TR EMERITUS

Straits Times Insight, 19 February 2010 WHAT if Barisan Sosialis had beaten the People's Action Party (PAP) in the September 1963 General Election? How differently would it have ruled the country? Barisan gave the ruling party its closest call in Singapore's political history when it garnered 33 per cent of the votes in the polls. It toppled two ministers and nearly knocked out another four ministers. Although PAP's 47 per cent score was its lowest electoral mark in the record book, the first-past-the-post system awarded the party 37 seats versus Barisan's 13 in the 51-seat legislative assembly. There had been much speculation that had it not been for Operation Cold Store, which put more than 100 leftist politicians and unionists behind bars just seven months earlier, the opposition party would have swept into power. Former Barisan leader Lim Hock Siew, who would have stood for the elections if he was not detained, admits that if his party had won, Singapore's gross domestic product growth would have been slower, but believes that there would have been more welfare for the people. There would be legal safeguards for workers like minimum wage, retrenchment benefits, social welfare and retirement benefits, he says. Peppering his interview with criticisms of various government policies, the man regarded as one of the 'brains' behind Barisan, says that his party would have done more for the poor and working class. For example, he points out that his party would not have priced flats at a subsidised rate below market rate but would have provided cheap housing at cost. 'CPF is meant for pensions, not to tie people down to a housing project,' he says. Turning to more current issues, he argues that the introduction of two integrated resorts here threatens moral standards by making Singapore a playground for the 'international filthy rich'. Singapore might eventually be like Las Vegas, where everything has a price but no value. 'I don't think this is a society we all like to have. That the Government places such high hopes on the two casinos shows what a desperate situation the Singapore economy is in.' Read rest of article on Straits Times  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent Caught off guard by the rising public anger against its misguided immigration and pro-foreigner policies, the ruling party has been fire-fighting for the last few weeks to appease Singaporeans by introducing last-minute cosmetic changes to "sharpen the distinction between citizens and PRs." One of its chief architects and proponents of a disastrous plan to boost Singapore's population to 6.5 million people, Singapore's octogenarian strongman Lee Kuan Yew has made an amazing U-turn yet again. In a speech made to Tanjong Pagar residents lately, Lee now said that Singapore citizens and PRs have received "very different treatment in government policies" and urged Singaporeans not to forget the "contributions" that foreigners have made to the economy. He tried to fend off criticisms that the government has backtracked on its immigration policy now by explaining that the inflow of foreigners was being moderated now and not earlier because "they were needed for the building of the two integrated resorts, which will create more jobs for Singaporeans, draw tourists and boost the economy." "When you grumble about the workers, remember they do the heavy work for us. Without them, we would not be here." he added. However, besides blue collar workers, there is an increasing number of foreigners who are taking up jobs which can otherwise be filled by Singaporeans such as the PMETs. According to a Wall Street Journal editorial, the relentless influx of foreigners into Singapore had depressed the wages of ordinary Singaporeans, increased the cost of living, especially that of public housing, decreased labor productivity and led to an overall decline in the standards of living. Singapore's GDP growth in the last few years was fueled largely by the availability of cheap foreign labor which keeps business costs low, thereby inflating the growth figures artificially. A certain percentage of Singapore ministers' multi-million dollar salary is pegged to GDP growth - the higher the growth, the more money they bring home. At the same time, Singapore's income gap between the rich and the poor has widened considerably. It is quite obvious that the economic gains "contributed" by foreigners are not shared equally across the population - the rich has become richer while the poor has become poorer. Lee also called on Singaporeans to bear with the inconveniences or competition for space on buses, MRT trains, even in schools with foreigners as if the "the Government were to reduce the flow too much, the economy would slow and this would lead to property prices and incomes going down." 'We always give preference to our own citizens," he added. The ruling party appears to be completely clueless on how to lead Singapore in the next lap of development and is unwilling to wean off its perennial addiction to foreign workers. Singaporeans should not be hoodwinked by Lee's latest "wayang" to pull a wool over their eyes again. Let us recall what he said in an interview with the National Geographic magazine only a few months ago: “Over time, Singaporeans have become less hard-driving and hard-striving. This is why it is a good thing that the nation has welcomed so many Chinese immigrants.” Lee was quoted saying. He described the country’s new subjects as “hungry,” with parents who “pushed the children very hard.” “If native Singaporeans are falling behind because the spurs are not stuck into the hide, that is their problem,” he quipped. [Source: The Singapore Solution]  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent According to a household survey conducted by HDB in 2008, over eight in ten HDB flat owners find their flats "value for money". The key reasons quoted are appreciation in value, good location and proximity to facilities. About 85 per cent of Singaporeans live in public housing built by government agency HDB which falls under the purview of the National Development Ministry. "Residents attributed their pride mainly to homeownership as they were proud of their ability to own a flat," said an HDB statement. There is a pervasive public misperception that Singaporeans really "own" their HDB flats. The high rate of "home ownership" in Singapore has been used repeatedly by the ruling party to trumpet its own "accomplishments". In reality, Singaporeans are only leasing the flats from HDB for a period of 99 years. When one buys a private condominium, one has to sign a "Sales and Purchase" agreement from the developer. However, in the case of Build-to-Order flats, the agreement is termed as "Agreement for Lease" which essentially means that one is leasing the flat from HDB. (read more here) Furthermore, the flats are subjected to many restrictions not found in the private sector such as an ethnic quota when selling them and a minimum five-year period of residency. Another misperception is that the rising prices of flats helps to “create wealth” for Singaporeans, a message drummed home repeatedly by PAP leaders over the years. A research done by two NUS professors NUS professors Abeysinghe and Gu Jiaying in 2008 showed clearly that “higher property prices, instead of creating a wealth effect, exert a significant and negative “price effect” on consumption expenditures leading to a fall in the average propensity to consume.” (read article here) As house prices go up, the increase in the value of housing assets is accompanied by a concurrent rise in the financial liabilities of households, in the form of higher downpayments for purchase of residential properties and burgeoning housing loans. Unless one emigrates or downgrades to a smaller flat, there is no way one can unlock the asset value inherent in the flat. The prices of HDB flats have skyrocketed in recent years fueled by increasing demand from immigration in the face of limited supply of flats. Based on the findings, it appears that many Singaporeans are still unaware of the precarious situation they are in. It is strange that they will find their flats "value for money" when they can easily afford a bungalow in Australia, Canada and elsewhere with the kind of money they are paying for them in Singapore.  Read More →