TR EMERITUS

作者:李卖蚬 一亿元变4千万元 主流报章一开始的报道是说国际足总（FIFA）对我们转播权的索价是1亿新元(100 million)，于是便形成了FIFA贪婪，想敲我们竹竿的印象。主流媒体出现了“我们”对垒 FIFA的导向: 新报作出新加坡人誓言杯葛世界杯的民意结果, 新明日报的编辑朱志伟更在早报星期天写了一大篇文章为了这一亿元向国际足总CowBeh CowBu。顿时，似乎全民上下一片同仇敌忾之气。 嚷了几个星期后，早报前两天报道“足总希望早日解决世界杯赛转播权问题”时，若无其事的提到足总的索价是4000万元 (40 million），对之所传的一亿元(100 million) 只字不提。那之前那些起哄是为什么？如果之前的一亿元是被误导，那被谁误导，为什么会被误导？ 在网上google一下，得出在香港已经由有线宽带标得的2010世界杯转播权的价钱大慨是1800万新元（18 million)，是FIFA向我们要价的一半。那为何FIFA在价钱上不肯对联合投标的新电信与新和让步呢？值得媒体去探讨。 如果那是本地私营电信机构从转播中赚多少钱的拉锯，为什么需要动用新加坡足总介入写信给国际足总呢？真的是“非常新加坡”(Uniquely Singapore)，让我不明白。 真伪难分 网络上有个说法是因为新电信之前“浩练”的以4亿新元(400 million)击败星和夺得英超(英国足球超级联赛）接下来三个球季的转播权。而香港有线宽带(i-cable), 相传是只以大慨2.7亿新元上下（270 million)标得英超下三个球季的转播权。所以FIFA便相对的开出了它相信新电信“负担得起”的价钱。 我在意的是为何主流媒体开始时误报FIFA的要价是1亿元(100 million)，并挑起人民对FIFA的敌对情绪，似乎是给电信公司作谈判筹码,之后静悄悄的改为4千万元（40 million) 时也没有澄清之前的错误。如果是电信公司的问题，为何主流媒体要转移视线？ 这让我想起最近那张思乐（Teo Ser Luck）唆使Eric HOW的报警闹剧，即使很不合逻（Facebook 上洋名相同的人很多，未曾直接去向对方澄清就去报警说有人在冒充他？）晚报却给足版位让YPAP在激起公愤后扮演受害者，把矛头指向新媒体的真伪难分。 实际上，主流媒体对于这两件事的报道才让我感觉真伪难分。 来源：大马论坛  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent A Singaporean by the name of Kang Choon Tian has written a letter to the Straits Times Forum today expressing the concerns, worries and fears of many Singaporeans on the sky-rocketing prices of HDB flats - that they may not have any money left in their CPF when the grow old. Mr Kang revealed that he took a loan of $80,000 some 20 years back and the interest came up to $70,000 after he had finished paying for his flat. He is concerned that many Singaporeans may end up with little in their CPF accounts at current prices of HDB flats: "The Government should look into this or Singapore may end up with many retirees with little in their CPF account, assuming an average household income of $3,000 to $4,000. Since HDB flat buyers may use 30 per cent of household income, they may be able to service their loans, but little is left for retirement. Besides, along the way, husband or wife may lose their jobs." He added that though Singaporeans may well afford to pay for their flats now, their ability to do so may decrease as they grow older: "Buyers are allowed to take up to a 30-year loan. By then, their earning power may also diminish when they reach 60, assuming they bought their flat in the early 30s." More than 85 per cent of Singapore's population living in public housing built by government agency Housing Development Board or HDB. While HDB flats used to be easily affordable by Singaporeans in the 1980s, prices have ballooned in recent years caused partly by a limited supply of new flats and rising demand fueled by the relentless influx of foreigners into Singapore. The prices of HDB resale flats hit a record high last year and increase by 8.2 per cent with median Cash-over-Valuation (COVs) doubling from $12,000 to $24,000. In contrast, the median monthly salary of Singaporeans remain stagnant at around $2,600. Despite rising frustration, resentment and anger on the ground over the increase prices of public housing in Singapore, National Development Minister Mr Mah Bow Tan and other HDB officials continue to insist that they are “affordable” to ordinary Singaporeans. Mr Mah even chided first time home buyers for being “choosy” and said that “the onus is on Singaporeans to play their part by buying a home within their means.” Quoting the affordability benchmark of 30 per cent used frequently by HDB to show that HDB flats remain affordable to ordinary Singaporeans, Mr Mah said a family with a monthly income of $3,000 can buy a flat worth up to $250,000 and spend only 30 per cent of their income every month on the mortgage. “Similarly, a family with a monthly income of $4,000 can afford to buy a new flat worth up to $333,000 without spending more than 30 per cent a month on the mortgage. This means they can comfortably buy any of the flats offered in the latest BTO projects this month,” he added. However, Mr Mah fails to take into account the bank interest rates and inflation over the years which will lead eventually to the family spending more than 30 per cent of their monthly income on the mortgage as pointed out correctly by Mr Kang above. Furthermore, after depleting their entire CPF for these over-priced 99-year leasehold HDB flats, they will have little or no savings left for their retirement. Mr Kang ended his letter by urging financial experts to give their take on the issue: "Since there are many in this income bracket, I hope some financial experts will be able give their take on this important issue or Singapore may end up with many retirees with little to live on. Many buyers are not aware of the final price of their flat, including the interest over 30 years." Singaporeans who need a roof over their heads now are stuck in a quandrary. On one hand, they are unwilling to make a purchase at the height of the property market, but they are also worried that prices may continue to go up. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew expressed optimism that HDB is an "asset" which will continue to appreciate in value so long the Singapore's economy is doing well, but what if Singapore were to enter another protracted recession as a result of a global financial crisis? One does not need to be an economist to realize that there are always ups and downs in any market and it is impossible to expect prices of HDB flats to continue to be increasing forever. With wages lagging far behind the phenomenal increase in prices,  they will have to come down one day when there are too few buyers in the market who can afford to buy them or worse, come crashing down if foreigners were to leave Singapore in the event of a recession. At the rate the prices are going up, some Singaporeans may have to wait till their parents pass on to inherit a roof over their heads.   Related articles: >> Mah Bow Tan acknowledged that rising HDB flat prices has sparked "fresh concerns" >> PM Lee: Govt does not have control over prices of resale flats” >> COVs of resale flats shooting through the roof >> HDB resale price index hit record high in 2009 >> Singaporean wants PRs to live in rented flats instead of buying resale flats >> Singaporeans wants PRs to be banned from selling HDB flats at a profit >> Shanmugam: Singaporeans likely culprits for driving up HDB flat prices >> Mah Bow Tan: HDB flats remain affordable >> Means testing for PRs to buy resale flats >> Immigration and public housing: should the govt or people plan ahead? >> Grace Fu: hard to predict demand for housing >> Indonesian PR bought 4-room flat at $653,000 >> Mah Bow Tan asks home buyers to be realistic >> PAP MP blames young couples who cannot get a flat for not planning ahead >> Home affordability: HDB versus the public >> Demand vs supply: so many applicants, so few flats >> Number of applicants exceed number of flats >> HDB to increase supply of flats >> Mah: don’t compare with prices in the past >> ERA: 40 per cent of HDB flat buyers are PRs  Read More →

By Bhaskaran Kunju Cultural sensitivities can be taken too far, as McDonald’s would have learnt. After nearly a month long saga over the exclusion of a pig figurine from their promotional Chinese zodiac set, the fast food giant finally caved to public pressure and decided to include the animal back in its lineup. As a Singaporean who’s all too familiar with racial and cultural sensitivity, I couldn’t help wonder at how much commotion a small incident such as this has caused. Apart from that there’s the obvious question as to how a major food retailer with decades of domestic presence could commit such a terrible faux pas. So who’s idea was it? It’s hard to imagine Singaporeans making such a simple error. Perhaps the promotion was the conception of those unfamiliar with Singaporean norms to begin with. It’s quite surprising that something so insignificant as a toy has stirred up such a strong reaction. The incident was first brought to light by Ms Pauline Koh in a letter to the Straits Times Forum. She lamented not being able to get a complete set for her daughter, who happens to be a big fan of Doraemon. While it is inverse cultural insensitiveness to pre-censor a culture’s heritance for the misconceived appeasement of another, it is at the end of the day just a cheap toy. In fact even Ms Koh had referred to it as “just a soft toy” in her original letter. Yes there is a novelty value to such items but there is a sense of misplaced feelings and even cultural blindness when a soft toy is turned into a symbol of cultural identity. The real irony lies in how one’s culture and tradition is being pillaged and represented by a children’s pop culture figurine and profited by a global commercial entity, all at the expense of the paying customer, and yet no one seems as perturbed by it as they have over a missing Doraemon dressed as a pig. It is truly commercialisation of Asian culture at its best (or worst), not unlike the mega-sized commercial Yoga studios that have become all the rage in Singapore. It has little to do with actual culture or tradition and more to do with profits and new-age consumerism. It is quite simply culture being leased out for a profit. Of course McDonald’s lack of tact in the issue of cultural inclusiveness of the Chinese is not to be excused. Also it is just as much offensive to the Muslims as well to suggest that the inclusion of a pig in a line of soft toys would be offensive to them. There is a hint of regressive perception of Muslims in the part of the promoter in this. I think the real reason for the show of dissent from the people was not about overlooking Chinese customs or tradition, but rather the sheer stupidity of the company’s decision in a country that has relatively comfortable racial and cultural boundaries. It was over-zealous, ill informed and definitely unacceptable. I highly doubt we will ever be able to find out whose ingenious decision it was in the first place. However, ultimately the one true winner from this saga would be the fast food giant itself. McDonald’s ‘apology’ advertisement, which ran for half a page in the Straits Times, was titled, “We're sorry, and we're grateful”. Grateful for the free press and promotion that will almost certainly set the cash registers ringing from the masses who will look to get hold of these collectibles. Copyright © The Temasek Review, 2009 Other articles by Bhaskaran Kunju: >> The issue of double-barrelled classification >> How much immunity for a diplomat >> The saga of (dethroned) beauty queen Ris Low >> Is there room for more foreigners in Singapore? >> Why social cohesion is at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally >> Changes in political system to allow more alternative voices >> The untimely departure of Chip Goodyear >> Should universities be re-politicized?   About Author: Bhaskaran Kunju is a political science undergraduate in a local varsity. He is a regular contributor to the Straits Times Forum and TODAY Voices.  Read More →