TR EMERITUS

Prime Minister-still-in-waiting In this country, you are called the Prime Minister-in-waiting for good reason – you need to wait and wait for your turn. In the case of Heng Swee Keat, his turn never came despite all the waiting. He emerged as the PM-in-waiting after a long and winding process. Then he waited while he got tested until he finally threw in the towel, saying the runway was too short for him. Now it’s Lawrence Wong’s turn to be the PM-in-waiting. He turns 51 this year, so he is 11 years younger than Heng and presumably has more time to wait. Wong was heaped lavish praise for the handling of the COVID-19 crisis. But Heng also garnered plentiful ownself praise ownself and still he got stuck at PM-in-waiting. What’s next for Lawrence Wong? The one who knows best is PM Lee Hsien Loong. Having expressed his wish several times to step down before his 70th birthday, he turned 71 without stepping down. The reason PM Lee previously gave was COVID-19. “A lot will depend on how events unfold and all I can say is I will see this (pandemic) through and I will handover in good shape as soon as possible to the next team,” he said back in 2020. Singapore’s COVID-19 rules have been relaxed and the Multi-Ministry Taskforce has stood down, signifying the country’s emergence from the pandemic. In Parliament, Leader of the House Indranee Rajah was already speaking of a post-pandemic future. What is the post-pandemic plan for PM Lee on leadership succession? Does he now want to see through the elected presidency, due to take place by September this year? He might also want to see through the next general election—due by end 2025. What next after that? Isn’t there always a next? In any case, PM Lee seems to have taken his foot off the pedal for some time now. He has only spoken in Parliament once since the commencement of the 14th Parliament, has not participated in recent Parliamentary debates, and has shied away from personally addressing major issues like the Keppel bribery scandal. When Jacinda Ardern, 42, resigned as PM of New Zealand recently, her successor, Chris Hipkins, 44, was identified quickly and sworn in as the new PM within a week. Just like that – sweet, sharp and decisive. Here, Heng Swee Keat was made to wait until he lost hope. The People’s Action Party (PAP) and East Coast GRC lost ground in the last general election and it was a black mark on him and his leadership. If Lawrence Wong is tasked to fight the next election and the PAP loses yet more ground, will the blame fall on him? Then he could go the way of Heng Swee Keat and PM Lee would have to delay his retirement yet again. Can lightning strike twice?   Augustine Low      Read More →

Prof Tay Kheng Soon said that the HDB policy has not working well and that HDB prices have become unaffordable for many young people. This has consequences for the future of the economy and the development of an enterprising people. [LINK] The problem started when the government wanted to make the HDB flats an investment asset, and the owners want to see this asset appreciate. This goal is difficult to achieve as the HDB flat, being a 99 year leasehold, will start to lose value when half of the lease has expired. I have a solution to this problem. It is all right to continue the current HDB policy (as it is difficult to reverse the policy), but the government should set the prices of a 3 room HDB flat in a suburban location as a multiple of the median income, rather than let it depend on market supply and demand. The price for bigger or smaller flats and prime locations can be adjusted accordingly. In case of high demand, the government can build more flats. In the meantime, the available flats can be distributed by ballot or by some other fair and accepted criteria. If there is low demand, the government can keep the flats vacant for a few years until the demand returns. This approach will still make the HDB flat a good asset for the long term, but the prices are more stable and affordable, relative to the average income.     Tan Kin Lian      Read More →

How many times in the past year have you seen celebratory headlines in the MSM proclaiming ever more family firms being set up in Singapore to manage the funds of the super-rich? We were even told in the past that if 10 more billionaires migrated to Singapore and increased the Gini coefficient, well that was not a bad thing because the wealth they create would “trickle down” to the rest of society and make every one better off. Let me ask those of you who are old enough to remember the 80s and 90s in Singapore a few questions:- 1. Did you have a better quality of life towards the end of the last century or has the quality of your life improved since the turn of the century? 2. Was it easier for you to buy a decent home when you were starting out in life or is it easier for your children now to purchase their home? 3. Were job opportunities more plentiful when you were starting out or are there more job opportunities for your family now since treaties such as CECA came into place? By any measure, the lives of Singaporeans have not improved but regressed this century. We have a government that still believes firmly in “trickle down” economics. It is a case where the theory and rhetoric of neo-liberalism rant on despite the evidence all around us. The Edge ran a very good article today describing how the rich from China who have made Singapore their playground have indulged in all sorts of luxuries such as buying mansions, fancy cars and driving up the price of golf club memberships to astronomical levels, but have not invested much in Singapore! These are the people who have driven up home prices, rentals and COEs etc. The PAP government accords them the privilege of low tax rates and other business friendly policies.But as the Edge notes, these people are already well entrenched with their investments globally. Capital is so mobile these days you have to be wet behind your ears to believe that a billionaire will necessarily invest locally simply because he is resident here. For these rich people, it is socialism to the hilt but for the rest of us it is brutal capitalism at its harshest. So next time the PAP tells you to be proud of the gleaming city they have created, or what Ronald Reagan once described as “That shining city on the hill”, ask them for whom was that shining city built? It is no paradise to the ordinary Singaporean, many of whom are having to work more than one job to make ends meet, to live in the “Monte Carlo” of Asia,the most expensive city in the World.   Lim Tean      Read More →