TR EMERITUS

State media dutifully reported on Sim Ann’s Facebook post on Monday in which she supported the Government”s motion “asking Parliament to affirm the importance of keeping public housing affordable and accessible, while protecting the interests of both current and future generations of Singaporeans”. The PAP, like the colonial British administration who gifted Singapore to LKY and which it so closely resembles, dumbs things down for Singaporeans in paternalist fashion. The story they want Singaporeans to swallow is that despite land prices having risen enormously since independence as a result of economic and population growth (much of which is due to Government policy of importing low skilled labour and subsidising foreign PMETs over Singaporeans), a benevolent Government continues to provide high quality public housing priced affordably. Because land forms part of Past Reserves (that riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma that like the PM’s wife’s salary must remain secret lest Singapore collapse and be swallowed up by the sea), the PAP maintain that it can never be spent as that would be unfair to future generations. So HDB must pay the full market price for the land even though they expropriated it fifty years ago from Singaporean landowners, many of whom were not wealthy, for a tiny fraction of its true market value even then. Never mind that it seems hypocritical for the PAP to claim to be worried about future generations when the support provided to families with children is derisory. As I will continue to say, “market” price is meaningless when the PAP Government has a monopoly of land and can restrict supply to extract the maximum revenue. This is exactly what the Government does by making HDB pay an excessive price for the land even though if HDB was not a Government statutory board but a private sector company it could use its position as a monopoly buyer, or monopsonist, to lower prices. No one should doubt that prices for land are artificially high since prices collapsed when the Government miscalculated and HDB built too many flats. To offset artificially high prices, the Government then goes through an elaborate charade of keeping housing “affordable” by providing a grant to HDB ($4.4 billion in 2022) from the Budget to cover the manufactured loss that HDB makes. HDB’s accounts do not provide a breakdown of its cost of sales between land and construction costs and this has always been a closely guarded secret but its cost of sales were about $5.5 billion in 2022. The Government also subsidises homeowners with CPF housing grants (though these have to be repaid with interest if the flat is sold) to make it possible for Singaporeans to pay these exorbitant monopoly prices. As I pointed out in my recent blog, “The Mystery of Why the Government Wants HDB To Make a Loss Solved” it would be far easier for the Government to price the land element at cost or at least at a level that meant that HDB would not make a loss. The PAP insists that not paying the “market price” would be unfair to future generations but it has used its monopoly to manipulate the price much higher than it should be in an open market. HDB resale prices keep going up despite the length of the average lease remaining decreasing which suggests that the Government closely watches the build-up of CPF balances and the maximum Singaporeans can be made to pay for smaller and smaller units as part of a coordinated strategy. The ever rising prices paid by HDB to the Government for land are met through the allocations to Ministry of National Development in the Budget out of current revenues. These allocations can then be channelled to GIC and Temasek. With no transparency on the returns achieved we cannot be sure that the performance figures given have not been goosed by regular injections of funds to cover losses despite the Government’s assurances that this is not the case. As I have pointed out the Budget is an exercise in diverting money away from current spending and from providing tangible easily affordable help to Singaporeans. Whether it is subsidising HDB into overpaying for land or mysteriously ever rising allocations to MOH, to the point where healthcare expenditures per Singaporean resident appear on a par or even greater than those per UK resident who receive most healthcare free, while concealing revenues collected from Singaporeans and foreign visitors in a private holding company, or Net Investment Return Contributions (NIRC) that disappear into long term funds and endowments, the whole Budget is an elaborate shell game designed to hide money from Singaporeans and make it appear as if the Government needs to raise taxes. Singaporeans need to wise up to what Sim Ann and other PAP Ministers really mean when they talk about the Government’s commitment to “affordable” housing. It has much less to do with giving you a good deal than it has in pulling the wool over your eyes and making more and more of your money disappear into secret and unaccountable entities where, like a Madoff fund, it will appear to be earning good or even excellent long term returns, as former Finance Minister Tharman memorably said, but no real money will ever come out.   Kenneth Jeyaretnam   About the author: I’m a Singaporean economist who became an opposition activist. I blog to provide an alternative to the porkies that the Pinkies tell. It just so happens that my alternative is the truth. That’s why I’ve never been sued in any civil or criminal court no matter how hard hitting my criticism. I’m quoted and interviewed and asked to speak across the world but largely censored in Singapore in an effort to silence my political opinions. The left hate me because they think I split their vote and because I eschew their outmoded economic models. Models that don’t work. The Right and the Conservatives hate me because I’m a liberal. I’m not sure what the middle think of me. I don’t think there are more than a handful of people in the middle, here in Singapore. I’m a Singaporean born and bred, dual heritage, my parents Singaporean established here before the State of Singapore was created. I’m not Eurasian. I read economics at Cambridge and could be broadly described as from the Keynesian school but I believe in interventions. I was formerly a successful hedge fund manager. After economics and politics my greatest interests are history, film and Makan. I run but I run so I can eat like a Singaporean.      Read More →

1. I offer the following suggestion on how the state funded media, i.e. Channel NewAsia and SPH Media Trust, can carry out its role. 2. The aim should be to educate Singaporeans on issues that affect our future, and to present a perspective that presents Singapore in a favorable light to other countries. 3. Due to our limited resources, we have to rely on international and foreign news agencies to provide the source. Our journalist and editors have to identify what is factual, impartial and fair. They have to be wary about propaganda, bias and distortion and remove them from the news source. In presenting the story, they should give it a balance by getting the views from other sources. 4. The state media should write on the policies of the Singapore government, as presented by government statements, and explain these policies to the citizens and foreign parties which might be impacted by these policies. The information should be presented factually and honestly. 5. Where the state media has to gather the reaction of the general public, they should use a properly designed survey to get a true and honest view. Using online platforms, the survey can be conducted quickly and at low cost. The journalists should not be biased by having a political agenda and selecting only a few individuals to express their views as being representative of the general public. 6. As the state media is funded by tax payers, it should be made available to all without having to pay any subscription. 7. Do we need two state funded media agencies? I think that this is acceptable, as they can provide two independent views on this matter. Alternatively, they can divide the news domains so that each media will focus on a specific domain. 8. I have been following the articles in Global Times and CGTN (China Global Television Network) in presenting news about China. I find that they are quite factual and fair in presenting their views. We can follow their example. 9. In contrast, many articles in the western media have a tendency to be smearing and slandering towards other countries. We should avoid this style. They probably adopt this approach to support the political agenda of the media owners or to win readership to get the revenue.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →

All around us, there are hard-luck stories of Singaporeans who cannot make a decent living or live only for today fearing what tomorrow brings. The elderly in their twilight years are still collecting cardboard and cleaning tables. People who get laid off find it tough to get back on their own two feet. A food delivery rider turns hawker – and still ends up throwing in the towel. Every so often, we get incredible numbers and motherhood stuff flung at us – 180,000 people trained in tech skills! 100,000 jobs and training opportunities created! 3.5 million jobs for 2.5 million locals! More upskilling! More reskilling! Be future ready for the digital economy! Sounds impressive! But what do they mean to the ones like the food delivery rider turned hawker and so many others like him? Shortly before the last general election, Minister Heng Swee Keat promised: “The effort to grow our economy is not just to create jobs, but to create better jobs for Singaporeans.” So where are the “better jobs for Singaporeans”? How many Singaporeans and how many Permanent Residents (PRs) get them? Ask till the cows come home and we are none the wiser. The data and statistics presented – like navigating through a maze – do not give us the picture. Pressed in Parliament for a breakdown on jobs going to Singaporeans and PRs, Minister Chan Chun Sing said: “We can get you the numbers. But let me say this: what is the point behind the question?” He answered a question with a question. Job done. However, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan did utter comforting words on the jobs front: “We should not have to apologise that we are tilting the playing field in favour of our own citizens.” But then, we have been told time and time again that Singapore has an open economy and having fewer foreigners will deprive Singaporeans of jobs and career opportunities. So which is which? To compound the mystery and the confusion, Minister Chan Chun Sing said that the ultimate competition is “Team Singapore, comprising Singaporeans, the PRs and even the foreign workforce … competing to give Singaporeans the best chance possible.” Most remarkably, the Minister’s version of Team Singapore comprises foreign workers! Is that why any breakdown of local and foreign workers for jobs created is deemed not meaningful? Minister Chan also pledged (before the last election): “We will work hard to make sure everyone who wants a job can get a job.” Words come easy, don’t they? The Ministry of Manpower yesterday warned of easing momentum in the labour market in the year ahead, noting: “With the recent uptick in retrenchments, unemployment rates could also trend higher.” If everyone who wants a job can get a job, why would unemployment trend higher? Why are people remaining jobless despite their best efforts? Which reminds us of what then Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong told us about the employment situation: “Retrenchment is good for Singapore. If there is no retrenchments, then I worry.” In that case, we should all be rejoicing now because retrenchments – especially by tech companies – have become commonplace.   Augustine Low      Read More →