TR EMERITUS

By Eugene Yeo In a latest survey conducted by the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, only 10.9 per cent were satisfied with the overall performance of lawmakers, out of 815 respondents. About 54.5 per cent said their performance was “normal” but 32.3 per cent found it “unsatisfactory”. Some 42.1 per cent of respondents thought lawmakers were not doing enough to tell the government about Hong Kong people’s concerns. The full results were published on the island's main English newspaper - The South China Morning Post (read article here) I wondered what the results will show if a similiar survey is conducted in Singapore, which is almost unheard of. Since when did Singaporeans ever know about the performance ratings of their lawmakers? The three universities in Singapore should have the necessary expertise and resources to conduct such surveys. Surprisingly, the academia has been conspicuously silent about the latest socio-political developments in Singapore. The PAP have always claimed it has the overwhelming "mandate" of the people to rule the country. However, their claims were never substantiated by frequent opinion polls. The general elections, held only once every five years, is an inaccurate reflection of the government's popularity due to serious flaws within the system such as the GRC and rampant gerry-mandering which has allowed the incumbent to consolidate and perpetuate its rule continuously uninterrupted for five decades. If the PAP government is indeed run by the best talents in Singapore, why is it so apprehensive to conduct an opinion poll to find out the real sentiment on the ground? Are Singaporeans happy with their leadership? Over in Malaysia, the Merdeka Center conducted such polls on a regular basis. The latest poll showed the approval ratings of Prime Minister Najib Razak increased from 45% to 65%, a testimony of the right moves he had made so far since assuming the premiership. He had also released a set of KPIs or key performance indicators for his ministers. Without opinion polls, the government will never know how well its policies are received by the people. It will be like a ship sailing out into the open sea without a compass. The people are the best judge of the ministers' performance. Everybody from the Prime Minister down to every senior minister of state should not be afraid to have their performances assessed by the people. It will also promote active citizenry and give Singaporeans more say in how their country is being governed. Singapore is perhaps the only developed country in the world where there is a gag imposed on the approval ratings of its Prime Minister. We can easily google about the latest approval rating for Barack Obama, Donald Tsang, Ma Ying-Jeou, Taro Aso, Gordon Brown and Najib Razak, but will hit a blank if we try "Lee Hsien Loong". Why is the government so apprehensive about conducting and publicizing regular opinion polls about its performance? Doesn't public opinion matter in the formulation and implementation of their policies? Or are they simply afraid that the reality may be radically different from the propaganda they have been spewing out daily through the state-controlled media? Prime Minister Lee and his team should always bear in mind that their position, power and salaries are given by the people of Singapore. It is only right that we are given the opportunity to air our support or dissatisfaction openly for them to know.   Other articles by Eugene Yeo: >> How much did Chip's stint at Temasek cost taxpayers? >> Mourning 25 years of the demise of a free and independent press >> Debunking the "constructive opposition" illusion  Read More →

From our Correspondent During the annual SPH scholarship ceremony, SPH Chairman Tony Tan stressed the importance of "quality journalism" in his opening address. "We believe that as we invest more and more in quality and credible content, we will not only survive but continue to succeed. As we continue to invest in new media platforms to keep up with the times, we will also continually be on the look out for top media talent to ensure good content is created daily." He added: "With a strong editorial team, fast and insightful coverage of global and local issues; thought provoking commentaries and creative graphics, we live up to our tagline – to engage minds and enrich lives in our nation." [Source: Straits Times] Tony Tan should not be too overly worried. Unlike traditional newspapers in other countries which have witnessed a decline in readership due to the advent of the New Media, SPH will never suffer a similiar predicament as a result of its complete monopoly over the print media in Singapore. Singapore used to have a dozen or so independent newspapers before independence before they are eventually amalgamated to form SPH in 1987, some of which are closed down by the PAP government and their journalists jailed for "subversive" activities. The Newspaper and Printing Act, introduced in 1975 to control the ownership of news printing firms effectively permits only SPH to print and circulate newspapers in Singapore legally. In Singapore, all the print media in the four languages of English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil are under the ownership of one single government-linked company - the Singapore Press Holdings whose Chairman is almost always an ex-PAP minister (Tony Tan himself is a former deputy prime minister). The circulation of foreign papers is severely restricted and those who went afoul of the government’s censorship like FEER and Wall Street Journal were subjected to heavy fines and subsequently banned from Singapore altogether. With the print media in complete control by the PAP, news articles critical of the government are hardly heard of in post-independent Singapore which explains the political apathy and ignorance of most Singaporeans. If SPH is serious about investing more in 'quality' and 'credible' content, it should do more to improve its coverage on local political news in terms of objectivity, accuracy and fairness instead of its current lop-sided pro-government stance. The Singapore media has been frequently vilified by their counterparts elsewhere for being a low grade government propaganda mouthpiece. The late David Marshall once described SPH journalists as "running dogs and prostitutes of the PAP." Reporters Without Borders, an international media watchdog, ranked Singapore 141 out of 168 countries in press freedom. It minced no words in its 2007 annual report on Singapore: "The Singaporean press is relatively independent as far as regional and international news goes. But it clearly operates self-censorship on domestic politics." [Source: Reporters Sans Frontieres] 29 scholarships were given out during the ceremony. Of these, eight were the SPH Journalism scholarships, 15 were scholarships given to children of staff and newspaper vendors, and six were for the SPH Foundation Lim Kim San Memorial scholarships. These newly minted "SPH scholars" will probably be educated by their seniors proper on the Singapore's version of "quality journalism" before embarking on their careers as "reporters".   Related articles: >> Mourning 25 years of the demise of a free and independent press by Eugene Yeo >> Why there is no "Malaysiakini" in Singapore by Fang Zhi Yuan and Lim Siow Kuan   EDITORS’ NOTE: [If you like our work and would like to support us, please transfer your donations via paypal to our account ([email protected]). Any amount will be greatly appreciated! Thank you!]  Read More →

By Jeremy Koh, Guest Columnist An article in the Straits Times on 25 July 2009 claimed that mass market buyers are propping up home prices because they "were shut out of the property market during the most recent boom in 2007, when furious demand for luxury homes drove up home prices far beyond their reach." (source: Straits Times) By definition, mass market homes refer loosely to bigger HDB flats and condominiums in the suburbs. The strong demand for cheaper condos halt the decline in private home prices to only 4.7% in the second quarter, now from 14.1% in the first quarter. Judging from the launching prices of two recent launches - "Meadows @ Pierce" by UOL Land and "The Centro" by Far East, the prices of mass market homes will soon exceed the level of the last property peak of 1996. The selling price per square foot for "Meadows @ Pierce" starts from $900 with all the 3 room units selling at $1 million dollars at above. In comparison, the launching prices for nearby development - "The Calrose" in 2007 ranges from $550 to $650 only. $900 psf is the average selling price for projects such as "Pavillon II", "Montebleu" and "The Citrine" when they were first launched in the 2006 - 2007 period. Current projects in Serangoon/Bendemeer such as "Beacon Heights" and "St Michael Regency" are selling at only slightly above $900 psf. The recently launched "8 Woodleigh" transacted at less than $900 psf on average. How can a development in Upper Thomson / Yio Chu Kang cost more than one which is nearer to the city? Surely this defies common logic, but mass market home buyers don't seem to think so. 180 units of "Meadows @ Pierce" were sold on the opening day. Flushed with cash from higher HDB resale prices, mass market buyers, many of whom are HDB upgraders are pushing the median price of suburb projects closer to that of the city fringes. Giving the narrowing distance between the two, how much more will prices continue to rise? A classic property bubble is evolving where prices keep climbing in spite of a weakening demand amidst a glut of new projects reaching T.O.P. and it is unfortunate that public housing is getting involved with ever higher prices being fetched for Build-to-Order projects. Four to five room units at Bendemeer's "City View" cost between $600,000 to $700,000, only slightly less than new condominiums launched in the vicinity during the same period. The government has been adamant that HDB flats remain affordable which appears so for buyers who are granted a mortage loan to finance their purchaase. Whether one borrows $200,000 or $800,000 from the banks to be repaid over a 3o year period makes little difference. Public housing are supposed to be tightly regulated by the government. Left alone to market forces, their prices will expect to skyrocket due to the low base from which they started. An alternative solution will be to peg the median price of HDB flats to the median income of the average Singapore worker so that buyers do not over-stretch themselves. In a property boom, HDB prices will shoot through the roof as their valuation is based on the resale values of flats in the district. However, their prices seldom dip by much unlike private projects in a downturn as housing is a basic living essential - there will always be a market for HDB flats in Singapore. "Affordable" is too wide and ambiguous a definition to assess the impact of rising HDB values on the general population. The percentage of a Singaporean's monthly salary which is tied up with the mortage loan will be a more realistic indicator. HDB flats are not only meant to be affordable, they should be cheap as well. The rising asset value may have brought unprecedented wealth to some Singaporeans, but the inflationary prices it brought about will have a detrimental impact on the purchasing power and retirement savings of future generations of Singaporeans. The law of supply and demand will not permit the runaway prices of mass market homes to persist forever. When the crash eventually arrive, it will be extremely painful for those who have bought their homes at the wrong time and it may take another decade or longer for them to recoup their losses at today's ridiculous prices.  Read More →