TR EMERITUS

From our Correspondent Singapore may not host the 2013 SEA games as the S$1.87 billion dollars Sports Hub may not be completed in time following repeated delays due to the global economic downturn. It is unlikely to be completed in time for the 2013 South-east Asia Games, said Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Vivian Balakrishnan. He said the Government will not be rushed into completing the $1.87 billion project at Kallang, which has been plagued by repeated delays since a private consortium won the bid to build the 35ha facility in January last year. 'Quite frankly, I think it is unlikely that it will be ready for the 2013 SEA Games,' Dr Balakrishnan told reporters at a Youth Olympic Games event on Wednesday. 'We're still discussing with the Singapore National Olympic Council and we'll take a decision later as to whether we'll put our hands up to host the 2013 SEA Games or to consider offering ourselves as a venue in the subsequent series of Games.' The consortium which is constructing the Kallang Sports Hub is having difficulty in raising the necessary funds to start the project. A consortium led by a subsidiary of France’s Bouygues Construction won the tender early last year to build the S$1.2 billion complex, including a dome—shaped national stadium, with a retractable roof, able to seat 55,000 people. It was also to feature a 6,000—capacity indoor aquatic centre, an artificial river offering whitewater rafting, and a 3,000—capacity multi—purpose arena. During a parliamentary sitting in February this year, West Coast GRC MP Madam Ho Geok Choo pressed the Ministry of Community, Youth and Sports for a final deadline beyond which the Sports Hub cannot be further postponed. She also asked the ministry to provide an analysis of the potential loss of revenue from deferred or lost sporting events because of these delays. In response, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Vivian Balakrishnan said: "I hope members will appreciate the negotiations are still ongoing and I do not want to make any public announcements on deadlines or on analysis of losses because that will compromise our negotiating positions." The outcome of the negotiations is still not known and the proposed Sports Hub continues to be left in limbo. Dr Balakrishnan sought to explain why the delays were inevitable because the Government did not want to over-spend on the facility, which includes a 55,000-seater dome-shaped National Stadium with a retractable roof. 'I'd rather be cautious and deliberate moving forward, but not be rushed into making hasty decisions or making decisions which will cost the tax payers more in the long run,' he added. Since Dr Balakrishnan does remember the existence of taxpayers, perhaps he should first reveal to Singaporeans the amount of money the government has spent so far on the Sports Hub.  Read More →

By Ng Kok Lim I refer to your letter "Why we peg to market rates" to Today dated 25 Sept 2009. (read letter here)   You wrote that the HDB incurred an average deficit of $1,045 million a year on home ownership programmes.  However, if we refer to Page120 of HDB's 2008 annual report, $625,102 was spent on "upgrading, improvements and demolition".  Surely upgrading doesn't count as home ownership but perhaps home improvement instead?  It gives the false impression that the HDB is subsidising new homes at a cost of $1,045 million when in actual fact the amount is much less.   On the same page is another $783,757 item called "provision for loss for properties under development / for sale".  Presumably, HDB foresees the price of unsold HDB flats to fall short of construction costs by $783,757.  But by claiming to price HDB flats at market levels, its hard to imagine how HDB can foresee prices of unsold HDB flats to dip below costs by so much.   If we put these two items aside, HDB actually made a profit of $363,859 instead.   Instead of repeating its market pricing rationale yet again, it would be more helpful if HDB can address the issue of positive feedback between resale flat price and new flat price.  As market price of resale flats soar, so too does the price of new HDB flats since the latter are pegged to market prices.  But the increasing price of new flats makes them less attractive to buyers and does nothing to abate the demand for resale flats and so demand for resale flats continues and the whole cycle repeats itself.   The price of many resale flats have jumped by $100,000 in a matter of one, two years.  Can HDB explain why the $30,000 government subsidy is considered 'significant' compared to a typical $100,000 rise in flat prices?  HDB claims that market pricing allows all to receive similar subsidies regardless of market movements.  But the $30,000 subsidy is not even enough to make up for the loss incurred by a would be buyer when the market goes up by $100,000.   HDB claims it is illogical for Mr See to attribute property price increases to the HDB because the recent asset appreciation is not unique to Singapore.  This is like saying that the banks in Singapore are not responsible for losses arising out of the recent Lehmann Brothers collapse since similar losses have occurred elsewhere too.  But banks here are being ordered to put their houses in order.  Surely there is something that the HDB can do as well?   HDB should explain what being below the international benchmark of 30% means in terms of how much one gets to keep in one's pockets.  For example, HDB has demonstrated that a 3-room flat costing $150,000 and sold to a household with income of $2,000 only requires a monthly instalment of $460 and a resulting ratio of 23%.  But for a typical family of four with a monthly sustenance need of $500 each perhaps, the total cash required is already $2,000.  Where is the family going to find money for the $460 monthly instalment?  So the 23% ratio is meaningless as far as one's own pockets is concerned.  Read More →

From our Correspondent Jalan Besar Town Council had took an unemployed man to court for arrears S&C arrears of $432! In a letter written to the Straits Times Forum, Mr Lim Beo Thiam, a 52 year old who has been unemployed for 18 months and lost part of a leg through diabetes relates his unhappy experience with his Town Council. (read letter here) He claimed that this is the first time he did not pay the S&C charges due to financial difficulties and he was taken to court by Jalan Besar Town Council. His new debts now ballooned to more than $1,000 which included court penalties and late payment charges. "When I tried to settle subsequent S&C charges to avoid a fresh spiral of hefty penalties for non-payment, I was rejected. The town council ruled that I had to settle the old debt before I could pay the new charges. Naturally, this led to more penalties as my fresh S&C arrears spiked. So, I am now some $3,000 in debt to my town council," he added. Mr Lim wrote that he has appealed to his Member of Parliament for help many times but the final reply invariably remained unchanged: pay up. He lampooned the Town Councils for hoarding extra revenue collected instead of helping needy residents like himself: "Town councils shouldn’t be surprised if residents like myself, who face tough times, wonder why we aren’t being helped via the excess revenue collected; revenue which is instead ploughed into loss-making investments. Shouldn’t any excess revenue be refunded to residents via rebates? If town councils are keen to invest, set up a fund offering soft loans to residents to tide them over tough times and pay service and conservancy charges." His letter attracted a fresh barrage of criticisms at the government with many netizens expressing their support and sympathy for him. Wrote between777: "seems the govt is pushing the buck and trying to get town councils to make more money as it focuses even on getting town councils to recover arrears - which in these times, there are a fair number who cant barely afford to pay - but yet this is on the agenda - whereas Investments by town councils are NOT graded - and this is especially impt bec the town councils LOST some nearly $20 million in the lehman fiasco! And the govt can spent $100 million just to host a 3-day APEC Summit! which is more to a ego trip - as in all honesty such APEC or even ASEAN have all along been making alot of talk but never walk their talk - and in fact even within ASEAN there are many issues yet to be even worked on and the many barriers to free trade within the group." Added anlibeth2000: "Having a report card to monitor the town council's performance is a good ideal but collecting of the outstanding arrears is otherwise. Whoever owes the town council are likely to be the poor of the poor. Fancy writing off 16 millions in lost of investment and here they are squeezing your poor citizen till the last drop of blood. Not only that , if for any reason you happen to owe them they will impose penalties, late payment charges, court charges, so that they are quite similar to the loan shark charges. 12 months outstanding of $36 x 12 = $432. Penalties $561 plus $50 legal fees. Total to claim $1043. If these don't work they will get a court action to seize your household items until you have nowhere to run. Yes I had personally experienced it. Forget about seeking your MP's help because they are of the same office. (N/B The MP take charges of the town council) After auctioning your item that will not be enough they will start the proceduring all over again. One would have been better off if they borrowed from a loan shark to pay them off. However the SPF had cleared a lot from their business and seeking a loan shark is not easy nowaday." iamgoondu wants the Town Councils to accout for the fees collected and sent: "I doubt that there are residents would want to assess their town councils based on the arrears collections. We are more interested in the fees collected and spent (dollars and cents). If Holland-Bukit Timah TC can afford to lose big in their investments, they should be capable to waive the arrears as well."   Stevewu77 wondered why S&C penalities are so high:   "Why should the S&C penalties be so high in these times of need when the bank interest rates are at rock bottom levels. I have personally witnessed the large number of residents taken to night court to recover the S&C charges. Surely, the majority must have been hardship cases and they must be addressed sensibly. Mr Lim's letter is a poignant reminder that the policy failure at the town councils has already caused irreparable sufferings. This situation becomes even more unthinkable when the People realize the huge reserves that the town councils have amassed, enough to write off large investment losses. It means that the town councils have collected too much S&C fees. Where is the promise by the MND to address accountability in the aftermath of the investment fiasco now? The People are not so forgetful. I challenge the town councils to provide more complete statistics on this matter. Maybe then, the PAP government shall be less quick to proclaim the job credit scheme a success when it is obviously NOT and faces squarely the root issue, i.e. the structural unemployment problem which has escalated over the years."   2009Lembut gave a sarcastic reply to the writer:   "Mr Lim, after this letter is publish, you can expect a swift response from the town council. The reaction is typically defensive. They will probably state how they had tried to help but you were not coorperative or that you have not come clean on some of the points........"   While the Town Councils are taking poor and needy Singapore citizens to court for S&C arrears, the PAP constituencies are splurging money to make the new citizens and PRs feel welcomed including organizing HDB tea parties, treasure hunts and offering free language courses to them. A $10 million community fund will be set up at taxpayers' expense to help the newcomers "integrate".   Though the PAP town councils had lost more than $10 million in credit-linked investments last year, they claim it is only a small percentage their total sinking funds. In fact, investments will not even be featured as an indicator of their performance meaning that they will not be held accountable for further losses.   Listing S&C arrears as one of the criteria for good performance will only motivate the Town Councils to go after residents who are unable to pay the S&C charges due to financial reasons. Since the Town Councils have millions in reserves, why waive off the arrears altogether? After all, the arrears are "peanuts" compared to the millions of dollars they have lost so far.  Read More →