TR EMERITUS

Dear Prof Yu and Prof Tu, I refer to the commentary you wrote for Straits Times that was published on 27 Feb 2010. Dominance of public housing in Singapore You first pointed out that the HDB is the dominant housing provider in Singapore, accounting for 82% of the population's homes.  This in turn makes Singapore unique compared to other cities where normally, private housing dominates instead. What you could have also pointed out is the passing of the Land Acquisition Act in 1966 which allowed the government to buy land as cheaply as $1 in the name of national development.  The forcible acquisition of land at dirt cheap prices is normally referred to as expropriation in other countries and is normally illegal too. Furthermore in Hong Kong, when mortgages of public flats are fully paid for, the flats can be traded in the open market and are classified as private instead.  If we were to adopt this definition, more than half of our flats would have been classified as private already. Public home ownership in Singapore is for 99 years only You next pointed out that only Singapore has significant home ownership when it comes to public housing.  But you omitted to say that public home ownership in Singapore is for 99 years only which is comparable to long tenure or even perpetual rental contracts in other countries. We are compared to expensive Hong Kong and London but not Sydney. While your study began with the comparison of four cities, Sydney was dropped when it came to actually comparing housing price to income ratio, leaving only notoriously expensive Hong Kong and London to be compared with Singapore.  If affordable housing in Singapore can only be established in comparison with the most expensive cities in the world, doesn't it say something about how expensive Singapore really is? Wrong to consider expensive Hong Kong Island only Your figures show that Hong Kong's housing price to income ratio is almost four times those of Singapore's.  But the calculated ratio of 19.8 for Hong Kong is ridiculously high and dubious. Using only the figures provided in Table 2 of your commentary, we can work out Hong Kong's median housing price to be HK$ 74,593.93 per square metre which matches very closely with the average per square metre price of private residential units in Hong Kong Island as given on Page 7 of "Housing in Figures 2009", a source quoted in your commentary. However, we know that Hong Kong doesn't comprise of Hong Kong Island only and that the latter is much more expensive than Kowloon and the New Territories.  Considering the housing prices in Hong Kong Island only is like considering the housing prices in Bukit Merah, Toa Payoh and Marine Parade only while ignoring those in Woodlands and Jurong West.  You'd invariably end up with a distorted pricing picture.  In fact, the same source you quoted showed housing prices in Kowloon and New Territories to be 71% and 54% that of Hong Kong Island respectively. Furthermore, the same source also shows that housing on Hong Kong Island forms only 10% of all housing which makes it all the more distortionary if we were to base housing prices on Hong Kong Island only.  In other words, your supposed median housing price for Hong Kong is more like the price of the top 10% of housing in Hong Kong. Wrong to compare Singapore's public housing to Hong Kong's private housing Next, we need to consider the fact that the median housing in Singapore is actually public housing so when we compare with Hong Kong, we cannot ignore Hong Kong's public housing.  The median housing price cannot be based on private housing only.  Since 55% of all housing in Hong Kong is private, the median price of housing in Hong Kong ought to correspond quite closely with the cheapest forms of private housing in Hong Kong.  That would have more than halved the ratio you worked out for Hong Kong to less than 9.9 easily. Still, there is no denying that housing price to household income ratio is higher for Hong Kong than for Singapore.  This can easily be reconciled with the the fact that Hong Kong's liveable space per person is less than half that of ours as shown in Table 2 of your commentary.  Thus, Hong Kong's higher housing price is due to they being more overcrowded than us.  The lesson we must glean from this is that the more we choose to overcrowd ourselves, the more expensive our housing will become. Public housing omitted for Greater London Area Similarly, you have omitted to take public housing into account which makes up 23% of all housing in Greater London Area.  In order for an apple to apple comparison, we need to apply Singapore's situation to London and consider what happens when the 23% of Londoners staying in rental housing are forced to buy their houses using their retirement money and leaving them with little or no money for retirement much like what is happening in Singapore.  These 23% public housing would automatically be counted for in the computation of housing prices and will significantly reduce London's median housing price. Is Singapore housing much affordable? Hence, contrary to what you claim, there is no empirical evidence that housing in Singapore is very much affordable by any standard.  Since the empirical evidence you provided is highly flawed, the only standard by which Singapore can be ajudged to be affordable is one that is twisted and that which omits all but the most expensive cities.  Therefore, it is not true that Singapore has achieved a lower housing to income ratio.  If interpreted correctly, your figures do not reveal that our housing system delivers affordable housing to the majority of Singaporeans. Thank you Ng Kok Lim  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent Following our publication of news of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao chatting online with anonymous netizens last Saturday which was not mentioned by the state media, we receive a deluge of comments from Singapore readers praising him and expressing disappointment at their own leaders at the same time. The event, titled “I have a question to ask the Premier”, conducted jointly by the central government and Xinhua News Agency was telecast live on CCTV Channel 4. Many Singaporeans were impressed by Premier Wen taking time off to engage netizens directly and openly without any airs and by his humble attitude. Though there were some criticisms and brickbats hurled at him and his administration, Premier Wen did not lose his cool and answered the questions posed to him to the best of his ability. He promised to tackle the problems raised by the netizens after the dialogue. LIE KY opined that Communist China is more "democratic" than Singapore. "Communist China imposes death sentences for their corrupted govt officials while PAP either covers up case or gives a slap on the wrist(or excuse it’s a honest mistake). Recently the Chinese leaders insist that all govt officials must inform the State of their family members’ overseas place of stay,school or business so as to keep track of their financial standing lest they use their spouses or children as proxies to stash their corrupted wealth. PAP ministers or MPs never declare their assets or their family’s businesses either local or abroad. So, without measures to keep track of PAP guys,how can we know if corruption takes place? Looks like Communist China is more democratic than our MIWs!!!" Ah Beng concurred: "As I said before many times, unless you go to Shanghai and see for yourself, there are more personal freedom. The Shanghaiese told me in the past they just criticize CCCP policy, now they are allowed to discuss on Human Rights. There are so many Singaporean over there you felt like home." Sinkapore added: "Premier Wen is someone who I have 101% respect for, not forgetting the late President Ong. I recalled a few years back when China was experiencing its worst Snow Storm (close to Lunar New Year) and millions of commuters and workers were stuck without train to return home. Due to the storm, powerlines were severed, water was frozen and MILLIONS were in dire straits. Premier Wen in front of LIVE TV, visited the VARIOUS train stations and addressed the commuters and APOLOGISED for HIS GOVERNMENT’s ‘inadequacy’ and PROMISED to do everything HE CAN to ensure that those having problems WILL BE addressed asap. Again in the EarthQuake in SzeChuan, Premier Wen was there ON SCENE within the 1st hour and stayed for 4 SOLID DAYS ensuring that Rescue Operation continues AROUND THE CLOCK." Frankie contrasted the remarks made by Premier Wen to that of PM Lee: "Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said “he was determined to tame the “wild horse” of the country’s soaring housing market and to keep the prices at a reasonable level within his term as Premier.” Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said “there is nothing much his administration can do to control the prices of HDB flats.” If you compare the size of both countries i.e. China and Singapore, and their population, I am very disappointed by our PM LHL’s remarks. Obviously, PM LHL is not interested at all and worst, he allows nature to take its course." Mask summed it up succinctly: "Despite China being a communist country. It leaders at least are moving along with the time. Singapore leaders are actually moving backward." Though Singapore is the most wired country in the world, its leaders appear to be unwilling to utilize the New Media fully to engage netizens. There is little interaction between the government and citizens except through the official REACH forum where comments posted by netizens are often stone-walled. Unlike Premier Wen who addressed the Chinese netizens lovingly as "friends", the PAP regards anonymous netizens are "pests" and often attack and discredit them via the state media. In a recent article published on the Straits Times, Rachel Chang attacked netizens as promoting hatred and xenophobia which was echoed by YPAP leader Sear Hock Rong who called on the authorities to take action against these netizens on his blog.  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent A probable Indian new citizen/PR has asked a Singapore citizen and NSman complaining about unfair competition from foreigners to make himself more "marketable" on a discussion about the Budget 2010 on YPAP Facebook: [Source: YPAP Facebook] The discussion was started by YPAP member Genesis Shen who had expressed concerns that the PAP's "generous spending" on the middle and lower income families in Singapore will "affect the Party's long term policy of fiscal prudence." Ting Siong, a 28 year old Singapore Chinese male who had served two and a half years of National Service shared his personal experience: he had been doing one contract job one after another because the permanent jobs are mostly taken up by foreigners. Mr Sinha Shekhar,who was born in Dhanbad, India and indicated clearly that he shared the political views of the PAP on his Facebook, replied that "there is nothing called permanent jobs" and urge Ting Siong and other Singaporeans to make themselves more "marketable and move ahead". He also praised the  budget as being a "very prudent" one and it is "good that we have been tiSghtening our belt for quite some time." His insensitive and callous remarks brought a barrage of criticisms from fellow Singaporeans on the discussion who questioned if he is a new citizen or PR. A Singaporean Sin Rak Sin told Mr Sinha to shut up: "Sinha, Cut the bootlicking crap and shut the fxxk up, will u? We do not need a foreigner to meddle with our internal domestic affair." Of late, the Straits Times Forum has been publishing letters of support from these new citizens and PRs heaping praises on the PAP government. How can Sinha expect Singaporeans to make themselves more "marketable" when they have to compete directly with foreign workers who cost a fraction of them? Furthermore, NSmen like Ting Siong are at a disadvantage as they have to be away for 4 weeks each year due to reservist obligations. The PAP has been actively recruiting PRs and new citizens like Sinha into their Youth Wing and grassroots organizations to boost their flagging support base. As they are not familiar with Singapore, they tend to agree blindly with what the leaders told them, as exemplified by the comments posted by Sinha. Due to the PAP's liberal immigration policies, foreigners now make up 36 per cent of Singapore's population, up from 14 per cent in 1990. Of the remaining 64 per cent who are citizens, an increasing number are born overseas like Mr Sinha. According to a recent Wall Street Journal, the relentless influx of foreigners over the last few years has depressed the wages of ordinary Singaporeans, increased the cost of living, especially that of public housing, decreased labor productivity and led to an overall decline in the standards of living. Faced with a potential backlash from angry voters in the coming election, the PAP is now trying to sing a different tune to placate Singaporeans. If Singaporeans do not vote wisely in the next election, they will have to bear with the lectures of not only the PAP leaders, but their new "comrades" like Mr Sinha as well.  Read More →