TR EMERITUS

I refer to the articles, "Nature groups oppose zoning of Dover Forest in Ulu Pandan for residential use - The Straits Times, 17 January 2021), "Dover Forest To Make Way For Residential Development, Netizen Starts Petition To Reconsider Decision" and "Ulu Pandan BTO flats in 2021: Prices + What to Expect". It is saddening to hear of yet another green space about to be turned into a concrete jungle, after Clementi Forest recently; we have already lost the Tengah forest to development. I must remind the government that these green spaces are considered "Commons" that belong to (and to be enjoyed by) the citizens and subsequent generations. We do not want them to be cleared to make way for HDB and then, maybe 30-40 years down the road, these HDB flats are SERSed and land sold to private developers for private housing (effectively turning parks meant for public enjoyment into private condominiums for use by these select few residents), as has happened before - eg HDB flats in Sims Drive, blocks 56/57 etc now becoming private condominiums Penrose and Sims Urban Oasis. (I am sure no one in the government can definitely confirm the same with the upcoming HDB flats in the Dover and Clementi forests eventually turning into private condominiums will never happen?) We need to be reminded that these HDB lands in Geylang/Sims Drive were compulsorily acquired from private owners back in the 60s/70s for a song in the name of "National Development" (no issue with that for a sacrificial national cause as my family's freehold land in Geylang was so acquired (@ < S$1 psf) for this purpose). But if these public parks like Tengah, Clementi, Dover, etc eventually end up being turned into private condominiums (like Penrose or Sims Urban Oasis in Sims Drive, for example) for the enjoyment of only few private residents, then a serious rethink is necessary. In this regard, perhaps the government can consider compulsorily acquiring private landed housing at market rates (eg those in Districts 9/10/11, where the future Ulu Panda HDB BTO flats will come up in D10 after the Dover forest has been cleared) to be used for public housing, or "mixed land use... building upwards" suggested by Professor Tay Kheng Soon (see article below), instead of clearing the precious green public spaces? I understand many areas have low plot ratios of 1.4 are due to the surrounding landed housing, for "aesthetic reasons", hence the restriction to only low rise housing near these landed houses? I think it is high time the owners of "inefficient land use" low rise/low density landed housing do their "national service" (but without the sacrifice of low acquisition compensation suffered by those land owners in the 60s/70s). Jeff P.S. Additionally, the government can also consider converting low density large tracks of land patronized by only a small select group (eg golf courses?) to high rise, high density housing instead? Or roads serving few residents?      Read More →

First it was the hawker centres as a cultural heritage and now a diploma in “hawkerpreneurship”. There are many things wrong in this framing of what was a social economic response during difficult economic environment when jobs were scarce. Let me, as a son of hawker correct the vision before those ministers and members of parliament with humble beginning muddled it further. In the 60s when job was scarce and when most the population were not highly educated (those of my parents’ generation mostly had only a few years of primary school education if any at all), to survive in a city, where agriculture land were depleted to facilitate commerce, industries and to house a growing population, hawkering was to many the only option. Hawkering was to sell one’s wares on the streets to a population with very little disposable income. Price of your goods must be cheap because the average worker earned very little (about $150 a month). To be a street vendor, the first challenge was to decide what is your trade. Mostly, people did not have the resources to obtain goods to peddle. So, grandmother culinary skill became the most important “intellectual property” that one can offer. Hawkering is often the only option as there was no need for consideration of rent. The same phenomenon as squatting because one cannot afford the rent. Below is the story of my humble beginning. I declare that I have no intention to stand for election and do not have to colour my curriculum vitae: I moved into a second generation “one-room” flat in Toa Payoh at Lorong 5 in 1968. My mother had to resort to hawkering to put food on the table and send 4 children to school. Fortunately for us, mother learned how to make “soon kueh” from grandma. The one room flat became the production floor. At 10, I became a door-to-door sales manager dragging and managing my younger sister who is two years younger than me. Next to our block of flats was a huge carpark. It was mostly empty as not many people could afford to drive then. My mother was enterprising enough to find a plank and two stools to create a make-shift stall selling breakfast and packaged lunch for workers on their way to work. Make shift was important because it limited the damage and loss when “tee-gu” came to raid. It is because we paid no rent, we were able to offer soon kueh at 15 cent each. With 30% being cost of the supplies and utilities, 70% of the sales from the best soon kueh in Toa Payoh went to put food on the table for a family of 8 and send six children to school. At first there were only a few stalls, within weeks it became the market of the precinct. Toa Payoh estate was newly established and few markets were built. A number for cooked food stalls were built within the precinct. My mother was given the choice of renting a unit. It was like striking lottery. Rent of the unit was affordable ($25 per month, work out to be about 3% of our total sales). The unit came with water and gas piped-in and sufficient space (about 25 square metre) for the production of “soon kueh”. We could even acquire an electric mortar to ensure the quality of rice milk (basic ingredient of soon kueh) and reduce cost of production. This is the birth of “hawker centre” in Singapore. Toa Payoh then was a new HDB township, most of the residents were young families, the higher end flats were the three-room flats (about 60 square metre). Salaries were low. Singapore was positioned as a cheap labour and fast industrializing city. Hawker food is not a cultural alfresco lifestyle but an essential cheap source of meal for everyone. If two stalls were selling the same thing and one of them priced its food at 5 cents more, it would certainly suffer from a drop in business. We were able to sell “soon kueh” at 15 cent a piece. Rent did go up but it was gradual over many years. I remember we were able to keep price at 20 cents even when rent went up multiple folds to $155. We did not aspire to drive a Mercedes but were able to buy a motor cycle with a side wagon, so that we could source for supplies at wholesale price to reduce cost. Our electric mortar became handy as it could provide grinding as a side service. Fast forward 50 years, today one can rent space at the coffee shop or bid for a vacant lot in the hawker centre, typically the rent is between $3,000 to $6,000 a month. In the HDB heartland, if one is to set up a “char kway teow” stall, your price for each plate would be about $3.50 because most of your customer would not want to pay beyond that price (many of them could not afford). Just do the maths, the first 40 plates of your “char kway teow” would go to rent. Typically, 35% to 50% of sales goes to rent. About another 30% goes to supplies and utilities. The labour component only harness about 20% to 30%. This is the elephant in the room, not entrepreneurship or diploma. If our labour can provide higher yield, there is no shortage of takers and more pride and innovations will ensue. A $1000 rebate in rent goes straight into the bottom line of the hawker, this itself would be a game changer. Honestly, ask yourself: who would want to send their children to the polytechnic and ITE for a diploma in “hawkerprenuership”, only to slog for 12 to 14 hours a day to make less than $1500 a month???   Tan Tee Seng      Read More →

K. Shanmugam disclosed that between 2017 to 2019, there were 6988 cases of sexual assault, rape, sexual assault by penetration, outrage of modesty etc involving children and vulnerable persons. Yes, in those 3 years alone, there were 6988 sex crimes in Singapore. On average, there were 2329 cases yearly, 194 cases monthly or about 6.5 cases every single day. I ask how many more unreported and unknown cases are out there? Although these are very bad and shocking news, still, I want to put on record thanking Minister Shanmugam for his candid sharing. Even though not all of those crimes were committed by Singaporeans, still, in our case, almost all of our citizens are educated and I for one have never believed that mere formal education makes people better human beings. What is worst in our case is MOE's neglect of sustainable moral education in our schools over the years. To me, to believe otherwise is stupidity and naivety of a very high level. So, what went wrong with our society? I believe that many such crimes were not committed at the spur of a moment but deliberate, calculated and exploitative in nature. Our female population, whether students, mentally challenged individuals, working adults or stepchildren etc deserve much better protection and 6988 cases of sex crimes over a 3 year period definitely suggest that this pap government has failed to adequately protect them. Sex crimes come in all shapes and sizes. I have a few suggestions. 1) I would like to see public education and publicity seriously and sustainably stepped up to one, raise public awareness and two, educate and encourage our woman population to report any sexual violations because hesitation will only embolden the offenders even more in their behaviours and by the same token, false reporting must also be met with equally severe consequences. 2) Women have a part to play too, eg, dress to overly expose themselves or getting carried away with friends and gotten drunk must count in judicial deliberation. 3) I would like to see our laws dealing with such crimes be reviewed as soon as possible with punishments much enhanced to make canning mandatory as much as possible and public shaming the offenders as much as possible too. Also, never say never to chemical castration as well. In fact, now that such grim numbers have been made public, everybody has a part to play and it is in everybody's interest to do his/her part. Together, we can and we will make a difference to ensure a safer society and country for all, especially our women folk. I do not wish the next victim to be anybody's mother or daughter or sister or wife or neighbour or even somebody we don't know. Think.   Simon Lim      Read More →