TR EMERITUS

By Abdul Gafoor, Social Correspondent Another paradox of Singapore’s economic growth is undeniably the housing component. A country that achieves continual economic growth, will see the prosperity extending to the housing sector hereby improving the lives of citizens. The higher incomes due to the economic growth will allow people to rent or buy houses easier, change from one house to another easier either through rental or purchase, maintain condition of houses across time with greater ease and be able to leave behind property for the next generation. People will also have greater freedom in relation to housing with stronger rent laws or home ownership laws that will develop along with rising incomes. With higher incomes, people can also focus on building a home and not just finding a shelter over their head. However despite the fact incomes have increased 42 times in the last fifty years, Singaporeans have achieved none of the above with its model of economic growth. Highest home ownership rate but at the expense of retirement savings Very few developed countries actually have pursued to achieve higher home ownership along with economic growth. What basically all developed countries had attempted to do during their development phase was to make housing much easier on its people as their incomes rise. They did this through larger availability of houses for sale or rental, more flexible rental and sale laws etc. The whole idea is to allow its citizens to have a roof over their heads in a sustainable way for long term. Developed nations pursued this beyond their pursuit of establishing a framework for comfortable retirement. Singapore on the other hand pursued the objective of achieving high home ownership which it did. However it was only able to achieve it by compromising on establishing a proper framework for retirement.  Singapore combined its full hearted pursuit for high home ownership rate along with its half hearted pursuit of retirement. The final outcome has been a country with highest home ownership rate in the world and one of the worst framework for retirement. Through the economic growth model pursued by the government, Singaporeans have achieved in buying a house but they are unable to retire comfortably in that house. Housing but not a home One of the expected outcomes of economic growth is that with higher incomes, people will be able to focus on building a home and not just a head over the roof. The higher incomes is supposed to provide the financial means to support marriage, child bearing, child rearing and other forms of family development. The higher incomes achieved through economic growth is supposed to also provide greater time and means to establish good relations with neighbors. As income levels rise, neighborhoods are supposed to be more harmonious as people can spend more time with one another. However none of this have been achieved in the Singapore economic growth model. Most Singaporeans may have a house but not a home. Neighbors in the neighborhoods or even the same block or stair level are stranger than strangers. Some of the crime ridden neighborhoods still remain crime ridden over the decades. The house itself has become nothing more than a place to retreat to to sleep after work late in the night before getting up the next day to rush to work. Own the house but not after your lifetime With increasing incomes, people should be able to not only own a house but be able to transfer the wealth to subsequent generations. Part of the whole purpose of seeking higher incomes, is to allow subsequent generations start off at a higher financial level through the passing down from earlier generations. However public housing in Singapore is only 99 years and though most Singaporeans own a house, they do not after their lifetime. Even if they are able to bequeath their house to their children, their children will not enjoy it for long as the 99 years lease will expire. Public housing sold at private housing prices Not many developed governments have entered the housing market to assume the role of provider of housing. In Singapore that has been the case. In most developed countries, the governments rather let the markets decide but they fill in the gaps and also regulate the markets. Singapore government’s decision to assume the role of provider of housing, was partly to promote affordability which it did initially. However as soon as they started to assume the objective of profit maximization which contradicts affordability, they soon started to offer public housing at private housing prices. One may argue private housing prices in Singapore is higher. WE need to compare apples to apples. Should private sector were to provide housing for Singaporeans, the price of the same types of houses as what HDB has built will cost just as much or maybe lower than what HDB prices. Therefore even though the Singapore government has increased the size of economic pie by more than 30 times, the wealth increase in the country has not been used sufficiently to make housing cheaper. Instead the prices have gone way much higher. Its your house but you have limited rights to it The very concept of owning my house means it is something to which I have my natural rights. In Singapore vast majority of Singaporeans own a house but with limited rights to it. Comparing to the generations of Singaporeans who lived in kampong houses and other private houses and who subsequently moved on to HDB houses, their home ownership rate has not changed across the generations. However their rights to their houses have decreased. Once again the reason why all the outcomes that Singapore should have achieved in housing along with its economic growth but which it did not is simply because the politicians and policy makers’ concern for the past fifty years has been about the digit change in real GDP growth. They have been running like silly race horses with shields on their eyes just looking at superficially upping the real GDP growth. Till today they fail to pay any attention to what outcomes such as in housing must be achieved with higher incomes and economic growth. Instead they look at those separately as if these two are unrelated. It is about time we shift our politicians and policy makers to Kranji racecourse and start weekday daytime and night races for I am sure they will run round in circles better than race horses. Another paradox of Singapore’s economic growth is undeniably the housing component. A country that achieves continual economic growth, will see the prosperity extending to the housing sector hereby improving the lives of citizens. The higher incomes due to the economic growth will allow people to rent or buy houses easier, change from one house to another easier either through rental or purchase, maintain condition of houses across time with greater ease and be able to leave behind property for the next generation. People will also have greater freedom in relation to housing with stronger rent laws or home ownership laws that will develop along with rising incomes. With higher incomes, people can also focus on building a home and not just finding a shelter over their head. However despite the fact incomes have increased 42 times in the last fifty years, Singaporeans have achieved none of the above with its model of economic growth. Highest home ownership rate but at the expense of retirement savings Very few developed countries actually have pursued to achieve higher home ownership along with economic growth. What basically all developed countries had attempted to do during their development phase was to make housing much easier on its people as their incomes rise. They did this through larger availability of houses for sale or rental, more flexible rental and sale laws etc. The whole idea is to allow its citizens to have a roof over their heads in a sustainable way for long term. Developed nations pursued this beyond their pursuit of establishing a framework for comfortable retirement. Singapore on the other hand pursued the objective of achieving high home ownership which it did. However it was only able to achieve it by compromising on establishing a proper framework for retirement. Singapore combined its full hearted pursuit for high home ownership rate along with its half hearted pursuit of retirement. The final outcome has been a country with highest home ownership rate in the world and one of the worst framework for retirement. Through the economic growth model pursued by the government, Singaporeans have achieved in buying a house but they are unable to retire comfortably in that house. Housing but not a home One of the expected outcomes of economic growth is that with higher incomes, people will be able to focus on building a home and not just a head over the roof. The higher incomes is supposed to provide the financial means to support marriage, child bearing, child rearing and other forms of family development. The higher incomes achieved through economic growth is supposed to also provide greater time and means to establish good relations with neighbors. As income levels rise, neighborhoods are supposed to be more harmonious as people can spend more time with one another. However none of this have been achieved in the Singapore economic growth model. Most Singaporeans may have a house but not a home. Neighbors in the neighborhoods or even the same block or stair level are stranger than strangers. Some of the crime ridden neighborhoods still remain crime ridden over the decades. The house itself has become nothing more than a place to retreat to to sleep after work late in the night before getting up the next day to rush to work. Own the house but not after your lifetime With increasing incomes, people should be able to not only own a house but be able to transfer the wealth to subsequent generations. Part of the whole purpose of seeking higher incomes, is to allow subsequent generations start off at a higher financial level through the passing down from earlier generations. However public housing in Singapore is only 99 years and though most Singaporeans own a house, they do not after their lifetime. Even if they are able to bequeath their house to their children, their children will not enjoy it for long as the 99 years lease will expire. Public housing sold at private housing prices Not many developed governments have entered the housing market to assume the role of provider of housing. In Singapore that has been the case. In most developed countries, the governments rather let the markets decide but they fill in the gaps and also regulate the markets. Singapore government’s decision to assume the role of provider of housing, was partly to promote affordability which it did initially. However as soon as they started to assume the objective of profit maximization which contradicts affordability, they soon started to offer public housing at private housing prices. One may argue private housing prices in Singapore is higher. We need to compare apples to apples. Should private sector were to provide housing for Singaporeans, the price of the same types of houses as what HDB has built will cost just as much or maybe lower than what HDB prices. Therefore even though the Singapore government has increased the size of economic pie by more than 30 times, the wealth increase in the country has not been used sufficiently to make housing cheaper. Instead the prices have gone way much higher. Its your house but you have limited rights to it The very concept of owning my house means it is something to which I have my natural rights. In Singapore vast majority of Singaporeans own a house but with limited rights to it. Comparing to the generations of Singaporeans who lived in kampong houses and other private houses and who subsequently moved on to HDB houses, their home ownership rate has not changed across the generations. However their rights to their houses have decreased. Once again the reason why all the outcomes that Singapore should have achieved in housing along with its economic growth but which it did not is simply because the politicians and policy makers’ concern for the past fifty years has been about the digit change in real GDP growth. They have been running like silly race horses with shields on their eyes just looking at superficially upping the real GDP growth. Till today they fail to pay any attention to what outcomes such as in housing must be achieved with higher incomes and economic growth. Instead they look at those separately as if these two are unrelated. It is about time we shift our politicians and policy makers to Kranji racecourse and start weekday daytime and night races for I am sure they will run round in circles better than race horses. About the Author: Abdul Gafoor is a researcher based in the United Kingdom  Read More →

From our Correspondent The SDP's newsletter - The New Democrat, is back in publication after a 3 year hiatus. It was forced to stop printing in 2006 after it was sued for defamation by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and MM Lee for an article in it. The case was awarded to the Lees via a summary judgement without a trial. A sum of $610,000 was awarded. The printing firm was also made to promise not to publish future issues of The New Democrat as a condition for not paying damages. [It is not known which company did SDP engage to print its newsletter now] SDP claimed on its website that party members have been selling the newsletter at various housing estates and sales are "encouraging". The new-look tabloid-sized newsletter contains four languages. The current issue looks at the billions of dollars lost by GIC and Temasek as well as other bread-and-butter issues such as the witholding of our CPF savings and the high cost of living in Singapore.  SDP has made a remarkable about-turn since facing the threat of being wound up 3 years ago. Despite being demonized by the mainstream media, the party has managed attract young Singaporeans into its ranks. Though its Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan is a bankrupt, there are other members who are eligible to stand for the next elections. Given that the Constitution will now guarantee 9 NCMPs, there is a good chance that SDP may find its voice again in Parliament. SDP was founded in 1980 by veteran opposition leader Mr Chiam See Tong who won his seat in Potong Pasir in the 1984 elections. In 1991, the SDP won an unprecedented three seats in the elections making it the second largest political party in Singapore after the ruling PAP. However 6 years later with the departure of Mr Chiam who left the party to form the Singapore People Party, SDP lost all the seats it contested in 1997. Among all the political parties in Singapore, SDP is most adept at making use of the new media to get its message across. It is hoped that future generations of voters who are more politically aware and mature may find the SDP's brand of politics palatable enough to lend support to it.  Read More →

By Lee Wei Lian from The Malaysian Insider Chinese Malaysians appear to have grown increasingly dismissive of the potentially party-shattering power struggle happening in MCA and that is a distressing sign for an organisation which is entrusted by the Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition to help regain the trust and support of the community. Some print and online news organisations are facing difficulty engaging readers in the battle between MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat and his erstwhile deputy Datuk Seri Chua Soi Lek and this appears to reflect the situation on the voting ground. The largest Chinese language newspaper by circulation in Malaysia, Sin Chew Daily, recently ran a piece titled “Who cares about MCA’s party crisis?”,  saying that while it is still talked about within the community, most do not care if MCA collapses. One online news website has been reluctant to send its video crew to cover the Chua-Ong leadership tussle apparently because such videos “cannot sell”. Sources in mainly Chinese language news website Merdeka Review say there is hardly any interest in MCA with the exception of the announcement on August 26 that Chua had been sacked, with most of the clicks going to other stories. “Even the announcement of a minor press conference by Pakatan Rakyat was hotter news than Tan Chai Ho submitting his requisition for an EGM,” says the source. Analysts say the lack of concern for MCA, a party that was part of the political alliance that won the country its independence, is not surprising due to the switch of ethnic Chinese support to Pakatan Rakyat. MCA’s Insap think-tank deputy chairman, Rita Sim, says that according to her research, between 80 to 85 per cent of ethnic Chinese now support Pakatan Rakyat. “The Chinese voters have not shifted back since last year and their position has hardened,” she tells The Malaysian Insider. Merdeka Centre chief Ibrahim Suffian says that no matter the outcome of the power struggle, MCA will have a tough time reaching out to its traditional constituency. “Over the last one year, the Chinese protest vote is slowly consolidating,” he says. “The EGM will allow the party to sort out its internal conflicts but will not help it attain the wider goal of winning votes.” Sim says that the most important issue facing the party is not who becomes president or even if, as speculated, both Ong and Chua make way for fresh presidential elections, but how the party is going to regain Chinese votes. She thinks that Umno is already starting to take matters into its own hands rather than involving its partners. She points out Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s official visit to Batu Caves without MIC president Datuk Seri Samy Vellu and Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s discussions with Chinese education group Dong Zong without involving MCA. “Umno seems to be going directly to the Chinese community and it has to do that to get back the voters,” she says. There have also been suggestions on the Internet by Umno sympathisers that the party has given up on its BN partners and set up its own Chinese and Indian affairs unit. “I won’t be surprised if this happens,” says Ibrahim. “They might not want to wait for things to happen in the component parties.” Sim, however, worries that should MCA collapse, the Chinese community would be in a “lose-lose” situation. “I don’t think they favour Pakatan Rakyat so much as they see BN having a lot of credibility issues,” she says. “I think both sides have issues with talent shortage.” Not many people from MCA have wanted to speculate on the outcome of the EGM on Oct 10 or its implications. Some have also said that “anything can happen” between now and then. But whether Ong or Chua wins over the general assembly – MCA’s highest decision making body –the party looks set to remain in crisis where regaining Chinese votes is concerned. - The Malaysian Insider  Read More →