Not one without the other

Recently over a dinner conversation with a friend, we talked about an issue that bothered me greatly. We were talking about the growing number of bloggers in Singapore that used the relative freedom in cyberspace to talk and discuss about various issues in Singapore that people were concerned about. She had a view about these bloggers which offended me greatly, in no small part due to my own involvement in this community I must admit. Her view, which I reckon is one that many other Singaporeans have, is that she does not see any point or relevance in the discussions and views expressed on the blogosphere in Singapore. In a way, she sees most of what was written and talked about in the blogs as just hot air, hollow rhetoric without any real commitment or passion behind the words. Simply put, she thinks it's just empty talk, nothing more.

Over the past few weeks, there had been others that had expressed varying versions of my friend's view over the national media. We had some Singaporeans and even a Canadian accusing Singaporean bloggers of ingratitude. An insightful post by the LuckySingaporean correctly pointed out the erroneous conclusion that these people had drawn on the blogging community. The post explained that criticism of the current government do not equate ingratitude towards our nation's forefathers. In fact, the blogosphere provided some form of a check-&-balance mechanism for our political and fiscal process to focus more attention on providing for the earlier generations that made Singapore what it is today. Please take a minute or two to read the link to the post.

I think there is a very fundamental misconception which both my friend and the above mentioned prosecutors had made in their views. They had wrongly assumed that all the criticism published within the blogs belonged to people that were disadvantaged by the prevailing system. Such people seek to reap more benefits for themselves by chastising the incumbent administration and any suggestions of an overhaul of the current system were but attempts by such folk to rebalance the distribution of power and wealth for their benefit. While that may be true for some blogs, it is generally not the case for many others.

At least in my opinion, many of the issues discussed within the blogs do not immediately concern the bloggers themselves. It is out of a sense of justice, fairness and civic duty that they expressed their views so honestly and passionately. For many of us, the intention behind the words is pure and we do not have a personal agenda to say what we say. There is nothing to gain through the expression of our thoughts except the satisfaction that we helped spark some awareness amongst the unknowingly public about issues that are important and hopefully, in some small and personal way, help make Singapore a better place.

To try to effect some changes in society through any violent or disruptive means is not the Singaporean way. We thrived over the last 40 years as a nation in no small part due to the stability and rationality of our system and people. Aside of the mad rush during condo sales, there is generally no mob mentality on our tiny island. Singaporeans appreciate reasonableness, civility and persuasiveness and I am no exception. I think ranting political insults during dramatic and willful demonstrations of public defiance is an ineffective method to effect changes in society, especially within the Singapore context. We should try instead to encourage changes through open discussions and reasonable persuasion. If that should be the preferred method of engaging the leaders, what better way to do that then through the blogs? It may be a small step but it is also the first step, a most important one. While the blogging community, especially bloggers that blogs about social and political issues, have a duty to be responsible with their words and reasonable with their opinions, to dismiss the bloggers as a bunch of disenchanted, misguided ingrates is akin to stamping out any initiative for progress before any real change can happen. What are the chances for the youths of today to want to engage society and make a real difference if the first thing we do is to slam the door in their faces and dismiss their intentions the moment they try to express an alternative view.

Unthinking obedience is not a criterion for patriotism. Similarly, disagreement does not amount to treason. We write and critique on the affairs in Singapore because we care. Behind the sometimes fierce and passionate rhetoric on the disappointment with our current system, lies a love and pride for the country, our home which we hope to change for the better. It is far easier to agree and comply with the current state, and disregard the plights of other fellow Singaporeans as long as it does not concern one-self. It is easy to go quietly into the night and not make a sound when things are not important to you. Else, I believe if you truly care about something, you cannot simultaneously be concerned yet quietly indifferent about it. The criticism and patriotism stems from the same place and you cannot have one without the other.

Read More...

Summary only...

I Respectfully Disagree

NMP Viswa Sadasivan rocked the boat and ruffled a few feathers in Parliament a week back when he suggested a revisiting of the incumbent government's policies in relation to the tenets enshrined in our National Pledge. An excerpt of his wonderfully crafted speech can be found here. In response to his speech, the venerable MM dismissed it as a pompous rhetoric and rejected the practicality of Mr Sadasivan's suggestions, claiming instead that the spirit of our pledge only serves to be an aspirational guide which cannot be meaningfully and effectively integrated in policy-making machinery of our ruling government. This declaration came as a complete shock to me. I never knew that when I mouthed the words "…pledge ourselves to be one united people..." since my youth, I was actually saying "…hope to be one united people…". I reckoned that tons of Singaporeans never knew that also. Well, now you do.

Firstly I would like to praise the eloquence, grace and tact with which the newly appointed NMP delivered his maiden speech to the House of Parliament. His critique of the status quo was concise, respectful and well-reasoned. In stark contrast, the opposition to and subsequent dismissal of his proposals were callous, rude and intimidating. Ironically, the refusal of the incumbent leaders to listen or consider made the NMP appear even more dignified with his measured and intelligent mannerism. It heartens me to see that Singapore does have quality politicians that dare sing a different tune to that of the government. What the local political scene needs is people that have an alternative opinion and more importantly, able to articulate that opinion in a respectful and intelligent manner, so as to garner support for the less popular point of view. Waving an opposition political banner with crude insults of the ruling party, fists raised in vehement protest of the political oppression and shouting within the confines of Hong Lim Park are vulgar and ineffective ways to effect any political change. To me, Mr Sadasivan is a shining example how to make a real difference. Contrast him to overpaid civil servants who pepper their speech with "loh"s and "lah"s before swaying to beat of the Hokkien song of "要拼才会赢", I think there is hope for the political opposition in Singapore.

So, what did Mr Sadasivan say in his speech that ruffled the feathers of the leaders? I shall try to summarize his thoughts to the best of my ability and consider the validity of his suggestions. Mr Sadasivan suggested in the beginning of his speech that while Singapore may be doing well as an Incorporated, the same success is not replicated as a country. Social fractures are forming within the nation even as economic worries are dissipating. He suggested that the principles encapsulated within our pledge serve a doctrine to guide the actions of the government as they try to tackle the problems besetting Singapore. By expounding on each of the 4 tenets he identified in the Pledge, he demonstrated that the solution to some of the most pressing issue of the nation today, may be provided by adhering to the spirit that these tenets represents.

Firstly, he touched on the idea of Citizenship. He explained that the concept of citizenship does not comprise simply of the legal obligations to perform the duties expected of a citizen of a country. It is much more than that as a citizenship is as much a social and moral contract as it is a legal one. The sense of duty of a citizen should stem primarily from the love and honor he/she feels for the homeland than any legal or criminal repercussions. I cannot agree more with his point and I have to admit I am guilty of thinking sometimes that if I have a choice, I will choose not to perform my National Service. However, he has another equally important point to make about this tenet. That is, as much as a moral duty and obligation is due from a citizen to the state, the converse is equally true. If we agree that a citizen should feel unqualified commitment to the country, that commitment should be rightly reciprocated by the country (and in Singapore's case, the government) with appreciation and affection. While I am guilty of not giving my fullest and most heartfelt commitment to this country, the government is, to a greater or lesser degree, guilty of the exact same folly. Mr Sadasivan rightly pointed out that increasingly, the contract that existed between the citizen and the state is becoming unfairly skewed in favor of the state and the allegiance of our citizens is being taken for granted by the government. The exclusivity that differentiates a citizen and a PR comprises of non-consequential benefits like voting rights or slightly cheaper healthcare while the tradeoffs that the citizen suffers includes rocketing property prices and increased job competition. The contract between the citizen and state is breaking and the government should rightly be mindful of that.

Next, he discussed the idea of Unity which is inferred from the words "…one united people, regardless of race, language or religion…". Mr Sadasivan echoed the importance of a united nation where a pluralistic society is able to live and operate in peace and tranquility. To ensure that harmony, the most effective and enduring mechanism will be to institute equality for all citizens, regardless of one's race and religion and to be open, transparent and responsive about some of the apparent inequalities that exist in Singapore. This issue had already been discussed at length during the National Day Rally and I will not expound on the details of Mr Sadasivan's advice on the matter.

The next tenet he talked about was that of Justice & Equality. And the 2 main points he made about this tenet was about justifying the need of freedom of expression as well as the need for a more equal and balance political scene. His assertions in this section were the most forceful and pointed of his speech. Amongst his assertions include lack of free media, lack of political inclusiveness, electoral vote manipulation and government insensitivity. I applaud Mr Sadasivan's audacity to slay the sacred cow and break Parliament's silence on a variety of taboo issues. While I too concede the effectiveness and excellence of the results brought about by the pragmatism of Singapore's ruling brass over the past 40 years, it makes good sense going forward to follow the principles of justice and equality in terms of the political process in Singapore. The result of the progress Singapore has made over the last 40 years is a population that has grown increasingly affluent and sophisticated. The people yearn for more than basic needs like food and lodging. Intangibles like freedom of expression, political participation and civil liberties are becoming more important to the modern citizen. Arguably, there is a general consensus that the national media in Singapore toes the line set by the ruling political party and the overt propaganda spewed out the government-controlled media repulse and alienates rather than attract the political left. The political hegemony that is marginalizing the existing political opposition instills fear of persecution by the authorities, driving the any civil political engagement underground, onto the cyberspace which entrenches mistrust, contempt and cynicism of the government. Counter-intuitively, instead of engaging and including the general public with its pervasive presence on the political scene, the citizens are becoming increasingly disenfranchised and resigned by the lack of justice and equality in a political landscape dominated by a single overwhelming entity. To follow in the spirit of justice and equality as specified in our national pledge, the government may once again re-engage with the citizenry and in turn perpetuate its political longevity instead of ignoring widening cracks and fractures that are momentarily hidden underneath the hawkish surveillance of the ruling party.

Lastly, Mr Sadasivan touched on the principle of Happiness & Progress. He pointed out the growing disjoint between the nation's priorities and that of the ordinary citizenry. While the government continues to insist on tangible, quantifiable measures of progress like GDP, he correctly pointed out that these quantitative measures reveal little about the actual improvement in the lives of the ordinary man-on-the-street. The straight-line conclusion that happiness will result automatically from progress of only the economic variety is both archaic and naïve in the Singapore of today. Mr Sadasivan also challenged the widely accepted notion that providing more aid to the poor and the aged meant going down the path of becoming a welfare state. Such a conclusion, one of the many other straight-line ones drawn by the ruling party, is fundamentally flawed. It is akin to asserting that morphine can only be used by drug addicts and not for anesthesia. Administered appropriately, the government is able to provide some relief to these groups of people without overtaxing the government budget or overall economy. Other indicators like the GINI coefficient reveal more of the true picture of Singapore's society, where the rich-poor divide ranks amongst largest in the world. Hopes of a realignment of the existing economic policies pursued by the government to the spirit of true happiness and progress as encapsulated in our national pledge so as to result in progress that can lead to a more modern and comprehensive definition of happiness remains an elusive one. However it should be the duty of a Member of Parliament to become the matter to the fore and invoke a reconsideration of true merits of the existing system and suggest improvements to it. I am glad that Mr Sadasivan had started the ball rolling in such an effective and persuasive way.

The issues brought up in this speech are not new ones which have not already been mentioned in the media or blogosphere. But what Mr Sadasivan managed to achieve in his speech is to reframe these prevailing issues in the most elegant manner and articulate them in relation to the tenets espoused in our national pledge in the most eloquent and dignified way. To the assertion that Mr Sadasivan's speech is a highfalutin one, I have to respectfully disagree.

Read More...

Summary only...

Property Bubble

The Straits Times on Saturday published a 7-page special report discussing the recent property boom in Singapore. The property correspondent for ST deliberated on this phenomenon and discussed if the rebound in prices was indeed sustainable or that a property bubble was developing in Singapore. Many expert opinions were sought in the report but it seems to me that the opinions offered were often vague and unconvincing guesses about the trend of the property market that did not hold much water. I think the possibility of a bubble is much higher than that of real fundamental demand for property. Let me explain.

With the exception of Singapore and probably China, nowhere else in the world can one find such irrational exuberance. According to reports from the US Federal Reserve, European Union Central Bank and almost all governments around the world, the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression of the 1920s has only stopped getting more severe. Recovery is beginning and the economic wounds caused by the ravages of the financial tsunami are starting to heal. But that's the point. The economy is starting to heal, it is not fit and healthy, ready to go out there to jump in the air and perform somersaults. Singaporeans and Chinese do not seem to differentiate between "an economy that stopped getting worse" and a "booming economy". In China, most retail investors are not sophisticated ones. Speculation is rife and most retail investors in the markets punt their money on assets that they hardly understand. There is a saying in China, " 新股不败 ", which means that you cannot lose money by chasing after IPOs in China, even if the company is selling fresh air. Farmers sold their cattle and lands to punt in the stock market. Factory workers sold their bicycles to buy stocks of companies they had never heard of. For every rags-to-riches story the markets in China made, there are 3 or more tragedies that nobody heard. Since the stock market peak 1 month ago, the Shanghai Composite Index tanked more than 20%. For the Singaporeans that bought property which is easily 15-20 times the average annual income of a typical Singaporean, is what they are doing so different from the Chinese farmers and factory workers? I think not. The main difference is that Singaporeans are gambling with they think they will have but the farmer gambled with what he has got.

The economic backdrop to this property boom is significant. While there is general consensus that the economy will only get better from henceforth, the property market in Singapore had already priced in an economic future resembling the boom times of 2006-2007 or even the property bubble period of 1996-1997. This is a ludicrous assumption as the world economy had been fundamentally reshaped by this global financial crisis. Business costs and profitability, job security and remuneration are all going to be different in the new world economic order. Any property bought between 1996 & 1997 is still underwater, even after the ramp up in property prices over the last few months. Therefore to speculate in property that is priced on the assumption of a mean-reverting global economy is both naïve and dangerous. With the property boom that is hopelessly out of sync with the economic reality, there exists a real risk that property investors in Singapore may end up paying for overpriced white elephants for the rest of the lives.

The government should also be very concerned about this phenomenon as the investor base swarming into the current property boom are not high-end property investors but rather mass market participants that have lost their heads in the mad rush for "bargains". While the rich are more able to withstand valuation losses (thus margin calls on their property loans), ordinary folks may not be able to do so. If my predictions of a correction in the property market realizes, such investors may end up force-selling their expensive purchases at significant losses which would certainly derail the financial ambitions of these ordinary Singaporeans. Government subsidies for new babies and benefits like extended maternity leave seems laughable when newly-married couples are forced to delay their plans for a family due to financial ruin resulted from the purchase of their new properties. With sky-rocketing mortgage payments consuming a majority of the monthly salary, support for parents will become a greater issue and the whole "father suing son for neglect" problem comes into focus. The spillover effects from the private property market to the public one (ie. HDB) is becoming increasingly disruptive. Since there is currently no effective mechanism to segregate the public property market from the private one, the ramp-up in condo prices forces couples buying their first HDB to pay over the odds for a place to start building their family. Even a university graduate would struggle to pay for a 4-room HDB flat in today's prices without depleting their CPF holdings and monthly salary. Coupled with the government's move to import more and more foreign workers, in part feeding the rental market in Singapore (thereby further incentivizing the purchase of property to rent rather than to stay), the growing discontent by the burgeoning middle class can be easily understood. The various issues that plague the government today are all inter-connection ones. The root of one problem is often the consequence of another. The government needs to realize that there is a real multi-faceted social consequence to this mad rush for private property in Singapore's suburbs.

One of Singapore's property honcho told the ST that he does not think a bubble is developing. His arguments include 1) pent-up demand for private property from 2007/8 due to lack of supply by developers, 2) relatively cheaper property when compared to 1996, 3) low interest rates due to market conditions. I think none of these reasons make sense and cannot justify the current property boom. A bubble can be rightly defined as a spike in prices from pure expectations of future prices which is not dependant on any fundamental principles. As explained above, the fundamental economic reasons for purchasing property at such high prices is clearly non-existent. Investors are willing to pay such exorbitant prices simply because they are expecting others to follow suit. Stories of property agents snapping up 3 or 4 condominiums before the official launch only to flip them over to retails buyers are resurfacing. These people are not interested in investing in the properties. They do not care about factors like location or rent yield. All they care about is reselling the condos for a quick buck. As long as they can cover the loan interests for that short time between the flip and some cash to spare, who cares if they are helping to create the illusion of robust demand and hiking up the prices artificially?

Buyers were not buying in 2007-8 because they could not afford to, not because there were no private properties to buy. Job insecurity and asset depreciation were rife for the last 2 years and people were reluctant to commit to big financial outlays. The property developments were rescinded by the developers due to the lack of demand then. The developers were hoping to make a bigger profit when they re-release the developments into the market when demand came back. The supply was always there, just not the demand. To suggest otherwise would be hypocritical and inaccurate. Also, to compare the price levels now to that of 1996 is simply ridiculous. It was a bubble then. In fact, it was the biggest property bubble to date in Singapore. People were paying up till 25-times their annual salary to own a condominium. Just because it is not bigger than that of the 1996 bubble does not mean we are not in one now. The current boom is a bubble and it is fast becoming bigger than that in 1996.

Thirdly, the low prevailing interest rates was cited as a reason for the spending binge in the property market. There is some truth in this reasoning but that truth is not of the logical variety. Rather the reasoning is a rather frivolous, nevertheless accurate, one. You see, many Singaporean investors have short memories and consider things only in the immediate vicinity or timeframe. Although the short term interest rates for SIBOR are rather low for now, housing mortgages are tied to the floating SIBOR for the next 20-30 years. With the US Treasury's policy of quantitative easing, the huge stimulus will inevitably cause US interest rates to rocket to calm inflationary worries. With Singapore's financial markets open and accessible to investors worldwide and MAS's policy of pegging SGD to USD, the SIBOR will correspondingly rise in line with the US. Therefore if not for the shortsightedness of the average Singaporean property investor, the low interest rates they are paying now cannot and should not be a justification for putting money n an investment vehicle which will take 20-30 years to repay.

One of the cornerstones of the Singapore dream is to own a property of your own. The purpose of the government to institute the HDB was also to facilitate the building of quality, affordable housing to the people of Singapore. I was brought up to believe that everything in Singapore is possible as long as I am merit it. I do not think that anymore. Wealth is becoming the greatest social divide, one that cannot be bridged by industry or intelligence. If one is not rich enough in the beginning, it will be doubly hard for him to participate in the tremendous wealth of our nation. I grew up thinking that Singapore, despite its occasional inadequacies, was an ideal place to buy a home and set up a family. Instead, this dream of property ownership and family building increasingly feels more like a chain that traps one here on this tiny island, forcing one to serve out a mammoth financial obligation for the rest of his life with no respite. A property should first be a home before an investment. Unlike stocks, there is often a real human story behind a house or a piece of land. It means much more than just money and I hope people can see that earlier before the house of cards start falling down, bursting the bubble encapsulating it.

Read More...

Summary only...

3rd Proposal

As promised, I will continue on this original post, albeit in stages. Here’s the latest……


How to maintain Singapore’s high economic growth and keep on improving our standard of living?
See earlier post "2 Proposals"

How to satisfy transport demands of the next generation?
See earlier post "2 Proposals"


How to convince Singaporeans their lives will get better?
I do not agree with the Senior Minister on this. Why is convincing Singaporeans a big challenge? This “challenge” does not really concern Singaporeans in general. It merely applies to the ruling class, the incumbent government. Most Singaporeans like me are concerned about improving their lives, materially and otherwise. I do not care about “thinking and believing” that my life is going to get better. Self-deception and media-brainwashing are cannot substitute for an actual real improvement in quality of life.

It sounds to me that the Senior Minister is concerned about the effectiveness of its propaganda machine. The government is effectively in full control of the media. Through our local newspapers, TV etc, the ruling party speaks directly to the conscious of the nation. Much of its political hegemony is perpetuated through this mechanism. My case in point? Just talk to any individual, who is not privy to the widespread discussion of the fallacies of the existing government on the blogosphere but instead receives most of his/her information through the mainstream media, and I am quite certain that they can only see the positives of the existing administration.

But with a population that is increasingly sophisticated, knowledgeable and inquisitive, the media savvy-ness of our government needs to move to another level. I cannot speak for all Singaporeans but I cringe whenever I see on our Straits Times things like “Alice Wong, 35, housewife and mother of 2, also agrees that the recent increase in electricity tariffs is reasonable and fair……” and the likes. This is blatant propaganda done in the most crude and vulgar fashion, a major turnoff for many people. To encourage people to sincerely root for the government, I advise a media stance in the spirit of freedom of speech instead of the vulgar and oppressive media brain-washing. At least the government will begin to connect more to the informed and convince them that their leaders are reasonable, intelligent individuals that deserves respect.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Silent Singapore

There is a suffering group of Singaporeans that many of us are oblivious to. They are silent because of their ignorance or incapability. No one hears their muted cries for help. Their daily obsession with the struggle to find food or shelter renders them incapable of extracting themselves from their constant misery to any semblance of a basic acceptable human existence. In our fast-paced society where time is precious and speed is money, no one has the time to care for those who cannot help themselves.

I will be updating this post with more of my thoughts regarding this hidden tragedy that Singaporeans never saw. Meanwhile please take a few minutes of your precious time to look at this gem of a video by some enlightened students. Some moments of the videos are heart-wrenching.

Read More...

Summary only...

2 Proposals

A close friend recently complained to me about her irritation with blogs. She finds that there are an increasing number of blogs ranting about the inadequacies of our government. I am one of those bloggers she was talking about. I never thought of what I write about as senseless ranting and I still do not. However I have to admit I am too guilty of a fair amount of complaining, criticizing and finger-pointing n my posts. Therefore I decided today to cease with the criticism and instead try to provide some useful suggestions on some issues brought up by our Senior Minister Goh in the Straits Times a couple of days back.

The Senior Minister pointed out that there are 10 big challenges that Singapore will need to face in the coming future. I shall try to provide some of my humble opinions to 2 of these challenges. Much of what I will say has already been mentioned and discussed within the blogs and forums. Hopefully the some of these alternative views can find its way into the considerations of those that can make a difference and initiate some real progress.

How to maintain Singapore’s high economic growth and keep on improving our standard of living?

I echo the message of the Senior Minister to our ruling elite. Do not become a victim of your own success. The old economic model has worked for the past 30 years. Give yourselves a pat on the back and move on. Past glories do not guarantee future success. We need a new model. Importing GDP from the likes of Malaysia, China and India only serves to benefit a select few. For the rest of the masses, real income have dropped steadily, inflation far outstripped wage growth, public discontentment had grown to worrying levels and the wanton influx of immigrants threatens social stability.

We need to start thinking product design and development instead of product manufacture, private banking and asset management instead of back-office operations/processing, nanotechnology instead of textile manufacturing. GDP may reverse into the red for a couple of years if we purse a radical reform of our economy. Let the labor-intensive industries leave. New higher tech ones will replace them. There is a reason for a $15-$20 per hour difference in wage between a Singaporean waiter and an Australian one and it lies primarily in the oversupply of cheap labor which will persists unless companies realize that employment is not longer possible at $3 an hour.

This is some short term pain for a long term gain. The government can help ease the pain with its bulging coffers. When Singapore remerges from the reform and its economy starts singing to the new tune of the new world, the GDP figures will no longer be achieved upon the silenced misery of a poor middle-class, but from the benefits of playing higher up the value chain. In fact GDP growth is but a cash cow for the select few. Other measurements like GINI, real income per capital are much more representative of the peoples’ well-being. My proposal is a better way to improve these statistics from the pathetic levels they are at today.

How to satisfy transport demands of the next generation?

The billions and billions of dollars poured into improving our public transport system in our increasing overloaded city reminds me of a news report I heard years back. During the space race of the 1930s, US and Russia were competing with each other to explore the boundaries of our solar system. American astronauts needed to record readings up in space and could not find a pen that works in zero gravity conditions. NASA invested in US$30m to invent a pen that could write in zero-gravity. The Russians used a pencil.

There is a simpler solution to our transportation woes than building the most sophisticated and expensive MRT system to span the length and breadth of Singapore. Just stop stressing the system with more and more passengers!! We can never build enough tracks and buy enough trains to cater to the endless hordes of new immigrants. Less people, less jams, less discontent with our transportation system. By the way, the Senior Minister reminisced about the times when he used to cycle to school. Try taking the MRT in a weekday morning and I guarantee you that cycling to work is a much more attractive alternative if only we have proper cycling tracks and do not bear the significant risk of being knocked down by frenzied motorists trying to beat the morning ERP cut-off timing.

I will continue to contribute my thoughts to the rest of the challenges in another post soon. Hope this can provide some food for thought.

Read More...

Summary only...