Political Commentary
Six Months After a Watershed Election: How Is The Dust Settling?
The uniqueness of the General Election (GE) in May 2011, surely never before seen in the electoral history of Singapore, both in the shock of a chastised PAP government and in the unstoppable hostility of a newly energized electorate, was captured by political commentators in any number of breathless epithets—amazing, transforming, phenomenal, cataclysmic, seismic, a watershed, a sea-change.
Today, six months later, the high emotion has subsided, on the part of the PAP, into a gently conciliatory exercise of placation and reassurance, the leaders promising to bring about change and to connect better with the people, and, on the part of the electorate, into an alert, wait-and-see stance.
Among these watchers there must be a fair number of optimists, bright-eyed with excitement, who look forward to a new society led by a government generously turning an election setback into new inspiration and motivation to serve the people better.
There must also be an even larger number of skeptics, narrow-eyed with suspicion, who think that despite the much-publicised post-election ‘soul searching’ by the PAP leaders and their fervent promises of change, the government will remain essentially the same: the ‘new normal’ in their currently adopted slogan, will simply be the old normal cleverly trotted out in a new dress.
As a political commentator who had closely watched the GE (and a few months later, the Elected Presidency Election which saw a continuation, indeed a sharpening, of the people’s anger and disenchantment), I would like to attempt to answer the questions that must be uppermost in the minds of many Singaporeans during this post-GE period: Just what is happening? What can we expect? Will Singapore society be truly transformed? To what extent will those lavish election promises be kept?
Instead of the usual straight political exposition, I thought I could use the dialogue to present the various issues at hand. The interlocutors are the Optimist on one side, and the Skeptic, on the other, each taking a standpoint diametrically opposed to the other’s. The dialogue as a genre has two advantages: firstly, its debating format of proposition followed by rebuttal makes for a focused examination of each issue raised. Secondly, it allows for the authentic tone and emotional flavour of coffee-shop talk and online chatter.
OPTIMIST: Wow, see what the GE has done—cleared away, in one fell stroke, all those things about the PAP that for 50 years we had tolerated—their arrogance, insensitivity to the needs of the people, their elitism. All now a thing of the past. Wow, I didn’t think I would see all this in my lifetime!
SKEPTIC: Hold those ecstatic wows. They are premature.
OPTIMIST: What do you mean? Every political analyst speaks about a watershed election heralding changes never seen before. Surely even a skeptic like you must believe that?
SKEPTIC: Okay, I believe that all those unpopular features of the PAP style, especially the arrogance, the smug superiority, the high-handedness have been vanquished. From now onwards, no PAP official will dare talk down to the people, appear demanding, keep people waiting at official functions, etc. But that’s just the style. Style is the easiest to change! It means nothing. I could change my style in the twinkling of an eye—sport a colourful T-shirt, wear sneakers, in order to appear empathetic with the young crowd, smile more, shake more hands, stop to talk gently with an old woman in a wheelchair, etc.
OPTIMIST: Now that’s not fair! It’s more than style they’re changing. It’s policies. All those policies which had cost them votes in the election, policies related to transport, housing, foreign workers—Don’t you read the newspapers at all? There are almost daily reports about what this or that minister is doing to improve conditions in each identified area of the people’s discontent. For instance, there will be more flats for the elderly, the poor, single mothers. And I believe there will be a cap on the number of foreign workers allowed in. The PAP leaders are listening at last!
SKEPTIC: Policies which had cost them votes—there, you’ve said it. They have no choice but to abandon or make drastic changes to these policies so detested by the people; otherwise it would be political suicide at the next GE! But wait a sec. Have these policy changes been translated into real action yet? Will they? I seem to be hearing the same grouses about the MRT, the high cost of housing, the influx of foreign workers—
OPTIMIST: Singaporeans grouse all the time. We’re such an impatient lot! Now here’s something more to be optimistic about. The government is concerned not only with addressing these bread-and-butter issues raised at the GE: it is going well beyond these to look into the extras that Singaporeans want for a richer, more fulfilling life. I’m not talking about its avid support of the arts and sports; that’s already well known. I’m talking about humbler, simpler needs that make us more human. Our love of animals, for instance. There may soon be a new ruling that will allow animal lovers to keep pets in the HDB flats. Now that’s real thoughtfulness! Who could ever imagine a sternly pragmatic, technocratic government being aware of such needs at all? Imagine the no-nonsense PAP going out of its way to give its policies a special human touch! It seems to be also mindful of such human sentiments as nostalgia, a yearning for a connection with the past. Take the Brown Cemetery case. Previously, the government would have ignored the wishes of the people and simply bulldozed its way, both literally and metaphorically, to carry out its plans for economic development. But now, after the lessons learnt from GE, it takes the trouble to consult with Singaporeans and seek a compromise. I call that a very laudable change of attitude on the part of the PAP!
SKEPTIC: Let’s see. The government is now more ‘consultative’, ‘inclusive’, ‘caring’, ‘sympathetic’, ‘friendly’, ‘gracious’, ‘people-oriented’—
OPTIMIST: Good. I see you’ve come round to agreeing with me—
SKEPTIC: I was going to add: ‘Haven’t we heard all those fine-sounding words before?’ In fact, we did, twenty years ago, when the then prime minister Mr Goh Chok Tong promised a ‘kinder, gentler’ society.
OPTIMIST: That was then; this is now. Governments have to evolve, you know. And if you want an even stronger affirmation of commitment, what about the prime minister’s pledge, at no less than the PAP Party Convention on 27 November, in these stirring words: ‘We are here to serve… we are not lords and masters.’ Servant-leaders! Wow, that certainly calls for the biggest Wow!
SKEPTIC: If you want buzzwords and soaring rhetoric, anyone can sit down and write you a dozen—’We solemnly vow to give you a new Singapore’, ‘We hear you, we will deliver,’ ‘You matter, no matter who you are’, etc etc. No, what Singaporeans should be watching out for are not these lofty declamations but the obscure allusions hidden in their midst. For instance, in the same ‘We will serve’ speech, the PM mentioned briefly the need to get Singaporeans to ‘see the PAP for what it is, and what it has always done’. Is this a polite reiteration of the old ‘if-you’re-not-for-us, you’re-against-us’ warning? He also briefly mentioned that the PAP should now be ‘more tactical, by tracking and countering opposition moves on all fronts’. Is this a warning that the old tactics of redrawing electoral boundaries, expansion of GRCs, politicizing the supposedly non-partisan grassroots organizations, etc. may still be used, though probably in subtler or disguised forms?
OPTIMIST: Why are you so intent on dismissing all those very visible changes that the PAP has been making for the past 6 months? How can you doubt their sincerity?
SKEPTIC: Changes that the PAP has been forced to make, as part of a damage control exercise, are that much less genuine than those motivated by enlightened thinking.
OPTIMIST: Artificial, genuine—who cares about the motivation as long as the changes are made, and the people benefit from them?
SKEPTIC: Let me tell you this—the motivation makes all the difference. Genuine changes that come from an enlightened mindset will endure; the artificial changes driven by pressures from without will last only as long as the pressures are there. So all those wishes of the people in the GE are now being assiduously looked into, to placate them and weaken the power of the opposition. Suppose the government succeeds in its aims. The people are satisfied and happy. Five years, ten years on, the PAP manages to wrest back the Aljunied GRC. It’s back then to the good old times of PAP dominance! Don’t you think there will be a return of the complacency, the intolerance, the superiority? And all those changes that had been unwillingly undertaken: won’t the PAP, restored to full power, be tempted to dismantle them if they don’t happen to fit into its own grand schemes? After all, the government has always believed that it knows best what is good for the society.
OPTIMIST: I can see that you’re so hardened in your skepticism you’ll read sinister meanings into everything that the PAP government says and does.
SKEPTIC: I will shed the skepticism instantly if the PAP abandons that one policy which really cuts to the heart of the most important issue of all, because everything flows from it—that of political openness and civic liberties in the society. It is a policy that the PAP has been jealously guarding in their 52 years in power.
OPTIMIST: And pray, what is that?
SKEPTIC: The policy related to the Internal Security Act (ISA) which allows the government to arrest and detain political dissidents; between the 1960s and 1980s, there were waves of arrest. When the Malaysian Prime Minister announced recently that he would scrap the country’s ISA and replace it with a terrorism-specific act, eyes were turned to the Singapore Government to see if it too, in the aftermath of the tumultuous GE 2011, would do the same. No way. The PAP leadership has since rejected the call by 16 former detainees for a commission of inquiry to investigate their detentions under the ISA. You know, if the PAP did the unthinkable, that is, actually allowed a Commission of Inquiry and thus risked having its past excesses exposed, it would be signalling a new commitment to transparency, openness, honesty, and above all, courage, humility and honour. And Singaporeans would respond with amazement, and even better, with pride, respect and admiration. But no—such a thing would never, ever happen! The reason? Because the PAP has an intense dislike for any process that could lead to public debate, controversy and noisy world media coverage that could show up its mistakes. It has also rejected calls from member countries of the United Nations to establish bodies such as human rights institutions. Now as I’ve said, I would be Skeptic-turned-Optimist in an instant if part of the post-GE reforms was the abandonment of this noxious act that had been responsible for the incarceration of political dissidents for twenty, thirty years. The fearsome defamation suit against political dissidents may be a thing of the past with Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s exit from active political life, but as long as the ISA is around, it will continue to strike fear in their hearts.
OPTIMIST: Well, all political systems have to evolve to fit in with the times…
SKEPTIC: That word again. A very useful one for the PAP to use. It really means, ‘We will change as and when we want to, in the manner and at the pace that suits us.’ Sorry to sound so disagreeable, but I’m convinced that at core, the PAP government will always be the same, unyielding in their obsession to stay securely, permanently entrenched in the political landscape, but adroitly giving the impression of change through a flurry of reforms in areas that don’t directly impinge on politics, such as business, the arts, education, the environment, etc. The more reform that is going on in these areas, the more will attention be distracted from the area that needs it most—the political domain of basic civic rights. It’s very unlikely that the PAP will ever yield here. You know why? Because true political reforms could open up a Pandora’s Box that would threaten their very existence. So the policy of political control will remain, though hidden from sight. I’m also thinking of another policy that they will find very hard to change, because they see it as a reflection of their worth and value as leaders. Also because it was the brainchild of none other than the most respected, trusted and enduring stalwart in their midst, Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself.
OPTIMIST: If you’re talking about the controversial policy of the ministerial salaries, aren’t you aware that immediately after the elections, the prime minister pledged to review it, and went as far as to de-link public service from monetary rewards? Indeed, we should expect the Review Committee to announce its recommendations soon.
SKEPTIC: I can imagine the quandary the committee must be in. You know, some of my drinking buddies and I have placed bets. I stand to gain $100 if the humongous ministerial salary is cut by a mere tokenish 10%! One of the buddies, under the influence of seven glasses of beer, cheerfully and slobberingly predicted that there would be at least a 35% cut to impress the people! He may still win on his bet, for there could be a 35% cut which, however, will be so cleverly hedged by so many conditions that in effect it will work out to be no more than my tokenish, painless 10%. PAP deviousness as usual!
OPTIMIST: For goodness’ sake, don’t have such a distorted, jaundiced view of things! See the review, as well as all the other changes that are being made, in the right spirit!
SKEPTIC: ‘All the other changes’. Right now, the biggest change seems to be only in the political vocabulary. Words and phrases such as ‘authoritarian’, ‘nanny state’, ‘paternalism’, ‘climate of fear’, ‘out-of-bounds markers’, ‘top-down’, have disappeared, making way for ‘new normal, ‘real politicians,’ ‘ new PAP style’, ‘a re-invented PAP’, ‘engagement’, ‘sharing’, ‘transparency’, ‘social compact’, etc. We can expect more in the future. Our political lexicon is getting richer! Words, words, words! I suppose if you say them often enough, they become reality.
OPTIMIST: I can’t believe you can subscribe to such a naive view. Fortunately, Singaporeans are not so gullible as to confuse words with action. And whatever you may say about the PAP, they have always shown a distaste for empty rhetoric, verbal posturing, unruly filibustering. They are above all that cheap politicking!
SKEPTIC: They are not above any tactic that will ensure avoiding a repeat of that very painful GE 2011 experience. They will grab at any tactic that will bring back Aljunied GRC. When the PM talked about a ‘re-invented PAP’, he probably meant a PAP that has very carefully thought out and honed its tactics so well that it will never again be caught off-guard in any GE, never again be bested by the opposition in any way. The plain truth is that the Machiavellianism of politics will make use of whatever that works, and not be incommoded by the finer points of ethics. The end justifies the means. Now visualize these two scenes: the first shows the PAP leaders huddled together behind closed doors, in urgent, intense consultation, as they ferociously, ruthlessly hammer out future political strategies with only one aim—to keep the party in power. The second scene shows them before a large crowd, or on TV, calmly, amiably promising reform and change, even extending a courteous hand to the opposition. Can you imagine a greater gap between the public face and the behind-closed-doors face of the PAP?
OPTIMIST: I say again, take off those distorting lens that make you paint things so grimly and in such an ugly way. Ugh!
SKEPTIC: And you take off your rose-tinted spectacles, because they make you throw a sickly-sweet Pollyana hue on everything! Believe me, the PAP is incapable of real change. Well, as they say, old habits die hard. A leopard can’t change its spots.
OPTIMIST: Well, since you’re into proverbs, consider this one to reflect the PAP’s sincerity and earnestness which you so cynically doubt, in bringing about reforms after the bruising but salutary lessons of GE 2011: ‘Once bitten, twice shy.’ It reflects well on a government if it learns from its mistakes and reverses. Very few governments do.
SKEPTIC: Maybe the proverb calls for a little embellishment when applied to the PAP. So what about ‘Once bitten, twice canny about sharpening its teeth to bite back.’ Workers’ Party, watch out!
OPTIMIST: You know what happens to skeptics?
SKEPTIC: What?
OPTIMIST: They fall on their own swords.
SKEPTIC: And you know what happens to optimists?
OPTIMIST: What?
SKEPTIC: They become skeptics. Because they are invariably disillusioned.
December 4th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
About four decades ago when PAP’s rule was unchallenged, Mr Lee Kuan Yew (with uncanny foresight) already predicted today’s climate:
http://thementorofsingapore.blogspot.com/2011/06/lee-kuan-yews-analysis-on-how.html
December 4th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
About four decades ago, when PAP rule was unchallenged, Mr Lee Kuan Yew already (with uncanny foresight) predicted today’s climate:
http://thementorofsingapore.blogspot.com/2011/06/lee-kuan-yews-analysis-on-how.html
December 4th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Useful technique to bring out the hopes and reservations.
But you left out an ‘expert’- the ‘rationalist’- whose role is to provide a more politically balanced and educated viewpoint and to highlight how both can go about validating their respective stands.
December 4th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Hi Pundit,
I read that link you provided but am wiser only to the extent that it was written by a PAP supporter who sees only ‘mobsters’ in those who seek to provide a political alternative to the PAP. I should inform you that NOBODY or GROUP in human history had been able to lay claim to infallibility and insist that there is only one way -namely, their way – forward for those they rule and demand abject compliance.
You can only rule or govern if those whom you depend on to support you AGREED to it willingly. A pyramid have an apex only because there are 99.9% others willing to provide the base for it!
You get it?
December 4th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
George:
You made two assumptions in your comment:
1) That I am a PAP supporter.
2) That I see those who seek to provide a political alternative to the PAP as “mobsters”.
Both presumptions are not true. I don’t believe that they are an infallible party. But here, I must add a qualifier: While I am not a partisan PAP supporter, I believe that government led by the PAP is good for Singapore. I believe that most of the PAP values and many of its policies (as laid out by our Founding Fathers, i.e. Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, Rajaratnam, etc.) are good for Singapore.
I don’t see people or parties who provide a political alternative to the PAP as “mobsters”. For me, the mob are those who mindlessly crucify the PAP and think that the solution to all of Singapore’s problems is to vote the PAP out.
You wrote: “You can only rule or govern if those whom you depend on to support you AGREED to it willingly.” No dispute with that. In 16 General Elections, the PAP has consistently won the vast majority of the seats and even in its most recent “poor” performance (a landslide by the standards of many democratic countries), the PAP won more seats than all the other Opposition Parties combined. Emprically, Singaporeans still agree to being governed by the PAP.
December 4th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
I would favour the Skeptic’s point of view. I tend to agree with George that the people’s support is the main power base of any political party. The old adage “Govt FROM the people, BY the people and FOR the people” still holds true in any democracy. The PAP may be great at one time but it is facing its own demise at the rate it is going. No point in harping on past glories when the end is obvious for all to see. Of course there will still be people supporting them BUT that is eroding. Thank you for the excellent article! I love reading all your articles!
December 4th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Alan Tang wrote: ‘Govt FROM the people, BY the people and FOR the people” still holds true in any democracy.’ The origin of that quote was Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address in 1863. Over a hundred years have passed and today (just as it was in the 1863), the US of A is a country ruled by two confederation of elites named Republicans and Democrats. Democractic government, in the West, just mean that the people get to choose which group of elites represent (or appear to represent them).
While I am skeptical about how the quote can translate into reality, I do agree with the spirit of Lincoln’s words. The people should have a choice to elect their government. Do the PAP measure up?
A government of the people? The PAP comprises of Singaporeans. A government for the people? The PAP has always pledged to serve the people of Singapore (of course their detractors would vehemently disagree) and they have delivered the good life for many Singaporeans, although one cannot deny that many have also fallen through the cracks.
A government chosen by the people? Since 1959, they have always been voted in by the people of Singapore. In the recent GE, the PAP won out of 82 of 87 contested seats, and over 1.2 million of a possible 2,015,636 seats. This is a landslide by any objective measure. But because of the PAP’s historical supremacy, it is considered a “decline”.
It is laughable to talk about the PAP’s “demise” and “eroding support”. The numbers speak for themselves. The vast majority of Singaporeans still believe that their fortunes lie with a PAP government.
December 4th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Hi Pundit, Points taken. Maybe “demise” is too strong a word but the fact is that support for them is “eroding” as seen in the last recent two elections – GE and PE. That is why terms like “amazing, transforming, phenomenal, cataclysmic, seismic, a watershed, a sea-change” as mentioned by CL came into picture. They were great does not mean that they will be great for next 10,000 yrs. That was the wish of every emperor in ancient China. But then we know that in ancient China ( or any civilisation eg ancient Rome or Greece), dynasty rise and fall! What makes you think the PAP should be exempted from this historical fact? Only time will tell. I certainly wish that I am wrong and you are correct for the sake of our nation!
December 4th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
“The PAP has always pledged to serve the people of Singapore”. Unfortunately, I have come to associate the word “pledge” with “high falutin ideas”. It was a shock for me (and many) the realization of this after many years (entire life). So I take the word with a pinch of salt. As the skeptic has found, many pledges are mere words, a means to an end – power to rule.
December 4th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Much has been said about the incumbent and how little we can expect from them. Rationally speaking, mistakes have been made & a careful eye on the ones in power to ensure they stick to their promises. Yet few examples (if any) of how our opposition have done much else to make themselves truly viable or effective. I am terribly wary of the both & thus embody a true skeptic. The author of article should consider being narrated by the characters of, instead of optimist & skeptic, pro-incumbent & pro-opposition for those are the characters they honestly represent.
December 4th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Hey, add my voice too!
December 4th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
Pundit, Why did you say I made those two assumptions about you? In the context, I was plainly referring to the author of that link you provided, unless of course you were the author?
Apart for in the earlier GE where and when the PAP had genuine mass support of Singaporeans of those generations (my parents and uncles, etc), it had regrettably resorted to all sorts of methods, including hardly democratic -arrests,harassment and detention of political opponents, playing hard and fast with electoral boundaries, bringing in instant MPs through the GRC backdoor on seniors’ coat tails -which is insulting the voters whose quiescence the PAP takes very much for granted and even morally corrupting ones (giving billions of dollars away just before GE to buy votes (and quickly taking it back through new/higher taxes post-GE)).
There is a saying that there is honour among thieves, but the PAP through such acts has indisputably demonstrated that as a party in govt, its standards are below even thieves.
I am surprised at you for blatantly quoting such materials to show the ‘legitimacy’ of PAP’s GE successes and tenure in govt. You would not be able to hoodwink those Singaporeans -and there are many of us – who were actually there when it happened. As for your political affiliation, it’s your right to decide which party to align your loyalty with, but please do not insult others’ intelligence and in effect exposes your bias and real agenda behind your propaganda.
December 4th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
Dear George:
Yes, I was the author of that link.
You can spin all the anti-PAP rhetoric you want. But let me break it down for you. 16 General Elections. All won by the PAP. There is a reason why. And it is not really because of arrests, playing hard and fast with electoral boundaries, bringing in instant MPs through the GRC backdoor on seniors’ coat tails, etc. Ultimately the majority of Singaporeans are rational. The PAP delivered the good life for them. Once the PAP stop delivering, they will lose power. It’s as simple as that. Is this propaganda?
December 4th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
If the PAP can really win elections without arrests, defamation suits, use of public funds for handouts, threats about upgrading, threats of withdrawal of services, without the machinery of the PA and the grassroots organisations which are funded by all taxpayers, then I guess the Singapura pundit is right and Singaporeans are rational in choosing a government which puts foreigners over citizens, pays themselves the world’s highest salaries and eats away at our retirement funds so we have to work till we drop dead.
December 5th, 2011 at 12:04 am
Pundit, Good life for whom?
Like you, once upon a time I was also a staunch supporter, but no more when the scales have fallen.
It sickens me when I see our old folks, some bent over, still slogging it out to eke out a living clearing tables in a country which boasts of being first world in practically everything, but has a barefaced proclivity to selectively compare shamelessly whatever suits its agenda for the moment. A govt which has no qualms about murdering the dialect roots and heritage of its ethnic Chinese citizens. A founding statesman who expects his subordinate to be in-corrupt but saw nothing wrong in he and his extended family members accepting -only for them- million dollars discounts from a condo developer which he could brazenly and shamelessly stood up in parliament to justify. Exposed and caught with his hands in the cookie jar, yet instead of being contrite he actually held forth in parliament about how people in his position would naturally attract such special unsolicited ‘favours’!!!
By the way, what is your definition of a ‘good life’?
December 5th, 2011 at 12:19 am
“How much do you want? Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?”
December 5th, 2011 at 12:21 am
Dear George:
What is “the good life”? It means different things for different people, obviously. The people of Singapore who voted in the PAP for 16 General Elections over 50 years won’t all have the same agreement on what constitutes the good life. But on one thing they agree. It ain’t going to come from those in Opposition. Not from Chee, JBJ or the Workers’ Party. (Yes, they won Aljuneid and Hougang. So what? That’s one of 15 GRCs and 1 of 12 SMCs. Get a sense of proportion!)
I won’t bother to refute the tiresome charges you’ve lobbied against the PAP. That’s not my job. I’m not a “staunch supporter” (don’t be presumptous that you were once “like me”. What do you know about me?).
Actually, I was a staunch supporter of the Opposition. What happened? I grew up and saw through their empty promises and vague rhetoric. I studied history and saw how LKY’s policies, for better or for worse, propelled Singapore ahead of the region and turned Singapore into a thriving cosmopolitan city state.
You will probably be sneering as you read the last part. “Ah, another brainwashed guy.” You would probably be thinking. But I’ve been on both sides of the fence, George.
And I woke up.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:21 am
I am a Singaporean in my early 30s. I was directed here from a forum thread.
Am I currently living a better life? The answer is no. I missed the 80′s and early 90′s way of life whereby life was simpler, more spacious and more affordable to live. I detest the incumbent PAP government simply because I feel short-changed as life in Singapore has become harder and harder for me, and for my children too in the foreseeable future if things remain status quo. Think about it. How can a common Singaporean not detest the incumbent PAP government when his/her life has become harder while those PAP goons enrich themselves with millions? My parents and grandparents tolerated PAP’s threats (removal of PAP kindergarten in our area if we don’t vote for PAP back in the 80′s) and other nonsenses back then because they saw PAP as a necessary evil and really, there weren’t any other political parties around back then that were credible enough to govern Singapore well.
Guess what? Things have changed now! People of my generation and those younger ones are not as gullible as our parents and grandparents. Yes, it is true that Singapore has progressed extensively under the PAP stewardship over the decades. However, reality on the ground now is that life has become harder for common Singaporeans like me! How can the government priced a PUBLIC housing flat until it needs both husband and wife to work in order to have an ease of mind to pay off the housing installments? And you expect us to have more babies? Up yours, PAP goons!
I can cite more facts and examples such as the bad policies of flooding our little island with tides of foreigners when the fundamental infrastructures such as housing and transport to cope with the exponential surge of population are not put in place yet before our moronic government opened the flood gates; but it is really pointless now, isn’t it. It is not as if the PAP goons do not already know. All these antics the PAP goons come up with, such as building casinos to earn sinful money and withholding our CPF until aged 65, and etc, are just to maintain the PAP philosophy of governance which is pro business and self-reliance from most of its citizens. Well, when you make your people’s lives worse off, you better bloody well not paid yourselves over the edge! That is my beef with PAP!
And yes, people like me will vote potential oppositions like the Workers Party into parliament and groom them to become a political party strong enough to take over PAP and become our government one day. I am really sick of PAP and the way they are making life harder for me and my family! And as for Singapura Pundit, I have read your propaganda article. My comment to you is, “Up yours too!” |
December 5th, 2011 at 8:40 am
you think life in Singapore is bad ? obviously you have not lived in malaysia before. life is a lot worst over in malaysia, if not why do an estimated 3000,000 malaysians are currently working in Singapore ?
December 5th, 2011 at 10:25 am
Disgruntled complains that life has become harder for common Singaporeans like himself and looks at the 1980s and 90s with nostalgia. He fervently believes that if the PAP is voted out and replaced with the Workers’ Party, we can go back to the old days. I don’t think even the Workers’ Party is this optimistic.
The world out there is a harsh one in which countries are pitted against each other as economic competitors. Reality check: It’s not just Singaporeans versus foreign workers. It’s Singaporeans versus workers all over the world. How do we maintain our competitive edge so that Singapore will remain relevant in the scheme of things?
We need a strong government who is willing to bite the bullet and introduce some unpopular policies. But the people have grown soft and restless. They crave for an “alternative voice” (which is a legitimate desire). But what is the alternative? I was once very enthusiastic about the Opposition Party, till I took a good hard look at what they were proposing. Some vague talk about a first world parliament and giving the people a choice. But what is the alternative?
I’m not saying that the PAP is perfect or that everything LKY says is infallible. For the hardcore anti-PAP folks, no amount of reason can convince them. Still, the situation is far from hopeless since we can see from the GE results that the vast majority of Singaporeans still desire a PAP government.
December 5th, 2011 at 11:56 am
Seems like the Optimist and the Skeptic are continuing and extending your ‘conversation’, Catherine.
Like your post, they disagree till the very end.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
“…vast majority of Singaporeans still desire a PAP government.”
66% = vast majority. Can someone tells me how do you describe 80% in words?
December 5th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Let’s put things in perspective. 2,015,636 votes were cast on GE2011. 44,737 were spoilt. The PAP won over a million (1,212,154) votes. The WP and NSP got 200,000 plus votes each and the SDP about 97,000 votes. Surely, a landslide victory, no?
Of course given its historical supremacy, the PAP would not be satisfied with this result.
December 5th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Singapura Pundit wrote…
“Disgruntled complains that life has become harder for common Singaporeans like himself and looks at the 1980s and 90s with nostalgia. He fervently believes that if the PAP is voted out and replaced with the Workers’ Party, we can go back to the old days. I don’t think even the Workers’ Party is this optimistic.”
Ups yours again for twisting my words to suit your pathetic agenda!
Likewise, vast majority of Singaporeans support PAP, your ass! More like left 35% of the firm support base that PAP can count on, and not to mention, the bulk of the civil service especially those who stupidly still think that their votes are not secret and the government will know who they vote for.
Come and talk to me again when you can justify why those PAP goons can pay themselves millions plus PENSIONS (wtf?!) while common Singaporeans like me have found it harder to live our lives and raise our families compared to my parents’ time.
Up yours!
December 5th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Pundit,
I have asked for YOUR definition of a ‘good life’ but have received no reply. Obviously, different people would have different definitions. I asked for yours because you have mentioned it repeatedly in your posts. So it would be interesting and enlightening to know what you mean to facilitate more discussion. Care to be more forthcoming?
You have chosen to be dismissive about those FACTS regarding policies and events of the PAP and LKY in particular. You don’t think they are important to you just because you have not been directly affected by them? Or, you don’t mind selling your soul as the saying goes for the ‘good life’? One must point out that if it does not seem to bother you (its not an matter of leaving it to PAP supporters to defend/reply) as a citizen the sort of govt leaders we have in office, I seriously don’t think you care at all about anything else but yourself.
You are also dismissive about the opposition because they have NOT impressed you. You claimed to have been their supporters at one time but no longer. Again you have not justified or explained your reason.
It is all very wishy-washy, very superficial the way you seem to look at things. In fact, I doubt if you are genuine at all.
December 5th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
George:
Since we are talking about a whole nation here and not my personal beliefs, it doesn’t matter what my idea of a good life is. For the past 16 GEs, Singaporeans have voted in the PAP because they believe the PAP can deliver the good life to them. If you really want to go into it, I suppose for many Singaporeans, the good life means jobs (at the very least), a stable income and security. Of course that’s just the basic. We can go on and on.
You accuse me of being “dismissive” of “facts” regarding regarding policies and events of the PAP and LKY in particular, that I am being “superficial” and “wishy-washy” (Actually I did explain why I stopped supporting the Opposition, but you were probably too excited and didn’t read carefully). You denounce me as someone who “only cares about myself.”
You see, my dear George. All these are emotional rhetoric. The fact is that the majority of Singaporeans have spoken. They want a PAP government which, for better or for worse, still delivers. Unable to accept this fact, you lash out at me. But come on lah. Let’s not play this parlour game, shall we?
Grow up!
December 5th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Disgruntled:
“Up yours”? If that is the best argument you can come up with, then I shall extend the same advice that I gave to George.
Grow up.
December 5th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
A Disgruntled Singaporean, I was born in the old KK in 1963. I have seen much in my life with my own eyes. The saying “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” holds true. Not neccessarily the normal definition of corruption. It can be morals decay, greed, rotten values etc. For example it does not make sense that a married couple need to pay 30 yrs of their working life for just a decent home supposedly heavily subsidised by the govt. What about the ever changing min sum and rules on our own hard earned CPF monies? There are so many examples for all to see. If it is true then it must true! Which country’s citizens will not support its govt if it delivers the good life? If it really cares for the people. We just want a decent life for ourselves and family. It seems that we have become 2nd class citizens in our land of birth. Like you, I fully understand your sentiments. Past glories need not mean they will never rot or decay at its core. Time will only tell! Let history be the judge. In the mean time, more high calibre Singaporeans are coming out. They should be given a chance to lead and grow – to contribute and build on so as to benefit all citizens.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
//Let’s put things in perspective. 2,015,636 votes were cast on GE2011. 44,737 were spoilt. The PAP won over a million (1,212,154) votes. The WP and NSP got 200,000 plus votes each and the SDP about 97,000 votes. Surely, a landslide victory, no? //
Tell that to PM. He kept barking on the fear of ‘gridlock’ with 81:6 seats. Who needs to get a perspective?
//66% = vast majority. Can someone tells me how do you describe 80% in words?//
80%= vaster majority
, PAP’s lingo
Disgruntled or not, I only have this to say. It behooves Singaporeans to have a Plan B, a solid Plan B because you know is never wise to put all your eggs in one basket.
http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2011/12/05/southeast-asia-is-tops-for-expats-but-dont-bring-kids/?mod=WSJBlog&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
December 5th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Pundit,
Oh, you are most definitely wrong. It does matter what your/one’s idea of a good life is. Your idea of it makes you spew those numbers, that to you, they are the whole story. But that’s your idea of it. It does not necessarily have to be the only ones as you seem to be claiming.
Oh, you have been dismissive, dismissive and condescending to be exact. By not responding to those points I brought up it says a lot about who you really are. Afraid to offend someone or some party you are beholden to right? I can hardly blame you seeing that that would be asking you to bite the hand that feeds you.
It’s quite clear what YOUR GAME is. Your ‘Mentor’ blog says it all. And thank you for removing whatever doubts there might have existed about your affiliation and purpose. We know now and we are not about to waste any more time engaging your type. No reason why we should provide any substance for you to report to your masters.
If it is not already evident, we have grown up AND OUT of the fantasy spun by the personality and party on whose table scarps you depend for your good life.
That you keep on regurgitating the same few numbers ad nauseam tells us just how short a leash you are kept on. Your bosses don’t trust you to wander too far lest you end up overextending and injuring yourself and harming them in the process.
This debate is close for the obvious reasons.
December 5th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
Dear George:
You will probably not believe this, but there’s no “game” involved. No masters to report to. I am not affliated to the PAP or any other party. I’m just an ordinary Singaporean who admires Mr Lee Kuan Yew and is supportive of the PAP. That’s all. But your mind has constructed a different story. What to do? Jonathan Swift was right when he said: “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into”.
December 6th, 2011 at 12:13 am
Pundit,
Try getting off your high horse. That would help.
December 6th, 2011 at 12:56 am
He can’t, part of him is caught between horse and saddle…
December 6th, 2011 at 9:09 am
/// Gu December 6th, 2011 at 12:56 am He can’t, part of him is caught between horse and saddle… ///
Oh yes, he can. That part of him was missing long ago….
December 6th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Huwahuwahuwahuwahuwa………………………!!!!!!!!!!!
December 6th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Singapura Pundit, up yours with a bamboo pole! Unable to justify say unable to justify. And keep your hypocritical advice to yourself, Pappy dog.
Pui!
December 6th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
//Singapura Pundit December 5th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
You will probably not believe this, but there’s no “game” involved. No masters to report to. I am not affliated to the PAP or any other party. I’m just an ordinary Singaporean who admires Mr Lee Kuan Yew and is supportive of the PAP.//
Yeah, I am not affliated to any football fan club but I just admire Alex Ferguson and is supportive of Manchester United. You reek too much of garlic and onion.
December 6th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
//Singapura Pundit December 5th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
Jonathan Swift was right when he said: “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into”.//
Have you forgootten, he might have well been referring to a person like you.
December 7th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
sg was never er. . democratic since dependence, having voices of democracy scares de party and then some. Taking a long time in forming an alternative voice – it took a maturing people at least 5-6 decades. People are more sure of their voice now.
December 7th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
sg was never democratic since independence
perhaps people now need fresh air
December 7th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
The tipping point is upon us now. Strike while the iron is hot. Don’t allow the 60% govt and 30 % president to regroup!
For our Destiny and our People – MIW in front, FIRE!
December 7th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
I proclaim myself pundit. I no lap dog
December 7th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Singapore was never meant to have a good life in the first place. Singapore has absolutely nothing. The advantageous geolocation is a myth. Any harbour in the area can post a big threat if Singapore hadn’t its first mover position. Similarly, Singapore has first mover advantage relative to China and India and the rest of SEA like Vietnam and Indonesia. If any of these giants were up and coming through the 70s to 90s, Singapore would be no more. Realise that sombre reality.
The old good life is a thing of the past. Stop dreaming. This applies to anywhere in the whole wide world. China and India in smaller way are coming on the scene now. It’s akin to the good old days where farmhands can still get by reasonably stress-free but are now obsolete thanks to technology revolution bringing in harvesters.
We’re not in another technology revolution now. The very internet and communications you are relying on to spread these old-dated dreams of the “good old days” are precisely the harvestors that are clearing out your “good old days”. Jobs are being parceled, harvested and moved to these giants through internet and communications. The good old days are no more. If you choose to be remain a farmhand, then be prepared to suffer. Singapore must adapt and move.
No party can bring back the good old days. This is not a political proposition. It’s a fact of life.
December 7th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
If you wish for the good old days, you might as well wish that there were no internet, no cheap communications and no readily affordable and widespread computers, and there were no China reforms, no Eastern Europe revolutions and no Indian IT enterpreneurs.
You’re better off building a time machine than hope that an alternative party can miraculously give Singapore a great economic advantage over the rest of world to let all of us sit back, relax and stop worrying about adapting and changing.
December 7th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Younger Singaporeans are too soft. They think Singapore is almighty. They think Singapore is up there.
Wrong. They should go to China, India, Eastern Europe and look into the eyes of their city peers there. Their eyes are like eagle’s peering into the future offered by the current technology revolution. They are hungry for success because their environment and country are not exactly up there yet.
The same eyes are roving all over the world, not just here in Singapore in the much maligned FTs.
Compare that to our youths who want the good old life thinking it’s their due without knowing these countless eagle-eyed people out there are competing for the same. They don’t want to adapt and move. They think it’s a internal political issue on Singapore soil. How wrong they are.
The first tier cities are moving fast. The second tiers are coming up. The challenges are pounding us in waves. But the Singaporean youths still think Singapore is above all these.
December 7th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
super wrote so much but still have not addressed the justification of those PAP goons’ million dollar salaries and PENSIONS!
When you want your people to bite the bullets, you better bloody well lead by example! Capisce?
December 7th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Disgruntled,
In the first place, I never even mean to address that at all. Which part are you reading?
I’m saying it’s a different world out there now. If you think you can go back to the cocoon of the good old days living and working the same things and same ways as always like the last time (before China, India, the WWW, cheap telecoms/even air travel, pervasive IT and you know what), then good luck to you. You’ll be redundant in no time.
Just one question. Do you think the US, European and other politicians have higher callings with their lower pay? You really believe that? What’s in it for them? Why do they posture and manoevre all the time for power? Higher calling? Is instigating a stalemate to block a long needed policy a higher calling? Is risking national bankruptcy their higher calling? Why can’t they get their acts right for their higher calling?
Get real.
December 7th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
Pundit said: Jonathan Swift was right when he said: “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into”.
That knife cuts both ways. If Pundit wasn’t careless that part of him wouldn’t have gone missing long ago….
December 7th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
If higher calling is indeed their driver, they’ll push through the necessary and right thing even though it may be unpopular and painful. They’ll tell the people what’s needed and convince them that it’s required. They’ll go out to do it even at the risk of losing votes because it’s their calling.
If instead of higher calling, what they want is political mileage, it’s really much much much easier. Just do what the people want, what’s popular with the people, what’s easily communicated and digested with little issues. Things like social welfare, protectionism, higher pay, lower costs, more subsidies, more generous budget, cut the pay of ministers and top civil servants, and what not.
Many such things can be done without any thoughts if you’re not interested about the long term consequences. It’s so easy for you to say – “higher calling”. Two words and you dismiss all future consequences. What’s so difficult for you to say that? I bet you can get scores of higher calling people anytime from the streets.
December 7th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
Et tu super pundit?
December 7th, 2011 at 11:57 pm
Does higher calling mean giving in to popular demands especially when it comes from a detractor?
Or fighting for what’s right, what’s essential for continued survival?
What do you mean by higher calling? As a social worker, you can help one family. As a clergy, you can guide a person. As a doctor, you can treat a child. When you build from scratch to become the lead of a social work organisation, the bishop of a big congregation or hospital head of a reknowned charity hospital, is your calling still the same? Still one family, one person, one child?
Your calling will be the continued sustainability of operations to serve the common good. Your responsibility is to ensure the long term benefits for as many people as possible. What will you do? Hope for more cheap but good volunteers?
Get real.
December 8th, 2011 at 12:07 am
Hey super, before I up yours with a bamboo pole or something else, what are you driving at? What do you want us to do? Did any of the replies here suggested that we are ignorant in what is going on around us? Likewise, can you not beat around the bush to make a simple point somewhat like that pappy dog, Singapura Pundit? Or are you his evil twin?
December 8th, 2011 at 12:28 am
Disgruntled,
I’m very curious. What does it matter who I am?
You speak in far too simple terms. If only the world is so simple like how you talk, then there’ll be everlasting peace.
As if removing PAP will make any difference to the challenges and choices facing us. As if every critic of your views is a PAP “stooge”.
Too simple. I want to show that.
December 8th, 2011 at 12:58 am
New citizen approval time is now 1 month 25 days! New pr approval time is 27 days!
By 2016, there will be more new citizens voting than local born Singaporean!
The cause is already lost forever! 2011 IS the last chance but 60.1% decided otherwise!
December 8th, 2011 at 12:59 am
The devil is known by many names. What does it matter what he calls himself. A lap dog, a pundit, super duper Internet brigade
December 8th, 2011 at 1:00 am
Hey super aka Singapura Pundit’s evil twin, up yours with a PVC pipe! Read again and digest slowly all the replies in here before you shoot with your cunt in here again.
I shall only represent myself and not the others in here. My beef with PAP is they are making owning public housing harder and what gives them the right to enrich themselves with millions and PENSIONS while common Singaporeans like me are worse off. Why should I tolerate this nonsense? Why can’t we Singaporeans start to groom another political party so that PAP can be replaced one day? What makes you certain that opposition parties like the Workers Party are not able to form a competent government to govern Singapore one day?
Now, what has all these got to do with those that you have written? Simple? Complex? Up yours lah!
Capisce?
December 8th, 2011 at 1:20 am
//If higher calling is indeed their driver, they’ll push through the necessary and right thing even though it may be unpopular and painful. They’ll tell the people what’s needed and convince them that it’s required. They’ll go out to do it even at the risk of losing votes because it’s their calling.//
whether they do the right or wrong things, still they will get voted out sooner or later because different interests will keep on pulling among one another and this will get manifested in the ballot result of a real democracy. in fact, limitation of the terms in office is precisely to prevent concentration of power for too long and to promote renewal and democratisation / devolution of power among a wider segment of more people.
December 8th, 2011 at 1:27 am
Disgruntled,
You’re the one who first showed interest in my comments by directly referring to me (December 7th, 2011 at 8:33 pm). Now, you say I’m the one who started talking gibberish to you.
If you want to add something to my comments, you’re most welcome. But if you’ve actually made a mistake (ie misunderstood/misread my comments) and can’t really add anything useful, then you can just apologize for the mistake. There’s no need to cover up with pretence. Worst, stop using profanities as though you’re so macho. It gives whom you support (WP?) a bad name. Is this the democracy and first world parliament they’re talking about? Is this the type of people they crave for support?
If you think only Singapore face higher costs, it’s fine but you better read more. If you think HDB should be perpetually cheap as private homes get more costly, it’s fine too but you better think about your parents and the other HDB dwellers because these people and their posterity can hardly hope to move out of this rut called HDB.
December 8th, 2011 at 1:52 am
Hey super aka Singapura Pundit’s evil twin, up yours with a rusty metal pipe!
Pray tell, what mistakes did I make in comparison to yours? I passed a statement on what you have written. You then went on to state I speak in far too simple terms. I have retorted and I am now still waiting for your answer to my questions to you!
Simple? Complex? Up yours lah!
Oh yes, I dare say HDB has been making profits out of PUBLIC housing. You can ask your masters to sue me! Pappy dog!
December 8th, 2011 at 2:20 am
Disgruntled,
Your comment is about pay. I answered. I illustrated the complexity of it as opposed to your simple views. Now, you want me to comment on your specific issues which I wasn’t even touching on in the first place. However, gracefully, I made a comment too, despite your deplorable attitude (which strangely is “exemplary” of certain supporters around here). So, which part do you need more explanations?
As for your additional query, let me give my best try.. How do you propose to value land costs? $1? Also, resale transactions has nothing to do with HDB. What are you after? $1 land + cheap public ruts => forever bliss for Singaporeans. That’s a really simple solution to the issues.
December 8th, 2011 at 8:28 am
///super December 7th, 2011 at 6:21 pm The same eyes are roving all over the world, not just here in Singapore in the much maligned FTs. ///
super aka singapura pundit,
Yes, globalization is here. But who lets in foreigners by the millions? Which other countries (other than those oil rich middle eastern states) have foreigners accounting for more than a third of the resident population?
December 8th, 2011 at 9:13 am
What happened to pundit? I missed the joker. He’s super
December 8th, 2011 at 10:36 am
As fake as can be. See how his identity and arguments evolve. Shares few if any of his personal experience. That’s the clue that gives away one’s falsehood.
December 8th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
TWOG,
I’m not Singapore pundit. Are you so overly awed by the points he brought up? Why do you see him everywhere in everyone? Is he so formidable to you? Don’t be too paranoid. No offence to him, but I’m myself and I stand on my own feets squarely. I don’t need to be anyone. Get it?
Globalisation is here to challenge everyone whether or not the foreigners are around. That applies to US, Europe and anywhere else. That’s the reality of it. Adapt.
Talking about percentage, why not you find out how many there are in the major international cities? New York, London, Melbourne and so on. My gut feel is that you’ll find the figures significant in any vibrant global city.
December 8th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Even the style and tone are the same
December 8th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
super aka Singapura Pundit’s evil twin wrote…
“As for your additional query, let me give my best try.. How do you propose to value land costs? $1? Also, resale transactions has nothing to do with HDB. What are you after? $1 land + cheap public ruts => forever bliss for Singaporeans. That’s a really simple solution to the issues.”
Look at how this fool just screwed itself. This pappy dog fool wrote resale transactions has nothing to do with HDB. Well, it is now certain that super should be the one who BETTER READ MORE.
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_692166.html
Simple? Complex? Up yours lah!
Pui!
December 8th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
I’m still here. Just waiting for someone worth responding to. So far…
By the way, read my new article?
http://thementorofsingapore.blogspot.com/2011/12/lee-kuan-yew-takes-on-sia-pilots-1980.html
December 8th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
By the way, Disgruntled. You really should drop the “up yours with a ______ pole” routine. It really makes you look silly and diminishes whatever hope of anyone taking your ideas seriously. Just a friendly word of advice.
December 8th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Even the posts come just 5 minutes apart. Yup enough time to switch identity
December 8th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Disgruntled, A sells his HDB unit to B after negotiating and agreeing on the price. A and B are unrelated to HDB. They are private individuals. Get it?
You need a rest. Have a kitkat, sip on a cup of tea. Keep a hold on yourself. Stop being so hypersenitive and so paranoid. You read and see things which are not there. I’m not who you’re after. You may have some inexplicable senseless irrational vendatta with someone, but it’s not me. You seem to have some persecution complex. Stop making a fool of yourself.
December 8th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Hey Singapura Pundit aka super’s evil twin, up yours with a flag pole! You are the one who look pathetically silly in here with your alter ego.
I should feel sorry for people like you, but I can’t be bothered nowadays. All I can say to you is 犯贱!
Pui!
December 8th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
super aka Singapura Pundit’s evil twin wrote…
“A sells his HDB unit to B after negotiating and agreeing on the price. A and B are unrelated to HDB. They are private individuals. Get it?”
It is obvious that the psycho pappy dog can’t read properly even when spoon fed. Therefore, I shall not waste time with this muppet since it is clear that it enjoys being screwed by us.
To super aka Singapura Pundit, “Tail between your legs!” Now, that is a good pappy dog.
Pui!
December 8th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Disgruntled, you’re delusional. You have a strange obsession about Pundit. You should seek help.
Take this advice. If you don’t agree with anyone, you can offer your opinions. That’s fine. But don’t get too obsessed even if you can’t offer anything. Definitely, don’t make a scene in such cases. That detracts from whatever morsel of substance you’ve managed to put in the discussion.
Just breathe in and out slowly and tell yourself – those comments (mine or anyone else’s) are just not meant for you. It’s for all the hundreds and thousands of other people.
December 8th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Hoodwink and convert the masses!
December 8th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
“A sells his HDB unit to B after negotiating and agreeing on the price. A and B are unrelated to HDB. They are private individuals. Get it?”
Well, it’s all related. HDB controls the initial pricing (1st time purchase), so more or less the baseline is there. HDB controls the supply & if it lets demand exceed supply (only they know), price will have to go up. Demand can come in many forms e.g buy / sell and rent from both locals and PRs and the spillover effect from the high price of private development demand (where again land & pace of development is controlled hence affecting supply). well, don’t you think that HDB should be for living (the original purpose of subsidised housing) and not meant for renting out by owners for the purpose of generating income. don’t you think subsidised HDB is meant for citizens rather than the needless excess demand coming from PRs in the form of resales.
There are a lot of angles to look at it, not just only from HDB buyer & seller based on the simplistic view of only two variables acting on one another.
December 8th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
George,
I like that!
“For our Destiny and our People – MIW in front, FIRE!”
I also like the the way you use the “PVC” pipe on dogs!
Many idiots thought that MIWs are gods! They worship them. Their thinking – Without them, Singapore will die! Before we die, they make millions plus 8 mths bonus 1st! Look at the salary review. Must it take so long? Maybe it is already put up but got rejected again and again? We dont know what is going on behind the scene. Today an ex-MIW was charged in court for a paltry sum of few thousands of dollars! Really cheapskate! What a sham!
If our MIWs are just 10% – a fraction of this great Indian Muslim -http://gintai.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/dr-a-p-j-abdul-kalam/ – I will go all out to defend his honour and support him! We are seeing it happening in some of our dedicated WP MPs!
In case super or pundit are wondering, I am no longer a young man. I’m coming to my 50 yrs of age. I am old enough to see through the lies and propaganda! We are not blind ! Go langgar the tiang dah!
December 8th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
“I’m coming to my 50 yrs of age. I am old enough to see through the lies and propaganda! We are not blind ! Go langgar the tiang dah!”
50 yrs of age – born around of 1950.
This group of people have gone through modern education while growing up since independence. This is the group who has seen through many rounds of wayang + roti prata & also have served the tough old days of national service & have about 20+ more good years to live and will do their round of kpkb in times to come. Our wayang cum roti prata suppliers will be in for a hard time and this kpkb group can come from anyone born from 1945 to 1975.
December 8th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
“I’m coming to my 50 yrs of age. I am old enough to see through the lies and propaganda! We are not blind ! Go langgar the tiang dah!”
sorry hoh, correction
50 yrs of age – born around of 1960.
This group of people have gone through modern education while growing up since independence. This is the group who has seen through many rounds of wayang + roti prata & also have served the tough old days of national service & have about 20+ more good years to live and will do their round of kpkb in times to come. Our wayang cum roti prata suppliers will be in for a hard time and this kpkb group can come from anyone born from 1955 to 1975.
December 8th, 2011 at 11:58 pm
repus,
I wasn’t even talking about HDB in the first place. Funny. But here you’ve misunderstood my point. No thanks to the hooha by Disgruntled. He asked about HDB making profit and I mean to say the financial transaction in resale didn’t benefit HDB.
Anyway, pricing is really chicken and egg. I tend to think resale and private prices has been leading the initial price in setting recent records. Somemore, resale and private prices are much more dynamic than initial prices which will lag.
Other things you mentioned, I don’t know the dynamics. But you’re right they’re intertwined. I’m just not sure how much you’re willing to sacrifice the owners’ benefits (predominantly Singaporeans) against the to-be-owners’ (predominantly Singaporeans). No doubt HDB is public housing. But to me, in Singapore’s context, it has transcend beyond public housing as it is traditionally recognised elsewhere in other countries (where public housing actually has many negative connotations and is not popular). It’s an lifetime asset for many Singaporeans. Take good care of that aspect. Do you want inflation to erode its value? Do you want to take away its utility as a legitimate income source from renting one room?
Public housing in Singapore is different from the public housing elsewhere. That has to be noted.
December 9th, 2011 at 12:22 am
Aside here.
Public housing is a national pride here in Singapore. Many Singaporeans own public housing. It has evolved to an elevated symbol now. If you relate it to public housing as known elsewhere as the housing of last resort (incidentally mainly for the poor and out), you’re actually demeaning it. Is that the policy direction you wish to pursue after years of efforts building up this pride? To let it become a some sort of last resort? You’ll need to strike a balance.
In any case, what belongs to the parents will finally go to the child. Do you want the parents to leave a valuable asset to him or a worthless dud?
December 9th, 2011 at 12:37 am
“Anyway, pricing is really chicken and egg. I tend to think resale and private prices has been leading the initial price in setting recent records. Somemore, resale and private prices are much more dynamic than initial prices which will lag.”
Haha. They must have sensed something for them to impose the recent stamp duties. Now, you tell me whether it is chicken or egg this time. On what basis are we to say that resale and private prices are much more dynamic than initial prices which will lag. It feeds on one another vis a vis the realease of supply (versus demand). As a thought experiment, just imagine you price land @ zero raiding-the-reserve value and supply land exceeding demand and what do you think will be the likely effect.
“But to me, in Singapore’s context, it has transcend beyond public housing as it is traditionally recognised elsewhere in other countries (where public housing actually has many negative connotations and is not popular).”
Of course, it has transcended beyond public housing because they have allowed it to happen (rationalization after the fact). Who cares about negative connotations if one doesn’t have to service the expensive mortgage which may extend over a good part of one’s lifetime with minimum retirement funds (cpf) or hard cash left for one to go by e.g also in the event that one’s earning ability is prematurely stopped (e.g retrenched). Mind you, the high pricing benchmark of housing will get transferred to the future generation (your kids) when it comes to their turns to get a house.
“Do you want inflation to erode its value? Do you want to take away its utility as a legitimate income source from renting one room?”
Huh ? At the rate that house prices are going up, don’t you think they form a major portion of the overall inflationary effect (significant contributory factor instead) that one is facing. And of course, one would have no choice but to depend on this source of income by having to share their own home by renting out (a good price for something called subsidised housing) if they can’t hold decent jobs for them to comfortably go by w/o needing to sacrifice their own privacy.
December 9th, 2011 at 12:44 am
“Public housing is a national pride here in Singapore. Many Singaporeans own public housing. It has evolved to an elevated symbol now.”
What pride are you talking about. By right, I should have no problem as I have fully settled my mortgage ages ago. People are now screaming about the high prices and the whole related matter has cost the position of our dear raiding-the-reserve-comment minister. Elevated symbol, my foot. More like elevated price.
December 9th, 2011 at 12:58 am
I proudly retire. Pension for life. In my house. Super
December 9th, 2011 at 1:19 am
Ok, I bought a BTO 4-room flat at Sengkang for about 300k. A similar 4-room flat at nearby Punggol costed about 250k or less just a few years back. 50k plus difference in a matter of 5 years! I know people working in HDB and the reason they gave me is about the same as the reason given by the government which is available in the link I have provided in my earlier reply, so I shall not repeat myself again. That being said, here we have an idiot of a pappy dog, super who barks about resale transactions has nothing to do with HDB (or my beef with the PAP goons). And you expect me, a disgruntled Singaporean to reason sensibly with that condescending moron whose pathetic agenda in here we all know too well? What is that pappy dog trying to do in Catherine Lim’s blog? To try and convert the readers? Did the dog even know the profile of the readers in here? Seriously pathetic, don’t you think? Enough said.
December 9th, 2011 at 1:34 am
repus,
Resale and private is more dynamic than initial price. The initial prices are sticky. The resale and private prices respond very fast to transactions.
Stamp duty increase is on private properties for your info.
It doesn’t work that way. Even if you give out land for cheap, land is still physically limited in Singapore. In the long run, you’re benefitting the developers and freeholders. Mind you they can hold it out. What’s more you now offer them cheap so it’s less strain on their cash. On the other hand, if you over-supply HDB, you’re punishing the dwellers. So how? You benefit the developers and freeholders but punish the HDBs. Fair?
Eventually, what proportion do you want to offer for HDB versus for private? How about for commercial and factories? Surely the HDB dwellers must find a place to work. Can you afford to give up some for parks and leisures, or you want to cramp all HDB tight to maximize the efficiency and hence the price?
From your reply, I guess you don’t mind relegating HDB to the sort of public housing as they are known elsewhere in the world. The housing of last resort. If that’s a policy direction you prefer, then so be it. But it’ll create other sets of problems for you to complain about.
December 9th, 2011 at 1:51 am
The idiot pappy dog, super is still harping about resale flats while Singaporeans in general are protesting about new HDB flats numbers and their prices.
No wonder people say the PAP goons have lost touched with people on the ground. It makes perfect sense now.
December 9th, 2011 at 1:56 am
Disgruntled, this is the web, pal. I’m free to post comments as you are free to do the same. In fact, I wasn’t even talking about HDB, but it was you who brought me there. And I was civil all the way even after you fired the countless salvo.
I’m not converting anyone. I’m telling all to look further and not be so myopic. Many places are facing inflationary pressure. The whole world is facing challenges from emerging economies accelerated by technology. With technology, the challenges are even spanning across borders without the physical presence of the protagonists.
That’s the background out there. It’s a fight for continual survival. This is the context around the localised issues. Singapore is not invincible.
December 9th, 2011 at 2:03 am
Disgruntled, from your reply, I know you’re not serious. You don’t even bother to know the insides of what you’re complaining about. At least, some others know the links. It’s lost on you. You’re the type who will protest against austerity measures from gut without even bothering about the alternative scenario.
December 9th, 2011 at 2:14 am
supper aka Singapura Pundit’s evil twin wrote…
“Disgruntled, from your reply, I know you’re not serious. You don’t even bother to know the insides of what you’re complaining about. At least, some others know the links. It’s lost on you. You’re the type who will protest against austerity measures from gut without even bothering about the alternative scenario.”
Nice… after all I have written…
Anyway, the same can be said about the pappy dog, super and his alter ego if that is how one wants to end the faux pas.
December 9th, 2011 at 7:47 am
Good morning. Sunny day. Super.
December 9th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
/// super December 8th, 2011 at 1:52 pm Talking about percentage, why not you find out how many there are in the major international cities? New York, London, Melbourne and so on. ///
This is exactly the problem with our over-paid under-brained politicians and civil serpents. Or are you one of them? For crying out loud, Singapore is a country, not just a city. Stop appling your oranges.
Are you telling me that the US has more than 36% foreigners? Are you telling me that the UK and Australian have more than a third of their population comprising foreigners.
If I find New York full of aliens, as a US citizen, I can always relocate to a desert in Arizona, or hide under Little Rock. If I am a Londoner and find London overwhelmed with new arrivals, I can always retire to Land’s End. As an Ozzie, I can go and catch crocodile in Dundee.
But as a Singaporean, why can I relocate to? To Pulau Hantu? Or Pedra Branca?
December 9th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
TWOG,
I’m sorry but I can’t help with self-denial.
You can imagine Singapore is Australia rather than Melbourne, or USA rather than NY, or UK rather than London.
All our policies should be made with that the basic idea that Singapore is an Australia. Great work! That’s a very apt comparison.
December 9th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Seems that the Optimist and Skeptic continue to slug it out. Or the heartlander vs the “cosmopolitan’?
I think that’s not the real battle, yet. The current urgency is to convince the ‘elite’ – the first tier ones that the PAP failed to attract into it’s fold – those that have the ability and the intellect to see the state of the party and the country. The system needs to inject new talent and new ideas and yet it is unable to do so for it repels those capable of seeing its flaws.
Improved PR can only do so much since the fundamental challenge the nation faces is systemic policy failures not just communication ineptitude. Alex Au has given a good analysis that supports the skeptics view (http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/four-barriers-to-remaking-the-pap/#entry).
December 9th, 2011 at 10:27 pm
I’m sorry but I can’t resist this..
With Singapore as an Australia, we can develop Sengkang into Darwin. Bedok into Melbourne. Ang Mo Kio into Canberra. Choa Cho Kang into Perth. Sentosa into Tasmania. And so on and so forth. In the middle on Bukit Timah hill, we can pile sands and rocks into Uluru. The rest of Singapore is desert and mountains. We can dream big.
On a serious note, TWOG, do you yourself seriously want to find some Dundee rather than stay in Melbourne if given a choice? What will you work as in “Dundee”? How do you want to spend your weekends in “Dundee”? Or you want to commute to Melbourne daily? If you choose commute, there’s Johor here. Or maybe Ubin. What’s the difference? If you’re so disgusted with city living, you can live and work in Johor.
December 10th, 2011 at 1:04 am
“Stamp duty increase is on private properties for your info.”
Spillover effect my friend. Nothing works in isolation, more so in our small country when it is like a sardine can.
“It doesn’t work that way. Even if you give out land for cheap, land is still physically limited in Singapore. In the long run, you’re benefitting the developers and freeholders.”
Land is limited, this is a geograhical fact. But with their targeted increase to about 5.5m or 7m previously, is it going to help this land limitation or make it even worse (more limited or tighter) per capital.
Oh !! So when land is priced high, are you implying that it is going to benefit home owners but not developers and freeholders (which can be solved by limited lease where it is already practised). What kind of economic logic is this. Everyone knows lower costs will get past down to consumers if there is competition & ample supply is there or demand is tempered (from low population base). Likewise, high costs get passed on to home buyers (whether on lease or freehold).
Of course it does not work this way, because they don’t want it to work this way.
“Eventually, what proportion do you want to offer for HDB versus for private? How about for commercial and factories? Surely the HDB dwellers must find a place to work. Can you afford to give up some for parks and leisures, or you want to cramp all HDB tight to maximize the efficiency and hence the price?”
What talking you ? Are you trying to confuse since you can’t convince ? Population my friend is the key which is squeezing up all the place. If population goes up (prs & foreigners ?) badly, of course the tension & competition for space will be felt among public & private housing, commercial buildings, factories, parks and leisures – which conveniently leads to high market pricing (including high land cost ?) and your goody-goody concern about parks and leisures. Didn’t you say land limitation.
Talking about parks, don’t you think that they are putting in more concrete and taking out more green on a net basis and try to beautify places with trees and plants here & there. Where are the big open grass field that we used to see a lot more in housing estates in the past. As for leisure, they are building sports hubs (chic and sexy & maybe you have to pay entrance fees for the use) instead of leaving natural open space alone where kids can skip, hop, run and kick without the confine of concrete building.
“I guess you don’t mind relegating HDB to the sort of public housing as they are known elsewhere in the world. The housing of last resort. If that’s a policy direction you prefer, then so be it. But it’ll create other sets of problems for you to complain about.”
Other sets of problems ? As long they are not as serious as to warrant the change of the national developement minister.
Give me a break. Most of us grew up in HDB flats and even some of our higher elites are not ashamed to say that they grew up in HDB flats in order to show connection and shared understanding. Like I said, give me a break.
December 10th, 2011 at 3:34 am
repus,
Yes, spillover. There is talk this may raise demand for bigger HDB, especially resale because less Singaporeans will go private for upgrade. Isn’t that reverse effect instead?
If the land is cheap, and the time is good (foreign liquidity, stock market boom), developers won’t sell it cheap. It’s still about demand. The land price should factor in potential+scarcity. HDB will honour the lelong as a stat board+buyers are limited, but developer won’t. Look at the last years, selling many land cheap won’t help. Lots of money are looking for parking space in Asia. The developers would be happy. At the same time, HDB owners get hammered for owning HDB.
I meant this. Land has many uses. Private/public. Commercial/residential. Common/personal. Will land be cheap uniformly? Then, private/commercial benefit. If land is cheap for public but not private, then demand may move to public. Private supply may dry up. With that + HDB lelong, the queue will be looongg as 35ers, 2/3-gen-under-1-roof, even merc owner coming online. Resale may also up. Headache again.
Parks and leisure don’t usually figure in public housings elsewhere outside Singapore. In our context, that’ll help to lower cost. How much can be sacrificed to achieve lower cost when demand is good?
Population bump. Yes, and they are doing something now, isn’t it? Just be aware that it’s a game of catching up with all the globalisation. Let’s hope Singaporeans and companies are up to the challenge of productivity quickly.
Like I said, HDB is not a bad word in Singapore. 80% live in HDB. If you cheapen HDB literally, HDB will become a negative word for most of the 80%. You know, those who have no private property. Those holding or staying will be leg up. Even the younger ones may see no future in buying HDB. Is that not a problem too?
December 10th, 2011 at 9:39 am
Even the younger ones see no future in voting PAP. Is that a problem? PAP brand name has been cheapen literally, and will become a negative word for more and more.
December 10th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
“Yes, spillover. There is talk this may raise demand for bigger HDB, especially resale because less Singaporeans will go private for upgrade. Isn’t that reverse effect instead?”
Oh, the talk ? From the internet brigade ? Show me how. Effectively, price will need to come down for private properties making it more palatable for upgraders (not investment for the short term) but possibly having spare money chasing after commercial. Unless again the planners did not thoroughly think through & the new stamp duty was implemented as a knee-jerk reaction.
“If the land is cheap, and the time is good (foreign liquidity, stock market boom), developers won’t sell it cheap. It’s still about demand. The land price should factor in potential+scarcity. HDB will honour the lelong as a stat board+buyers are limited, but developer won’t. Look at the last years, selling many land cheap won’t help. Lots of money are looking for parking space in Asia. The developers would be happy. At the same time, HDB owners get hammered for owning HDB.”
Cut the developers out like the good old days (e.g HUDC) if things get too out of hand. Ain’t private developers or HDB still tender out the construction work to contractors. As for architects, every one of them will be drooling for the project.
Aha, about demand ? How about the supply, if you know what I mean.
“Parks and leisure don’t usually figure in public housings elsewhere outside Singapore. In our context, that’ll help to lower cost. How much can be sacrificed to achieve lower cost when demand is good?”
Did you mention population bump ? There you have already provided yourself the answer. We can go on and on and it will still come back to the initial problem of high targeted population vs supply vs demand vs high land price (high pricing point) vs justification of high cost (market demand) vs back to complaints.
“Like I said, HDB is not a bad word in Singapore. 80% live in HDB. If you cheapen HDB literally, HDB will become a negative word for most of the 80%.”
Cheapen ? It sure does not hurt their pockets ? Ain’t anyone always looking for offer and discount. Don’t tell us you possess some special sadistic tendency of liking to do it differently (looking to buy something @ higher price).
“You know, those who have no private property. Those holding or staying will be leg up. Even the younger ones may see no future in buying HDB. Is that not a problem too?”
Build more and leave land for your own people. That’s more equitable distribution in a straight forward direct way – not rent seeking & doling out more to a bunch of condescending idiots.
December 10th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
repus,
The talk – http://leongszehian.com/?p=1342
Don’t hope to supply a scarce commodity to sponge up demand. How much can you supply? Keyword: scarce. What’s more, you’re supplying to a middleman – you’re passing control to someone else. Wise?
What an uncanny coincidence. Property appreciation is concurrently happening all over Asia in the recent years at the same time. This must also be due to the population in Singapore.
Offers and discounts. What would you say about a new boys’ home next to your house?
December 10th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Singapore goon,
It’s alright to vote for anyone you like.
But it’s not alright to vote on the complacence that Singapore is an Australia that can do this, do that. Singapore is never going to be an Australia. Singapore is never meant to have a good life in the first place.
December 10th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
“Don’t hope to supply a scarce commodity to sponge up demand. How much can you supply? Keyword: scarce.”
Hope ? hey, don’t tell us the recent stamp duties are for nothing if not to tamper demand. Surely, this implementation (action) is better than hope.
Scare ? They are making it more scare (or worse) by packing it like a sardine can or encouraging it.
I have high respect for Leong.
My own take is that for those existing private property owners who have intention to own additional unit in the form of HDB would have done so already in the past for whatever reason they may have.
For those intending to do a switch (one to one) right now from private to hdb, they would have to sell @ lower price for their private (effect from stamp duties has already kicked in) and enter @ a level where existing selling hdb owners can get a similar replacement unit which after transaction costs will not really benefit them to do so (unless it is a downgrade).
If you do not already know, a lot of funding has started to tone down and people in the know should know what caution they need to take. Not true ? Ask around.
“Property appreciation is concurrently happening all over Asia in the recent years at the same time. This must also be due to the population in Singapore.”
Why should you care about other countries. They will have their own protests & worries to take care and measures to ensure that it does not become too much of a problem for themselves. Across the causeway, semi-d only cost abt RM400M, what do you say about this (is it due to the population in singapore or not ?).
December 10th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Singapore is never meant to have a good life in the first place. Ouch!!!
December 11th, 2011 at 1:47 am
Repus,
Is Leong part of the fantasy brigade?
Stamp duty makes it more expensive. Land can’t be cheap – can’t work.
I mean those people who’ve no property. 35′ers, stay-in couples, well-to-do new couples. Either they buy own stay or “investment” units. Cooling measures frighten them, so they look at HDB. Another potential group – upgraders.
I mean cause-effect. How come Asian properties apart from Singapore also hot? So coincidental?
Johor land is much cheaper, especially if you buy further from the causeway. But would you buy? One day, ok to buy. Next day, capital control. Following week, condo got “cleaned” out. Last month, murder case. But who knows? Iskandar and MRT may help boost theirs too. Malaysia wants it too.
December 11th, 2011 at 10:13 am
“Is Leong part of the fantasy brigade?”
Let time prove he is right. & well there will always be some (internet brigade again ?) or people like you who will capitalize on his views to perhaps highlight the futility of control and justify the high price.
“Stamp duty makes it more expensive. Land can’t be cheap – can’t work.”
Stamp duty in this context make it more expensive for foreigners who are placed @ a disadvantage (good for singaoreans as it tames demand & conversely it makes it cheaper for them in comparison with foreigners).
Land can’t be expensive ? What talking you again, expensive land means high cost. And high costs means more pressure of one’s commitments. It would be even better if land can be priced low together with the above stamp duties.
“I mean cause-effect. How come Asian properties apart from Singapore also hot? So coincidental?”
Properties will always be hot as it epitomizes our most basal need for shelter & protection. That is why we must be careful not to price (overpriced ?) it in such a way it is out of reach for people whose earning capacity may not be the same (uncertain) many years down the road as against the inception of puchase when huge mortagage may be granted based on good income when they are young.
“Johor land is much cheaper, especially if you buy further from the causeway. But would you buy? One day, ok to buy. Next day, capital control. Following week, condo got “cleaned” out. Last month, murder case. But who knows? Iskandar and MRT may help boost theirs too. Malaysia wants it too.”
You had your selective pick & I had mine. You were right on about the capital control & cleaning out – to screw others but to protect their own kinds. The reason why we have to make sure that ours is affordable in our own land. We must not screw ourselves.
December 11th, 2011 at 11:54 am
The PAP govt., blinded by its greed, ego and vanity, has knowingly or unknowingly plundered Singaporeans of a long term future, and inflicted severe structural damage on Singapore. A more down-to-earth, long-sighted and caring govt. is needed to prevent our house, built of straw by the PAP govt. (Singapore is a business owned by the PAP; getting rich overnight is their motto)) from being blown down in a major storm. They expolited the human weakness of greed to push a basic roof-over-the head beyond the reach of most Singaporeans. They favour foreigners who have lots of hot money over true blue Singaporeans who are the ones who would stay to defend Singapore and pick up the ppieces after the foreigners have creamed us off and left for greener pasures elsewhwere.
I guess the above should sum up what is wrong with the PAP govt.
December 11th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Singapore is not meant to be a good life only for Singaporean! Singapore is a good life for foreigners!
December 11th, 2011 at 11:33 pm
repus,
On the one hand, you want to sell land cheap indirectly benefiting the private and hence foreigners. On the other, you want to punish them (so to say). There’s no consistency here.
Lastly, you must be thinking Singapore is a Malaysia, just like someone else think Singapore is an Australia. If Singaporeans think unrealistically like you do, it’s the start of the end.
The good life that came to this tiny island with neither tangible resources nor even intangible advantages except as a first mover port is at the end of the road.
December 12th, 2011 at 12:12 am
Hey, the PAP FAILED in many areas and on multiple counts okay!
December 12th, 2011 at 1:25 am
Before anyone flames me, my idol MP said : I’m not the enemy of the government. That sums it all up. It’s not surprising that his party is the most successful party of the oppositions.
We should listen carefully to my idol. Being too strident and unrealistic reflects badly on the opposition and turns many moderates and fence sitters off. It has been proven in all past GEs and the last PE that parties and individuals with strident attitudes just can’t make it.
We should be more realistic. We’re here not to fight with the driver, but to help the driver so that we can help everyone in the bus. That’s the better way forward.
Ok, this’s IMHO only. Let the flaming begin. =p
December 12th, 2011 at 8:49 am
Suggestion is well and good, provided driver is sincere and not just pretending to listen so as to remain in power. Unfortunately, same driver who lost his way unlikely to be trusted eh?
December 13th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Driver 4got to fill the tank?
December 14th, 2011 at 3:27 am
Hi Middle Path,
We share the same idol!
http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2011/05/political-masterpiece-from-chen-show.html
http://gintai.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/dear-mummy
Yes I do agree completely with the writer that Chen is the man to watch! A natural politician! Impeccable credentials. Perfectly bi-lingual. Most importantly he talks sense.If we compare him with our fast track Shanmugan – Foreign Affairs and Law Minister, Chen beats him hollow! Shanmugan even though he is a divorcee jumped from MP to full Minister status - by passing our condemned Associate Professor Ho! This is the only time a divorcee made a Cabinet Minister. It shows MIWs are so desperate for capable talent in their ranks.What did our supremo tell Yishun voters when he went down to talk terms with all the Chinese temple chiefs 2 GEs ago? That Asso Prof would suceed Prof Jayakumar. What happened? That joker did not even smell it.Chen spent 30 yrs – almost his whole career in China and US in the international corporate world. He is a big name in on the world stage albeit business world. He has seen much of the corporate world at international level.Shanmugan was never schooled overseas. He was educated at NUS! He may be the best criminal lawyer in tiny Sg – but has he seen the real “dog eat dog” world? It is like comparing the heaven and earth between them!Look at the 2 ex-army chiefs. They seem rather immature and childish at times. One if them is christened by netizens as “kee chiu”! LOL!I think deep inside, how the MIWs wish that they could have recruited talents such as Chen! They are really envy of WP.From the last 6 months performance and if he maintains his image and tenacity, Chen could well be our next PM in waiting! I wish him luck and success! Time for change! They are too long in power until they have forgotten their roots. They have grown debauchery fat, prosperous and complacent taking the citizens for granted! I have given up hope on them! I say slap the driver to wake him up!
Ya go ahead and flame me if you care! I am part of the growing 39% who feel this way! If you are poor, struggling and work until you drop dead with nothing in the CPF, what difference does it make? All my CPF locked up in ever increasing min sum and medical save. I will have to pick carboards, collect cans from rubbish bins or sell tissue paper when I grow old even though I got lots of CPF locked away! Really langgar!
December 15th, 2011 at 2:35 am
Just came back from an overseas trip, and I am glad the pappy dog, super is silenced for now.
After reading the lengthy mooting between pappy dog, super and repus (nice name), I can only be amazed how simplistic super’s reasoning (excuse) is as the mooting drags on. The fixation on land price to justify the valuation of HDB flats are simplistically laughable when one has to actually factor in the BUILDING COST of the HDB flats in order to give a more holistic figure to justify the real valuation of the flats.
Now, I understand the government used to release such detailed figures to the public in the past (in the 80′s, I believe), however, for some reasons, they have stopped doing so since. I am not surprised they have not been transparent (to reveal the building cost et al.) when I see how the prices of new HDB flats have climbed exponentially over the years by pegging the cost of new HDB flats with the open market (resale flats) with “subsidies” given. I won’t be surprised there would be an upheaval from Singaporeans like me if the real cost of building a new HDB flat is revealed to us. It is crystal clear that HDB has become a money making machinery for the PAP goons.
Last but not least, I reiterate that HDB flats are first and foremost meant for living rather than “asset enhancement”. That is what the PAP goons want us to believe in. As we can see over the months, not many Singaporeans buy their crap.
Talk is cheap. Reveal the building cost of HDB flats and then we talk. Capisce?
December 15th, 2011 at 10:18 am
Oooi, HDB is affordable ok? I raid from reserves to give you market subsidies you know? You can easily pay off your 30 year housing loan yah? Live within your means lah! It’s not as if your CPF negative when you retire. Your flat an appreciating asset right. LKY guarantee HDB prices always go up ok. I will ensure lah. Whole world coming in to buy you know. Don’t worry about retirement lah. He also advise you you retire you die. You don’t have money when you retire, you can monetize your flat mah. That’s me. Btw, i’m retiring. Got pension mah
December 15th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
In my opinion, in those good old days, the govt subsidised the “building costs” of HDB flats. Having taken the citizens for granted and being in power for too long, the govt then suddenly decided to subsidise “market price” of the flats instead! Thereby hangs the tale!
That is why the prices of new flats are so high! They based on the open market price of similar flat sizes whether it is re-sale flats or pte condo prices. The govt will throw in CPF grants for 1st timers to make it appear that they helping citizens. They will insist that the high prices for new flats is already subsidised – this time based on market prices instead of the construction costs! That is the formula. They play with figures and rake in tons of money to state coffers. Remember what MBT say abt raiding the reserves?
The bottom line is this. For a newly married couple who are citizens and 1st time owners of public housing need at least 25 yrs to 30 yrs to pay off the loan, set aside min sum and medisave with our wages stagnant or depressed by throngs of cheap FTs, will there be retirement funds for them? Those PRs who bought expensive re-sale flats can always cash in after they retire and withdraw all their CPF monies then return or retire to their home country having made their pot of gold here!
Only we citizens – land of our birth will have no choice but to remain put and work until we drop dead without seeing the light of our CPF monies. Some of my colleagues who are Msians holding PRs openly say that. They refuse to take up citizenship here. They say it is stupid to take citizenship here. Dont believe what the propaganda say about certain top ppl becoming ctizens here. They are few only amongst the many whom I met and spoke to in my work place.
Dont believe what the propaganda say about downgrading or renting your flat when you retire etc… If you sell off your 4 room flat and downgrade to a smaller flat say a 2 or 3 room flat, the govt will tax you! You got to pay the levy and all the costs. Most of what you made ie profits will go back to your CPF account and be locked away under medisave or min sum! A paltry sum will be given to you. They say this is to prevent speculation!
Compared with those PRs retiring to their hometowns with tons of money, it is really a bad deal for us citizens here! Think over and visualise what I said. I am sure you have colleagues who are Msian PRs or Indian PRs. Ask around. Facts are facts. Truth is truth. Like I say I am coming to 50 yrs old and I have seen the phases of change here. Its getting tougher and we are becoming like slaves in our country of birth all because the govt is obssessed with accumulating billions and billions of reserves. Now they are aiming for trillions instead of billions at our expense. I read recently SAF is spending 29 billions on new toys.
I AM NOT saying that I disagree with having reserves or against SAF. There must a limit to it. Now you tell me where all these billions gong to come from? They dont simply drop from the sky! Now you understand why MBT – luckily he was sacked – says it is tantamount to raiding our reserves if public flats are made cheaper? You have to read in bewteen the lines to get the whole picture! Really langgar!
December 15th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Well said, Alan. I could not agree more. It is indeed true that the PRs are having the best of both worlds. Also, do you all know that many of those new citizens are actually holding dual citizenship?! More shockingly, do you all know that there is nothing in the law book here that stops Singaporeans from acquiring dual citizenship too?! Go and check out some of the local forums to find out more! Australia, here I come!
December 15th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Dear Disgruntled Singaporean,
I think I need to correct you. Under Sg law, you CANNOT hold dual citizenships. I have confirmed this with my brother. He is a Canadian PR. If he wants to be a Canadian citizen, he will have to give up his Sg citizenship. Nevertheless, any foreigner including that ang mo SGX boss can have Sg PR but still retain their home country citizenship. PRs need not serve NS. FIY, Taiwan already cut their NS to 4 months! Only we born here in Sg still serve 2 yrs or 2.5 yrs NS and reservists up to 40 yrs old for the sake of defending those FTs! So many govt entities are privatised in the name of raking in more profits, I wonder what those NS and reservists are defending? I also kena go back reservists for 2 wks every year until 40 yrs old!
In almost every country such as China, Indonesia, Hong Kong and all the 1st world countries, there is a minimum wage policy except Sg! Those goons up there think they are smart! We are really being exploited cuz this island is flooded with millions of FTs to depress our wages! FTs make their fortune here and go back to their hometown. Even our domestic maids can retire comfortably with land and houses back home. Whereas we have to work until we drop dead but still cant retire in comfort! Swiss standard of living? Our comical Goh still insists that we have reached that years ago! What a joke!
What is happening to our beloved country? I cry for our country cuz those in power are too greedy! They keep talking about profits, economic growth rates, billions of reserves, millions of bonuses, salaries etc etc People’s Happiness is not on their radar. We are nothing but digits to justify their ends! The bottom line counts. The rest are irrevelent! You and me can be replaced by cheap FTs who are fasterer, betterer and cheaperest! Really langgar the tiang dah!
December 15th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
Hi Alan,
Dual citizenship for Singaporeans is something new to me, as I only recently found out. I also thought we don’t have such privilege until I came across this forum. Check it out…
http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?105950-Dual-Citizen-permitted-in-Singapore
I was also told that there are some senior officers in the civil service who have sent their children overseas and are holding dual citizenship. We, common Singaporeans should explore this diligently for our children, if not for us. Don’t you agree?
As I am writing this, major train disruption is still undergoing on the North-South line, and according to the mediacock news, the train service will only be resumed tomorrow morning! As I correctly stated in my first post in this blog, our current transport infrastructure is unable to cope with the exponential increase of commuters. Let’s see what kind of excuses SMRT and the PAP goons will come up with this time round.
December 16th, 2011 at 2:25 am
Sammyboy forum? HahahahaHAHAHA! A bunch of retards.
Oz allow dual citizen, you know?
You can go there suka suka become Ozzie. But you act blur don’t give up red IC. Then you are the dual citizen not eligible for top up loh. So easy the retards donch no. Add oil add vinegar say this say that. Ret-ards.
December 16th, 2011 at 6:29 am
Disgruntled Singaporean,
Dont listen to Sammy Leong. Dual Citizenship is not permitted in Sg. However, it is allowed in most countries except Sg. We are unique.
For Singaporeans – Can only hold a PR status in another country if they still want to keep their Sg citizenship.
For FTs – They can hold Sg PR and still keep their citizenship of their original home country.
My brother will be most happy if what you say is true! Most Singaporeans will be most happy if it is true. But it is not the case.