TR EMERITUS

作者：吴启聪2010-05-04 隨著世界新闻自由日降临，马来西亚新闻自由排名被排在第141位，名列新闻自由最低的32%国家之一，试问身为马来西亚人民的我们，应该做何感想？也许我们唯一可以感到欣慰的是，比我们更为发展进步的邻国新加坡，其新闻自由排名竟然还落在我们之后。 马来西亚的新闻自由，经歷了一场308海啸后，可以说已经取得很大的进步，然而仅此程度还是远远不够的。当政者必须知晓一个道理，处於一个资讯无界限的年代，还有甚么是在网上找不到的呢？新闻自由亦是同样道理，当政者若以为单凭打压新闻自由，就可以阻扰人民获取资讯，其实当政者不但不可能如愿，甚至隨时还会招致反效果。 然而，虽然平面媒体的新闻自由已经露出曙光，可我们的传统电子媒体，尤其是电视台，似乎还未准备开放空间予在野党。电视台的政治立场基本上还是相当保守，虽然不至於彻底沦为当政者的代言工具，但在野党想要衝破电视台这一关卡，还是不容易。其实，若换另外一个角度思考，如果当政者愿意开放电视台的空间予在野党，这何尝不是促进一场良性竞爭的机会？ 今日的民联，一直以来都缺乏一个有力的宣传平台，能够向人民阐述他们的治国理念。单凭平面媒体，其感染力是不足够的，而民联各成员党似乎一直都只停留在全国巡迴演说的阶段。至今，人民或许可以大概瞭解民联3党各自的政治理念，然而对於民联统一的治国方针，民眾似乎都还模糊不清。笔者建议，电视台应该给予民联机会，让民联3党领袖站在同一个台上，通过电视节目，向全国千千万万人民阐述民联针对政经文教的政策制定，所要走的统一路线。人民最为关注的，莫过於民联执政过后，打算以甚么方式来处理“种族政策”问题，这一点肯定是我们华社最想瞭解的大事。 对於当政者来说，开放电视台的空间予在野党，不但凸显自己开明的一面，也好让人民能够彻底瞭解在野党的治国理念，就好像亲身体验当政者的施政方针一样。没有良性的竞爭，当政者永远不会进步，反而被冠上禁錮新闻自由的骂名，徒然增加民怨，促使选民把怨气发泄在选票上，到时更得不偿失。 来源：《星洲日报》  Read More →

Only in Singapore do we elect Members of Parliament who seem more occupied with addressing the needs of foreigners rather than our own. Marine Parade GRC MP Seah Kian Peng said more needs to be done to help new immigrants 'work with the old team and feel a part of us'. 'First, we need to make sure that they are called new Singaporeans rather than new migrants. They are not even new migrants - they are an old hand at migrating, and want a new life. They want to settle down and to make Singapore a new home,' said Mr Seah in his speech during the debate on the 2010 Budget Statement on Wednesday. Mr Seah also suggested that "men who become new citizens should be called up for NSmen duties": This could be in the form of a short 30-day induction to Basic Military Training in the Singapore Armed Forces, he said. 'We teach them to use rifles, fire weapons, basic physical fitness, or we put them into civil defence training where they could learn rescue techniques. 'Civil defence, too, is part of total defence and provides a vital part of Singapore's interior strength.' Let me be clear: I am not disputing the policies he suggested, merely the fact that he is showing less concern for the constituents who elected him. I have actually been thinking about the policy for integrating foreigners, but that will be discussed in another post. This perhaps is one of the bigger issues surrounding the elections of GRCs; allowing a weak candidate to be elected on the strength of a popular former Prime Minister in this case. But Mr Seah can't hold a candle to Mr Ong Ah Heng, who is the MP for Nee Soon Central, a single-seat constituency. "I know of one family who complain the cleaners in their precinct are lazy and too old. They don't want local workers who are old, they want young foreign workers. To satisfy the demand, I changed the local workers to foreign workers. Foreign workers are not a burden to us. Their presence here is not negative. Without foreign workers, things will be worse," he said. Is Mr Ong implying that local older workers are the burden instead? This goes far beyond inarticulate speech or political incorrectness. This is an insult to the elderly who have built this nation on the back of their hard work. This reflects the hubris that Mr Ong, a 66-year old himself, has uncoyingly betrayed. In one broad stroke, he painted the elderly as lazy and unproductive and patted himself on the back for his display of ruthlessness. He is proud of it. Neither Mr Ong nor Mr Seah deserve a seat in Parliament, and yet we put them there either because we don't have a choice or because we did not care. A case could be made for Mr Seah, as the policies he suggested merit further discussion, although in their current forms they are half-hearted measures that appear to be aimed at populist sentiments. And until he is reassigned to another ward, I expect Mr Goh Chok Tong's popularity will keep him in his seat. There is no case to be made for Mr Ong. If we go by his logic, he should be the first one to be replaced. All 14,211 of you who voted for this clown should be ashamed, and you should be forewarned: he'll fire you without batting an eyelid. That is how much he 'cares'.   Callan Tham  Read More →

I refer to Miss Chua Mui Hong’s article Straits Times Singapore, 20 Apr, 2010, Tuesday titled Property: Do something drastic or do nothing? (http://www.asiaone.com/Business/My%2BMoney/Property/Story/A1Story20100420-211365.html)   Jowett & O'Donnell defines “propaganda” like this: "Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist."   Propaganda generally appeals to emotion, not intellect and Miss Chua’s article does just that.  The hypocrisy of the article defies comprehension.  There is a huge outcry over the high HDB prices and Miss Chua says this: “…..in managing the property market…..its handling has been a lot more right than wrong.”   It is amply clear that Mui Hong is justifying errors made by the Government and in particular Mr. Mah Bow Tan.    Much has been written about the inability of Singapore to pay high prices for their HDB flats especially the young and I do not wish to belabour the point.  But here are some facts Temasek Reader may wish to ponder over:   Population of Singapore:   The city state is also the second most crowded country in the world after Monaco.   It is the 4th wealthiest country in the world in terms of GDP (PPP) per capita.    Singapore has the highest percentage of foreigners in the world. (36%) and foreigners make up 50% of the service sector in Singapore   In June 2009, the transient group accounted for about 1.25 million out of a total population in Singapore of about 5 million. -  WKS.   From 2004 to 2009, the non-resident population grew from about 750,000 to 1.25 million. - WKS   Singapore granted 59,500 PRs and 19,900 citizenships for the whole of 2009, as compared with 79,200 PRs and 20,500 citizenships in 2008. - WKS “….. we need 60,000 babies….. But we only have about 37,000 babies per year….. we need about 20,000 new citizens in order to keep our citizen core." - WKS Private Properties   In Singapore, private property serves just 16.5 per cent of the population and many Singaporeans think that should be left relatively free or with minimal government intervention.  The majority of Singaporeans are not in this league meant for foreigners and the super rich.    To give readers an idea of the private housing market in Singapore as compared to other cities, here are the average prices in 4th. Quarter of 2009:   Monaco             S$4,300 – 5,900 per sq ft London             S$3,600 – 4,400 psf Paris                 S$2,400 – 3,300 psf Hong Kong        S$2,000 – 2,500 psf Sydney             S$1,700 – 2,300 psf Tokyo               S$1,600 – 2,200 psf Shanghai           S$500 – 700 psf   About CPF   The CPF is a compulsory social security savings plan which aims to provide working Singaporeans with some security in their old age. It is administered as a statutory board under the Ministry of Manpower.   Home owners were encouraged to use their CPF savings to pay for the apartments. Government encouragement of apartment ownership was both an economic and a "nation building" goal because individual ownership would ultimately pay for the program while giving citizens a "stake in Singapore."   The board also provided estate management services and played an active role in promoting the advancement of construction technology.   As one of the country's major domestic industries, housing construction served as an important economic pump primer.   The surge in property prices was caused by the CPF liberalisation (according to this research paper[Link]. The housing loans to GNP ratio went up from 0.1 in 1980 to a whopping 0.49 in 1997 [Link]- a 500% jump!  So CPF was emptied for purpose of buying homes and households became highly indebted - now housing becomes intertwined with retirement.   About HDB   From 1960 to the early 1970 the HDB provided “low-cost state-built housing” for the squatters and resettlement residents.   From 1974 to 1982, the HDB built and marketed middle-income apartments, an activity which became a function of the board after 1982.   By 1988 the Housing Development Board was providing housing and related facilities for 88 percent of Singaporeans, or some 2.3 million people   Starting with a capital expenditure of S$10 million in 1960, the Housing and Development Board's annual capital expenditures rose to about S$4 billion by 1985.   Some recent developments   In 1999, at the suggestion of Mr. Goh Chok Tong, the HDB started building executive condominiums aimed at Singaporeans who do not want a HDB flat but might find private property too expensive.   The Build To Order of flat allocation that offers flexibility in timing and location for owners buying a new HDB flats was introduced.  Tender for construction will be called only when 65~70% or more have been booked. The waiting time for new flat applicants would likely be 4 years or less.   All BTO projects are designed by Surbana Corporation previously known as HDB Corporation.  Due to the success of BTO projects, the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) was launched for private developers to design and build in good locality public housing under HDB rules.  Because of the success of both the BTO and DBSS schemes due to the demand*, HDB stopped building smaller and cheaper flats citing poor demand.    * The success was more demand driven by due to the presence of the large of foreigners.    Mr. Mah Bow Tan has this mistaken notion that public housing should be merged into the private housing and has begun taking steps in this direction.  He intends to transform HDB into a private developer owned by the Government. For this he has set up Subana Corp. and implemented the DBSS scheme.    Mr. Mah (and other Government leaders) has been saying that property prices are still “affordable” is pure baloney. The hypocrisy of this thinking defies comprehension.   3 reasons why Singaporeans feel that they no longer can afford HDB flats   1.   Even though 85% of Singaporeans live in public housing i.e. HDB flats, very few are below the poverty line.   If one refers to the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey study of the affordability of private housing in first world developed countries, one would soon realize that public housing in Singapore costs more than private housing in the developed countries after currency conversion.  Taking into account the standard of living, Singaporeans are already overpaying for their housing.   2.       The wages are simply too low – as borne out by UBS Bank UBS annual study titled Prices & Earnings. The 2009 publication revealed that Singapore had slipped from a rank of 40 out of 71 cities to 50 out of 73 cities when the average domestic purchasing power parity (PPP) was measured.  With more foreigners competing for jobs, the wages are likely to be depressed further.   3.       Singaporeans have low Average Propensity to Consume (APC) which is the percentage of income people desire to spend. Professor Tilak Abeysinghe of NUS and Asst Prof Keen Meng Choy of NTU performed a regression analysis to determine the causes of falling domestic consumption in Singapore.  The result?  They concluded that rising housing prices in Singapore was a key factor in the rapid decline of the average propensity to consume  in Singapore:   “Even the most affordable public apartments in Singapore could cost 5–10 times the average annual household income while car prices stand as the highest in the world.” Prof. Tilak Abeysinghe of NUS and Asst Prof. Keen Meng Choy of NTU   (Temasek Review readers – please see this very good article by Keith Yip http://keithyip.com/?s=housing+affordability+index&x=0&y=0 for better understanding of the affordability issue).   All three above three reasons are intertwined.  Although Singapore is the 4th wealthiest country in the world in terms of GDP (PPP) per capita, Singaporeans are already so tied up with their housing loans that they have little ability to spend or save.  They are already slaves to their cars and properties and indirectly slaves to the Government.    A reader posted this in the Temasek Review: “My mother bought a 3-room HDB flat in Balam Rd in 1965 at $6,000 during the Lim Kim San era. Today it costs $200,000 in Mah Boh Tan era. Over a period of 45 years, it increased 2,200%. Did our income increased by 2,200%?”   Our public housing is the most expensive in the world and it causes Singaporean households to be deep in debt putting them at risk.  In late 2008, 8% of HDB loans were in default even before the recession started [Link:HDB Mortgage Defaults Up 33,000 in October].   Transparency   The Government has to be transparent about the cost of land, infrastructure cost, construction cost and maintenance cost.  The price increases of HDB flat (especially in the secondary or re-sale market) is far greater rate than the cost of land and construction of new dwellings.   Singaporeans do understand that prices of flat must be continually must adjusted upwards for the following reasons:   As population increases so does the demand for new supply of dwellings.    The problem is further compounded the change in living preferences and with smaller families this has resulted in a fall in household total income.    Fewer people per household means the supply of more housing units are needed.   This can only be brought about through newer developments usually on large pieces of cleared land or estates.  A major requirement is the cost of new infrastructure or upgrading and extension of the existing infrastructure.  Therefore the cost of supplying new land will rise.   Is there a housing bubble? A real estate bubble or property bubble (or housing bubble for residential markets) is a type of economic bubble that occurs periodically in local or global real estate markets. It is characterized by rapid increases in valuations of real property such as housing until they reach unsustainable levels relative to incomes and other economic elements, followed by a reduction in price levels.   Wiki: “The subprime mortgage crisis is an ongoing real estate crisis and financial crisis triggered by a dramatic rise in mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures in the United States.”   Readers should read this article as well to better understanding of the sub-prime mortgage crisis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis.   Businessweek 20 April 2010: China Tightens Rules on Uncompleted Homes Sales - China ordered developers not to take deposits for sales of uncompleted apartments without proper approval and barred them from charging “abnormally high” prices, stepping up efforts to prevent a property bubble.   The high prices of the HDB flat will culminate in a property bubble.    The affordability of flats in Singapore   Without going into the Housing Affordability Index and discussing the median income or the “composition-adjusted” median house prices (these indices can be quite complex and difficult to comprehend), we ask ourselves these simple basic questions: ·         Have prices of HDB flats increased and have the increases been too steep?  ·         Have your family incomes increased? ·         Has the family purchasing power increased? ·         Is it now more difficult for the typical family to purchase and finance a HDB property? ·         The interest rate is now at an all time low – about 2%.  Can your family afford to pay the mortgage when it goes up to say 8%?  During the Asian crisis, housing loan interest rates went up to 8% i.e. if you have a housing loan of $500K you will be paying $40K a year or $3.3K a month on interest along without reduction in principal. ·         A public housing program that requires buyers to take up 30 year mortgages to afford the month installments puts Singaporeans at risk and puts a heavy burden on the households.  Do you want to be burdened with a 30 year loan? ·         High HDB prices only mean more revenue to the Government.  Do you agree that the Government should receive additional revenue from the sale of HDB flats to Singaporeans? ·         ERA’s resale transactions show that PR buyers make up some 40 per cent compared to 20 per cent three years ago. They typically buy 3- or 4-room flats and may upgrade to 5-room flats once they obtain their citizenships.  Should PRs be allowed to buy HDB flats even in the re-sale market and cause the high prices?    Over 85% of Singaporeans HDB flats.  Though they are meant to be cheap and affordable to the masses, recent price hikes has priced ordinary Singapore workers out of the market.  In the 1980s, a new four room flat in Bishan cost about $60,000 while the median pay of a fresh graduate was about $1,500. A young couple paying a monthly mortgage of $1,000 will be able to repay the entire housing loan in 5 years time.   Today, a new four room flat under the Design, Built and Order scheme in Bishan cost around $600,000. The median pay of a graduate is only $2,500. How much will a couple need to pay a month in order to service a thirty year loan?   Conclusion   Quoting Mui Hong - “Instead of ‘Doing Nothing’ or ‘Doing Something Drastic’, the best policy……  Stay cool….”   The fire is at Mr. Mah’s tail.  Elections are around the corner.  Yes, Mr. Mah, the quintessential man that you are, please continue to listen to your propagandist as she is appealing to Singaporeans emotion, not intellect.     “So there you have it.  You have an increased number of foreigners all fighting for housing with Singaporeans thanks to the government liberal immigration policies which were designed to compensate for the government’s ill-thought population policy of overly and intrusively restricting births from 1960s to 1980s.  Brilliant isn’t it?”  Read More →