistics showed that in the last 10 years property prices had gone up by 200 per cent leh. So how, down 6 per cent kpkb and want minister to remove all the restrictions, tiok boh.

Luckily the minister is not fooled. Build some more, building another 16,000 BTO to keep the property prices from ballooning again. I can understand this and this is good for the people except the property developers and speculators. If you just have one property living in it, it is better that your $10m property be cheaper and has lesser property tax of pay. Those sitting on $50m property but no selling, those with several properties but not selling, will not be too happy for property prices to go up and pay more property taxes.

By the way, I support the govt to build more HDB flats for the average citizens. Keep the price low so that the people really can afford them and still got some money for retirement. Imagine if we could unwind the stupidity of not building HDB flats under the last regime, we would have solved our property problems when we had 20,000 units unsold, or at least the problem would be not so serious when the influx of foreigners hit the market.

I really hope there now some serious thinking in the govt for the good of the average Singaporeans by building more HDB flats and with a little surplus so keep HDB prices within the means of the average Singaporeans to be able to afford 4 or 5rm flats, not 2 rm flats only.Think the people first, think Singaporean first policy. If the PAP can really change its policies and care for the people, starting first with housing policies, then employment policies, then CPF policies, education policies, I think they can survive and still be in power to celebrate SG100.

There is another view on why the govt is continuing with the building of 16,000 units of BTO flats. I don’t blame them for thinking on the bad side. This view said the 16,000 units and more to come would still not be enough for the 6.9m population. The govt is building for the 6.9m not to bring down HDB prices and the cost of living. And the new MRT lines would still lead to jams and breakdowns as the capacity would not be enough. If this view is true, then the leopard really cannot change its spots.

Now which view is the real one? Who do you think?

Housing in Singapore is affordable!

Really, housing in Singapore is really affordable. The HDB and the govt have been saying this almost everyday. In 2010, Mah Bow Tan said that ‘more than 80 per cent’ of new flat buyers in the same scenario, ie, ‘were repaying their housing loans using their CPF and did not have to fork out cash’. How to disagree when the govt and then minister for housing said so?  Housing is affordable. It depends on who is saying and using what numbers, and who you want to believe.

Then why are the property professionals saying ‘what they would like to see from the authorities is more data, such as the number of years needed for households to pay off their flats, or the ratio of the flat’s price to household income tracked over a period of time.’ What these professionals are saying is that they don’t believe in what the govt and the minister said. And the reason is simple, so simple. It depends on so many things that are so hazy and subjective that anyone can claim anything they want by nitpicking on what they want to use as the data.

Let me point out a few misleading facts. The above comments about affordability, 80 percent paying using CPF and not having to touch cash, therefore affordable? And another number quoted is that ‘they are using a quarter of their monthly income on average to repay their housing loans’. This is below the international affordability benchmarks of 30 to 35 percent. Don’t forget, the CPF contribution is 17 + 20  percent! Using a $2000 monthly income, the total is $340 +$400 = $740 or 37 per cent if one is using all his monthly CPF contribution. What about those having to top up with cash? The bottom line is 37%. How did they get the number of 25 per cent or a quarter of their income? Ok, maybe got to deduct for Medisave etc.

And income is household income, not individual or one income. And the affordability is about HDB flat at the bottom, 2rm or 3rm flats. What about bigger flats, what about private properties, 3m, 30m, 50m? Should Singaporeans be happy and contented that 2rm flats are affordable?

What about retirement? How much is left for retirement after paying for affordable 2rm HDB flats? What about the number of years to repay? If one needs 30 years to repay, how many years left for one to save for retirement?  In reality, many would be paying and paying for their entire life as they are not stopping at the first HDB flat. This means no time to save for retirement, nothing much left for retirement.

Can anyone ask why until today, when everyone has been kpkbing about housing affordability, there is still no agreement as to what is the acceptable formula to measure affordability? Simple, because everyone wants to use data to suit his agenda to tell the things he wants the people to know. In other words the truth is selective truth, biased truth, distorted truth, nothing but the truth.

Some analysts are suggesting using the mid range of the average Singaporeans with $3k or $4k household income and the price of a 4 rm flat to be used as the average data for the average Singaporean, not the data of the bottom feeders as the national data. Or there could be different sets of data, for the 2rm, 3 and 4 rm, 5rm and above, private condos and landed properties to show the different grades of affordability.

Using a figure, those of the lowest income and with govt subsidies and grants, is not a fair measure of affordability. Who is kidding who? Is this a case of statistics lying or people lying?

Did anyone say honest men don't lie? 

Why school is written as skool?

Has anyone wonder why skool is the new word for school? I think it is cute, just like writing govt as garment and yew think everyone will appreciate the creativity of the word. My First Skool must be the first step to creativity. To promote creativity, to be different like yew know ya, everything goes. If our skools will progress along this line we will have many Steve Jobs and Bill Gates or Zuckerbergs in the future, provided no one will snuff out this creativity streak in the young. I am not going to challenge the professional educators on why this is a good thing or a bad thing.

The young minds are innocent and impressionable and skool would be in their vocabularly for life. What about the adults who would view things differently, maybe cynically. Some are already commenting that this is a Freudian slip, that our schools are really nothing but skools. They are not schools any more but this new thing called skool and not sure what it means or what it is doing.

What is a skool and what is it supposed to produce, Stool or R2D2? R2D2 is famous for being a mobile storehouse for information and data. Not sure if it is programmed to think, but it sure is a remarkable robot that is a super encyclopedia. Whatever that is fed into R2D2 will come out like stool, freely and smoothly, not a word or a comma missing.

Would our schools be transformed over time, into skools as a natural process? What do yew think?