Give us HDB Flats AT COST, NOT 30yrs mortgage Enslavement! I have created a Facebook Group named as above. The reasoning is as below:HDB used to be a very unique and successful socialist approach to provide basic adequate housing for Singaporeans. The HDB scheme was made possible by the power of Land Acquisition Act that allows the government of the day to acquire land at dirt cheap prices. It is a social contract between the people and the government to empower them to acquire land at cheap prices while in return, the people's basic housing needs are taken care of by the government providing HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED HDB flats to more than 80% of the population.The break down of Cost price of HDB was made available back in 1981 when the government showed us how much COST SUBSIDIES have been given to the citizens. However, since the introduction of "Asset Enhancement Program" in early 1990s and subsequently the introduction of "Market Price Subsidy" in the pricing of new HDB flats, new HDB flats are no longer cheap. The PAP government has subtly avoided their responsible embedded in the social contract. The PAP government has used very creative accounting to avoid showing how much money they have earned from selling new HDB flats while shamelessly claiming that a "Market Subsidy" was provided. This is no more than mere "DISCOUNTS" with no real subsidy given. When asked to provide the breakdown of the COST of building these HDB flats, there was surreal silence from HDB. Why could they provide breakdown of cost back in 1981 while reluctance to provide it now?We just want an honest price from HDB for our young Singaporean couples, at least a COST PRICE of HDB for our young in return for the enormous power that we have given the PAP government in Land Acquisition Act which it has used to acquired huge land stock at dirt cheap prices. This group will act as a campaign to pressure the PAP government to fulfill their role as a responsible public housing provider. To fulfill their part of the social contract as embedded in the Land Acquisition Act.Goh Meng Seng Transport Minister vs HDB Minister I am still waiting for MOF's reply at this moment, after sending them a second reminder email. But now, I have an interesting "survey result" from Ministry of Transport. Minister Raymond Lim claims that a survey of 3000 people came up with a result that 94% of commuters are "satisfied" with the bus and MRT services. I guess any readers here who take public transport frequently would have much doubt on such claim but Minister Lim is quick to qualify that commuters are still unhappy about the waiting time. Nothing was said about the cramp conditions that many experienced during peak hours. I am tempted to email the LTA or Ministry of Transport for their methodology of survey and any publication of their survey results. I am even more tempted to get volunteers to do my own survey with proper sampling methodology to show otherwise. However, when I read that at last the Minister has admitted the problems raised here, about the inadequacy of public transportation and the unusual high volume of COE issued, even to roll out measures to solve these problems, I guess I will just leave him alone. I mean, compared to Minister Mah of HDB who is still insisting that his HDB flats are affordable after so many people have put up their views against him, Minister Raymond Lim is still not too bad. At the very least, he has made the SMRT to increase 150 MRT trips per week! At the same time, he is going to review the COE quota system to prevent the unusual increase of COE for the past few years.However, he has fallen short of doing good for the bus services. Increasing the number of Mandatory Give Way Bays are not going to solve the problems! If you travel frequently on buses, you will notice that most of the time, the bus drivers will try to snail their way through the journey even though the road is clear and good for them! Why do they do that? Most probably under the instructions of Bus companies! This is to ensure that the bus will spend maximum time on the trip! This is part of the trick that bus companies are using.On the other hand, Minister Mah is still sticking to his line of argument that HDB is still affordable. He does not admit that his market-based pricing mechanism for new HDB flats is the key problem of high HDB prices. He has rolled out quite a number of measures but it seems that they are aimed at resale market. So far, these measures are ineffective. Maybe Minister Mah does not understand the meaning of supply and demand mismatch. Anyway, I shall leave this to my coming postings on his Myths that he is living on.The key message is this: both public transport and public housing are BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES. Entities that provide these basic social services have more social responsibility that just mere private enterprises. In the case of public transport, it is better not to privatize the vendors of public transport services in a small country like Singapore. The market does not allow adequate competition to grow or rather, these public transport companies have actually colluded to provide segmented monopolies. Yet, the regulator, LTA has allowed this to happen. The basic premise of a privatizing public transport companies is that it could be more efficient with competition inbuilt. But the truth is, in Singapore's context, there are basically no competition at all! Buses are not competing with MRT on the same routes, unlike in Hong Kong whereby mini buses are very competitive. Thus it is important for the regulator and the minister in charge to keep a high alert on these private public transport companies. They will basically collude and monopolize their segments, resulting in higher prices and lower service standards.The problems of public housing provider like HDB is different. Although the government, through the MND minister Mah, has almost full control on HDB, it fails its basic role as provider of basic housing for Singaporeans. For the whole period of 2003 to 2008, the housing stock only increase by less than 2% while resident population increases by 8%! How could that happen? It just happened right under the nose of Minister Mah!As for the pricing mechanism for new HDB flat, it is totally flawed for a government entity. HDB has totally forgotten its roots and roles as a basic social service government provider. It is sad for an entity that is based on socialist ideals to turn into a money making machine.I will continue my contest against Minister Mah as long as he still refuses to revamp the system. As for Minister Raymond Lim, we will still continue monitor the situation but leave him alone for the moment.Goh Meng SengAfter note:I have this comment left on this article:The way the survey results are reported is not credible.If you want to understand why, have a look at this url.http://www.lta.gov.sg/images/PTCSS%202009_Annex-A.pdfThe satisfaction score for each question was measured using a 10 pt scale. If you look at the mean score, the mean score averages between 6 to 7. The % satisfied is however very high.The classification of "satisfied" is not provided in the release. Based on the numbers, it is likely that as long as a person gave a score from 6 to 10, he is classified as "satisfied".This is a non-standard methodology in survey research. It inflates the results as it groups "indifferent" respondents with the "satisfied" respondents. A more common grouping is8 to 10 Satisfied6 to 7 Neutral1 to 5 DissatisfiedEven using this highly questionable methodology, we see some alarming results. At the bottom of the release, we see a table on crowdness. On a 10 point scale, almost 50% of respondents gave a score of 1 to 5.Well, it seems that aurvandil has practically exposed the kind of flawed methodology and presentation of statistics that Minister Raymond Lim used in parliament. I have been looking through HDB statistics which Minister Mah depended on and seeking clarifications by writing to HDB again to ask about how Minister Mah has come to the conclusion of using certain statistics. I am giving them a chance to make clarifications before I write about their funky statistical myths. On the other hand, Ministry of Finance has not replied to my earlier query. We have to keep ministers on their toes and not let them use some funny statistics in parliament for their debates. We shall see how "solid" their statistics are in the coming week. Sorry no enough Minister Khaw This is the third day after my first email to Ministry of Finance but I am still waiting for the reply. Ministry of Finance has an automatic reply which states that "We will get back to you in 3 working days or less depending on the complexity of your query/case." I really hope that my little request is not too complex for them and I believe that when the Minister of Finance made his claim in parliament, all details and statistics would have been made readily available for public scrutiny.While we are waiting for Ministry of Finance reply, I would like to deal with other issues. But this time round, I will not deal with Mr. Mah's myth yet. I will deal with Mr. Khaw's Health Ministry.Mr. Khaw has apologized publicly about the lack of hospital beds but we do not have a full clear picture how acute the problem is. I shall illustrate the seriousness of the problem here.The following chart is for this illustration:The above chart shows the percentage increase in population, demand of hospital care (admission to both public and private hospitals), supply of hospital beds (both public and private) and the supply of doctors and nurses.The demand of hospital care has increased more than the increase of population growth. This is mainly due to the rapid aging population. Although the supply of doctors and nurses in public hospitals have increased more than the growth in population and hospital care demand, the bottle neck seems to be stuck at the supply of beds.The Private hospitals have reacted to the increase in demand by increasing the both the number of beds, doctors and nurses. However, the public hospitals, under the supervision of the Ministry of Health and Mr. Khaw, has DECREASED the number of hospital beds during this period from 2003 to 2008!Facing a INCREASE in demand and a DECREASE in supply of beds, no wonder Singaporeans are feeling desperate when their love ones are being deprived of beds when they are sent to the hospital on emergency need!I have friends who have complained about waiting for more than 8 hours, some at 12 hours for a bed when their family members were sent to hospital during emergency. This is a matter of life and death!The Ministry of Health has promised to build the Yishun Hospital way back in 2001 but it turned out to be BROKEN PROMISES. As I understand, they were supposed to build one hospital in the West, Jurong or Boon Lay, but turn out to be empty plan again. When they decided to build Yishun Hospital after GE 2006, they complained about high cost basically because due to the competition on resources by the construction of the two Casino resorts! We are now seeing a distinctive pattern in this multi-millions PAP government. They have sat on the problems without doing anything to anticipate the impact due to the increase of population, which in turn due to their flawed liberal Foreign Talent policy.As Singaporeans, we could tolerate congested public transport and even higher HDB flat prices. But I think there is a limit to our tolerance when the life and death of our love ones are threaten just because the PAP government, particularly the Ministry of Health, did not do their job in coping with the very liberal Foreign Talent policy that they have embarked on. My message to Mr. Khaw is this, SORRY NO ENOUGH! This is a matter of life and death of Singaporeans. The hospitals have increased their billings on Singaporeans over the years without improving their quality of services, in terms of providing adequate hospital beds. I seriously hope Mr. Khaw get the message loud and clear. Please don't tell us to visit hospitals in JB or Malaysia. It would be a total shame for a self proclaim First World government not able to take care of its citizens' healthcare needs but to ask Singaporeans to depend on Third World countries to give them faster, cheaper and faster care.Goh Meng Seng Budget Debate 2010 - Myths of HDB and 460K for poor over 60 years? I have written to the Ministry of Finance to ask for a detailed breakdown of their numerical calculations on how they actually come to that assertion that the Minister of Finance Tharman made in recent parliamentary sitting on the Budget Debate.It is hardly believable that the PAP government is so generous when it comes to providing basic welfare to our needy citizens. It was not so long ago that our memory is still fresh about the "heated" argument presented in parliament over a mere $30 increase in monthly allowance for the needy. Thus, I am really curious to know about the methodology and assumptions made in Minister Tharman's assertion on the seemingly HUGE handouts that the PAP government is going to give every year over the next 60 years (well, providing PAP could be the ruling party for that long) is going to be a "INFLATION ADJUSTED" of a total $460K.As far as I know, there isn't any "inflation adjusted" methodology in PAP's very limited welfare approach (remember the debate on the increase of mere $30?). So I am all open and curious about the new methodology that they are putting in place.On the other hand, I know my readers are eager to know what I think about Minister Mah Bow Tan's Mtyhs. I would say that he is living in his own Myths after I read his responses in parliament. I shall devote a few articles in subsequent days on talking about his Myths. But let's wait for Ministry of Finance response first.Goh Meng Seng TOC: A minister must fall in the process of change, says NSP sec-gen A minister must fall in the process of change, says NSP sec-genTags: general electionsBy Fang ShihanLongtime opposition stalwart, Mr Goh Meng Seng (picture right, middle), is no stranger to Singapore’s politics. Having just been elected Secretary-General of the National Solidarity Party (NSP), the former Worker’s Party politician is decidedly confident.“The PAP is ultra capitalist!” he says. “They think that running a country is like running a company… but in a country, surplus and deficit is not the same as profit and loss… [they have] no moral bearing in a political sense.”Effectively bilingual, the owner of a small business in Ang Mo Kio and part-time translator switches between the two languages with ease during the interview. He also sees this as an asset should he come up against Mr Mah Bow Tan in Tampines GRC in the upcoming elections.Views on the current political systemAn economist by nature, Mr Goh compares the political system to a marketplace. He feels that the opposition must be the spurs in the PAP’s hinds to make the PAP more competitive.Only by challenging the PAP’s power status will the PAP ‘up’ its competitiveness. This, he clarifies, is not the same as asking for welfare, which merely functions as a stopgap measure. Quite often, systemic faults are the cause of unemployment, preventing people who want to have an opportunity to work from lifting themselves out of poverty.Drawing an analogy with the public transport system, which he derides as inadequate and not competitive, he says, “If you had a total monopoly of power, there is no incentive to do better…. There is no urgency or need for those in authority to heed your demand.”Aside from the opposition, there needs to be participation from the people in order to get a more responsive and caring governance. A multi-pronged approach with the media, the social worker and politician as equal partners negotiating with the state would make for the ideal political system. Opposition leaders, he explains, are needed as political leverage to threaten the ruling party with the danger of losing voters.“If Singapore wants to set the best deal for government, it needs [political] opposition in contestation for power.”Another paradigm-shifting party?Mr Goh says that the political system must change to serve the new electorate. Unlike the previous generation which was willing to sacrifice political freedoms for economic growth, the post-65 voters do not feel beholden to the PAP. The fact that the ageing Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is largely responsible for holding the integrity of the ruling party together , and that post-65 voters will form more than 50% of the electorate in the next elections, there is an imperative to think about Singapore’s political future in the post-LKY phase.According to Mr Goh, these post-65 voters are more educated and want to see political debate. More importantly, they wish to see substance in the political process.The NSP, he says, “may be small, but it has a role [to play] to be the agent of change.”The NSP, Mr Goh says, will be very open about its political strategy, something never seen before in Singapore. In line with the post-65 electorate that wishes to see more political debate and substance in the political process, the NSP will not wait for the 9-day campaigning period to begin educating voters on its vision for Singapore.“Voters cannot make a good assessment within 9 days,” he reasons.What NSP will be pushing forMr Goh declares that the NSP is planning to contest in Tampines GRC with its Malay candidate at the fore. There has never been a Malay MP from the opposition, which has led to a myth that only Malay PAP MPs can take care of the community’s welfare.The NSP’s minister-policy centered strategy will see the NSP targeting Mr Mah Bow Tan, questioning him on the HDB policies which have led to rocketing flat prices. “Look deeper into the problem,” Mr Goh explains. “It is not just asset devaluation. We must ask: Is the minister doing his job?”He will also be pushing for a minimum wage policy. Attacking the latest ESC (Economic Strategies Committee) report, which proposed levies for foreign workers, he says that this will only escalate the existing price war between lower-skilled local and foreign workers.There is an imbalance of supply and demand in the labour market, driven by unlimited supply from foreign workers, he explains. These workers are therefore bound to be exploited through wage suppression as their wages are driven down by price competition.Singaporeans are even worse off, he continues, as unlike their foreign counterparts who are able to rent rooms at $160/mth fromgovernment agencies, they instead have to pay a mortgage for their flat. Even if they were to rent a flat, a subsidized 2 room rental flat costs between $205 – $275/mth for second timers, if the gross household income lies between $801-$1500. Foreign workers also enjoy an effective lower cost of living, as their families are overseas.“The burden is shifted to the foreign workers who have to settle for even lower wages. Levies don’t make sense without minimum wage,” he insists.He thus proposes a limitation of supply by quota, together with minimum wage, to level out the competition platform. When asked if this would make locals uncompetitive, he responds that there needs to be a distinction between labour competitiveness and labour exploitation.“A minister has to fall” in the process of changeThe PAP came about through a people’s power movement, he says. But now, because there is no fear of competition, it has become a monarchy, building its palace and walls and shutting themselves off from the people. Citing the recent TOC feature on homeless people in Singapore, he asks if the MCYS knew about the homeless. And if they did, were they too busy to do anything about it? This, he says, has led to a situation of disaffection.The ruling party should not think of how to maintain a monopoly, he urges. For example, the electoral system is structured such that a minister would be removed if the opposition won a GRC.“Imagine if you lose a good minister because of the system that has been built. Is that good for the nation?”He has no doubts that the PAP would still be dominant. However, this would mean that, upon losing a GRC, the PAP would still be in power, but with inferior stock.The NSP believes in proportional representation, he says, for the sustainability and stability of the political system. A more dynamic model that reflects the wishes of the people is needed, instead of one that is designed to perpetuate a monopoly. However, he muses, change will only come in view of a reluctant monopoly of power – a minister must fall in the process. No clarity yet but more questions on HDB Survery Last week, I wrote about how the HDB Sample Survey 2008 was misleading and contained serious statistical issues. Leong Sze Hian did an independent analysis and came to a similar conclusion.http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/hdb-95-per-cent-happy-with-their-flats-%e2%80%93-really-or-just-half-the-story/What I had written was even featured in the Reach forum. An anonymous poster posted the entire thread from TOC into the Reach discussion thread on HDB.http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/YourSay/YourDiscussionCorner/tabid/117/ptid/414/page/59/totrecs/591/threadid/2427/forumtype/posts/Default.aspxIt is strange that up till now there isn’t any reactions to what I have written. The formidable PAP Internet team which is supposed to “counter” unfavourable, untrue articles by the Opposition did not show up. Instead among the people who commented, there was almost universal agreement that there was something “fishy” about the statistics. As I had previously written, I do not understand the results of the press release. In particular, the following seems to contradict the daily experience of those that live in the HDB heartlands.96.4% of all HDB households surveyed said they were satisfied with their flats, while 95.1% were satisfied with their neighbourhood.I therefore wrote the following email to HDB to ask them for the survey form and the methodology of the survey.Dear Sir/ Madam,I have read with interest about your recent release on HDB Sample Survery 2008. I would like to have a copy of the survey questionnaire and understand more about the survey methodology applied in this survery. I am particularly interested on how the 94% of HDB dwellers satisfaction rate was derived from the survey. I would like to know the sample size and the sampling methodology used in this survey.I would appreciate if you could send me the survey questionnaire and necessary information as soon as possible. Thank you.Goh Meng SengI received the following reply:Dear Mr Goh,HDB SAMPLE SURVEY 2008We thank you for your interest in HDB's SHS 2008 and your enquiries on the survey.2. Close to 8,000 households across the island were sucessfully surveyed, yielding an overall sampling error of +1.2% at 95% confidence level. A set of weight was used to generalise the survey data to the population level, so that the findings reported are representative of all HDB households. A dual-modal data collection method was used, encompassing Internet survey (e-survey) as well as the conventional face-to-face survey at residents' home.3. Residents' satisfaction was measured on a 4-point scale, ranging from "Very Satisfied", "Satisfied", "Dissatisfied" to "Very Dissatisfied". The proportion of households who were satisfied consists of those who indicated either they were "Very Satisfied" or "Satisfied".4. We are unable to forward you a copy of the survey questionnaire. However, you can look forward to more details in our monographs, available for purchase at end Mar/early Apr 2010.Yours sincerely,GOH LI PINGSENIOR RESEARCH OFFICERRESEARCH & PLANNING DEPARTMENTWhile polite, the reply unfortunately does not provide any of meaningful answers. It did not answer some fundamental question on the sampling methodology applied when the face to face interviews were carried out. It does raise some doubts technically but I will confirm and comment on my doubts after I get more information and clarity once I get hold of the monographs. On the other hand, the email raises 3 additional questions:1) The survey was conducted in 2008. It is very surprising to read that the results will not be ready until Mar/Arp 2010. This is very unusual as the normal time to complete a survey of this size is about 3 to 6 month, or at most 1 year. If this data is still not ready, then what data has Mr Mah been using to make policy? The HDB website shows that the most recent data release is 2003. Was Mr Mah using vintage 2003 data to make policy decisions? 2) It is very strange that HDB has refused to release the questionnaire. This is a basic requirement in all research so that those reading the numbers can understand how the numbers were derived. The Singapore Department of Statistics releases all questionnaires from their surveys. Questionnaires cannot be classified as being Confidential or Secret. They belong in the public domain since to use them to gather information, you have to show them to the public. This is especially so when it is claimed that internet survey was carried out. 3) The 4 point scale is a non-standard method to generate a satisfaction score. The more standard scale is to use a 5 point scale or a 10 point scale. It is unknown why HDB chose to use such an unorthodox scale. A known research problem with such a scale is that it tends to give inflated results. This is because respondents who are indifferent (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) are not given a choice. When forced the tendency of such indifferent respondents is to give a 3 rating, inflating the results. Mar/early April is round the corner. I will wait for the monographs to come out and do a more detailed analysis of the findings.Goh Meng Seng 不要再講創新 要做好基本技術 This is a very interesting news article from Taiwan. The pioneer leader of Taiwan's Industrial Bureau has stated categorically that there is no point of talking about innovation and creativity if the basic technological development is too weak. This is something that Singapore government needs to think about in pursuing Innovation and Creativity without building a strong foundation in basic technological research base. Our technology policy has to change in order for us to progress into really advanced first world country.Goh Meng Seng 李家同：不要再講創新 要做好基本技術 * 2010-02-25 * 新聞速報 * 【中央社】 　暨南大學榮譽教授李家同今天在工業局40周年慶上表示，希望政府「不要再講創新，要看台灣技術到底好不好」，因為基本技術不夠好，講創新沒有意義，希望台灣走回古老科技。 　李家同是當時工業局推動主導性新產品開發計畫技術審議會總召集人，是這項政策推動20年來的靈魂人物。他今天在工業局40周年慶典禮上，再度對產業政策方向提出建言。 　經濟部工業局今天歡度40周年慶，10任局長中除已經過世的第一任局長韋永寧，以及現任經濟部長施顏祥因到監察院報告無法出席外，包括現任局長杜紫軍在內，總計有 8位工業局長到場，共同為工業局40歲生日慶生。 　歷任局長中，久未露面的前政務委員楊世緘也到場，他說「工業局是一輩子的事業投資，工業局人不能隨隨便便到外面找工作，要找也要找好一點的工作」。 　特別代表施顏祥到場的經濟部政務次長林聖忠說，經濟部長很多都是工業局出身，包括現任部長施顏祥、前任部長何美玥、尹啟銘等，他很高興分享工業局的榮耀。 　工業局第 3任局長徐國安說，「今天非常高興回到娘家」，工業局成立目的就是要發展工業，但不是管理機構，目的就是要提供產業界良好投資環境、興利除弊，讓產業在台灣發展而且茁壯。 　不過，整場慶祝會中，李家同發言最讓現場省思。他表示，法國總統沙柯吉每到一個地方就會簽署一個工業產品合約，到中國大陸簽署新台幣 9000億元的合約；而現在連韓國也可以打敗美國奇異 (GE)與日本日立(HITACHI)，拿到阿拉伯國家400億美元的核能計畫合約，但台灣呢？ 　因此，李家同呼籲，不要再講創新了，要看台灣的技術好不好。他舉一家磁鐵廠商為例，要做出磁力絕對均勻都做不到，但國科會不會補助支持廠商進行磁鐵研究，但能夠把磁鐵做好，對產業貢獻很大。李家同也說，半導體元件放大器同樣也有技術問題。 　李家同說，台灣如果基本技術不夠好，就不要再講創新，因為這是沒有意義的。他並且用開玩笑的口吻說「希望局長（杜紫軍）聽懂我說的話」。 　李家同還說「真正同情我的人很少，我知道尹啟銘（政務委員）同情我，希望你更加同情我」，砲火猛烈中還帶點幽默，讓現場氣氛緩和不少。 早报：国民团结党认为对中小企业援助不足 国民团结党认为对中小企业援助不足　　国民团结党对政府在财政预算案中提出的促进生产力增长的计划表示欢迎，不过却批评它对本地大多数的中小企业援助不足。　　党秘书长吴明盛昨天发出文告，针对财政部长尚达曼前天向国会宣布的预算声明作出回应时指出，本地中小企业是最迫切需要提升生产力的公司，但是多数中小企业都因缺乏资金，而无法对提高生产力所须的人力资源开发和科技作出可观的投资。“提供更多税务回扣对它们来说于事无补。因为它们根本就连提高生产力所需的资金都没有。”　　他也批评政府不像台湾或韩国那样协助中小企业转型。他认为本地的中小企业应获得政府援助，以从为跨国企业服务的零部件供应商或合约制造商，转型为设计生产商或拥有本身的品牌，甚至发展为跨国公司。　　他还指出政府的预算案忽视了扩充社区设施以应付人口膨胀的问题。　　“我们需要一个更好地结合住屋与公共交通系统的城市规划模式。”　　团结党认为政府透过提高劳工税来抑制外劳人数的计划注定会失败。　　“政府终于领悟到它过去实行过度自由的外劳政策是愚蠢的。但是，如果还是不实行最低工资制或限制外劳人数，单是提高劳工税来抑制外劳人数是行不通的。而调高劳工税只意味着外劳的工资将减少。”　　他也提醒政府在拼生产力的同时，不要遗忘贫困家庭。　　“团结党想提醒行动党政府，本地还有一些人没有栖身之所，而且生活在贫困中。政府有必要制定一套完善的福利体系来协助社会上较不幸的群体，使他们脱贫。” NSP's response to Budget 2010 The National Solidarity Party (NSP) appreciates the PAP Government efforts to invest in the productivity growth of Singapore, but we are also concerned whether the scheme would really benefit a majority of our Small & Medium Enterprises (SMEs). The local SMEs form the main group that needs a productivity boost, especially the smaller ones. However, most SMEs do not have the financial means to embark on sizeable investments in human resources and technology to improve their productivity. Thus, the higher tax rebates would not solve their woes, as they do not have the required funds in the first place. NSP understands from sources that even the Special Risk-sharing Initiative (SRI) has reduced the repayment period from 5 years to 2 years while interest rate has been raised from 5% to 5.5%. Such adjustment coupled with stringent criteria would have effectively rule out most SMEs from the scheme.The new ‘Productivity and Innovation Credit’ scheme is apparently rather generic with no particular focus on SMEs. It may ultimately benefit the larger firms which may have less requirement for additional financial incentives. It seems that there is no clear cut lines drawn between foreign and local, big and small enterprises within the stated policy. NSP feels that special emphasis should be given to the local SMEs to help upgrade themselves from mere contract manufacturers and spare parts suppliers to that of MNCs, and from Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to that of Original Design Manufacturers (ODM), Private Label Manufacturers (PLM), or Main Brands Owners (MBO). Countries such as Taiwan and Korea have fared particularly well in grooming their local SMEs into ODMs, PLMs and MBOs. Much concerted efforts had been jointly invested by their Governments and Corporations in funding and technological research facilities. The two Asian tigers overtook Singapore in the 90’s in grooming their local SMEs into higher value industrial players. Recently, China has also evolved quickly into an ODM industrial base. Over the past two decades, Singapore failed to implement any comprehensive plan to help its local SMEs to grow on par with other major Asian players. It is thus a great disappointment that the PAP Government should continue to with its oversight in addressing this malady in its Annual Budget.The NSP is also concerned that the Budget ignores the need in enhance the social infrastructure and amenities to cope with the increased population of 5 million and growing. The tremendous stress caused by the liberal foreign workers policy, has weakened our social fabric and created considerable tension to our way of life in our overcrowded island. The capacity of our public transport system appears to be saturated. In particular, the MRT needs a major investment in upgrading their signalling system in order to improve on the frequency of trains during peak hours. Adequate and affordable housing poses another big challenge. The present model of City Planning, based on a population size of 3 million, is totally inadequate to accommodate the present population size of 5 million. We need a model that could better integrate housing and the public transportation system. Apparently, the Government has eventually realized the folly of their over-liberal FT policy. However, the proposed implementation of a higher levy for foreign workers to curb their growth, lacks feasibility in the absence of a corresponding minimum wage policy or an effective quota policy. The increased levy could be translated into even lower wages for the foreign workers. The Budget gives minimum attention to the reality of our aging population. The need to have more conducive facilities for the elderly in all aspects of life, grows with each passing year. The Government ought to develop specific infrastructure such as the “elderly” villages, specific trades and recreational facilities to accommodate and provide for the enlarged senior communities, before the demand for such facilities reaches another tension point. Last but not least, NSP wishes to remind the PAP government that there are still Singaporeans without a proper roof over their heads and there are genuine cases of poverty that needs to be addressed. There is a need to set up a comprehensive social welfare system to cope with the various needs of the socially and economically disadvantaged groups of people so to help them get off from the poverty trap.Goh Meng SengSecretary General National Solidarity Party A call for Clarity from Mah Bow Tan and HDB In the upcoming elections, I have made clear my intention to contest in Tampines GRC. The reason for my doing so is because Minister Mah Bow Tan’s policies have caused great hardship for many Singaporeans. Mr Mah apparently believes that the hardship caused by his policies are “acceptable” for the greater good. At a recent community event in Tampines, Mr Mah said“There’s no question that our policies are designed for the good of the people. While there may be certain parts of the policies that are not favourable, overall, I think these policies are for the well-being of the people and are good for the country.”I strongly disagree with Mr Mah. In GE 2006, the PAP had published a political manifeso with the catchy title “Staying Together, Moving Ahead”. PM Lee made a promise to the Singapore people that “no one will be left behind”. Mr Mah’s statement seems to indicate that he does not believe in PM Lee’s vision. To Mr Mah, it is perfectly OK to sacrifice and leave some Singaporeans behind. In the past 2 months, I have asked Mr Mah repeatedly for a policy debate so that Singaporeans can understand the issues and decide for themselves. I have done this through the mainstream media as well as in various blogs and Internet sites. So far, Mr Mah has pointedly ignored me. I do not understand why this is so. If Mr Mah is correct and has all the facts to defend himself, then there is nothing to fear from an honest and open debate on the policy issues. If the debate can be aired on national television, all Singaporeans would benefit by having a better understanding of the issues.Instead of engaging me in a direct debate, Mr Mah has chosen to engage me indirectly by instructing the HDB to release data and findings from the HDB Sample Household Survey 2008 When I read the press release dated 18 Feb 2010, I noted three glaring problems with the way in which the analysis was done.The first problem is found in the paragraph 2:The HDB resident population, comprising Singapore Citizens and Singapore Permanent Residents, increased by 2.7% over 5 years to 2.92 million in 2008. This figure made up 96% of the total population in HDB flats (88% were Singapore Citizens and 8% were SPRs), while the remaining 4% were foreigners.If the underlying population of the survey is 2.92 million, then it would appear that the survey frame is incorrect. This is because in the Yearbook of Statistics 2009 published by the Singapore Department of Statistics, it is stated that the total population of Singapore is 4.84 million. If only 2.92 million are staying in HDB flats, then where would the remaining 1.92 million be staying? It seems inconceivable that the relatively few condominiums, landed properties and worker dormitories in Singapore can house 1.92 million people (39.6% of the population). If there was something wrong with the survey frame, then the findings from the survey would be invalid. It would almost be too frightening to imagine if this is an indication that Mr Mah has been using the wrong numbers to make policy. The second problem is found in paragraph 3The average household income from work had also risen from $4,238 in 2003 to $5,680 in 2008, reflecting the growing affluence of HDB households.There are two problems here. Using household income instead of individual income is not a good indication at all. The rise in the household income may be the result of Mr. Mah’s HDB policy that pushes up the prices of new flats which in turn, forces young couples to stay with their parents. This will in turn artificially pushes up household income. This is especially obvious when we notice that there is an unusual artificial surge in both median and average household income in 2007 and 2008. Median household income has increased 9.4% and 13.1% in 2007 and 2008 respectively while average household income has increased 10.1% and 12.6% respectively. This is the clear indication that the rapid growth of HDB flat prices during these two critical years have caused such abnormality because as Singaporeans, we do not experience such a high increase in individual income for these two years. From another perspective, if we are to take household income too seriously, even for the median household income, it would mean that our income would have increase a whopping 38.5% within that 10 years! As for Average Household Income, it would mean that income could have increase a whopping 44.6%! But we are looking at YOUNG COUPLES who have not worked that long in the job market but looking for flats! Have the starting pay for new entrants into the job market very different between 2009 and 1999? Apparently not. Some people are even complaining that their starting pays have even been lower than the 90s due to the influx of Foreign workers!In fact, my researcher and I were looking through official statistics on MEDIAN INDIVIDUAL INCOME growth as compared to HDB PRICES GROWTH but such time series statistics only starts from 2005 till now. I am sure the PAP government has such statistics from 1999 onwards but why is it holding back such statistics for the last 5 years? Or they could have even use the statistics from 2005 till 2009 to make their justifications! If the PAP government could put up even more detailed statistics of income of Singaporeans who are 30 years and below, it would give a more accurate picture on how the disparity of income vs HDB price growth for the past 10 years!The second problem here is with the use of average. As a statistical measure of central tendency, the average or mean is known to give inflated values when you have extreme values. Such extreme values are prevalent in income statistics in Singapore given the large income disparity between the rich and the poor. Even if we are to accept such distorted representation, the more normal approach is therefore to use median rather than average. An illustration of how average gives inflated income statistics can be found in the paper published by the Singapore Department of Statistics. The paper is titled Key Income Trends, 2009. In Table 1, we have a comparison between median household income and average household income. I have extracted the numbers from the table and present them here:This table shows that if we use average, the household income is inflated by 35% to 45%. The reason for this is the small number of households who have very high income. To my knowledge, the Singapore Department of Statistics uses median household income in all of their papers and publications. It is unknown why HDB would want to use the inflated average household income in their policy making. If Mr Mah were to use median household income, maybe he will understand why so many Singaporeans are saying HDB flats are not affordable.Intriguingly, the widening percentage differences between the median and average household income actually reflects a serious problem here….the widening of income inequality! It actually shows that income inequality has widen about 15% or more for the past 10 years in terms of household income!The final problem is found in paragraph 5.96.4% of all HDB households surveyed said they were satisfied with their flats, while 95.1% were satisfied with their neighbourhood.This finding seems to be very strange as it would suggest that almost everyone was happy with their HDB flat. If that is true, then HDB should not be receiving any complaints and we should only be seeing only happy people in their HDB flats. The truth on the ground seems to be very different. The majority of us living in the HDB heartlands, do not seem to be seeing universal joy and happiness. I do not understand this finding and will be writing in to ask HDB for the survey form and the methodology with which they used. I will post what I learn when HDB replies to me. The electoral battle in Tampines will be a referendum on Mr Mah’s policies. I urge the voters of Tampines to stand with me and send a strong message to the PAP that policy failures like those committed by Mr Mah cannot and will not be tolerated. If we continue to keep quiet, then the policy failures will continue and Singaporeans will continue to suffer. When reading Tan Kin Lian’s blog, I came across the passage below. It was written by Niemoller, a German who lived during the rise of Nazism. Many Germans were against Nazism but were reluctant to speak up. While we are not living in Nazi Germany, the underlying message tells of what will happen if we continue to keep quiet.First they came for the Jewsand I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.Then they came for the Communistsand I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.Then they came for the trade unionistsand I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.Then they came for meand there was no one left to speak out for me. Goh Meng Seng The Role of Opposition - Putting Spurs into PAP's thick hides Firstly, I would like to wish all my readers and Singaporeans at large a very Happy and Prosperous Lunar New Year ahead. Recently I have given an exclusive interview as the Secretary General of NSP to TOC. I have talked about the vision of Singapore's Political development for the next decade or so, especially during the Post-LKY era. Recently someone asked me about what have I done for the voters of Tampines and what is my game plan for winning the Tampines battle in time to come. I have responded about the need to take a bigger role than just Tampines itself. In both instances, I have touched on the uncharted waters that I am sailing through; a path that has never been taken before by any opposition parties.I have put forward a totally REVAMPED strategy which was loosely used in opposition parties in the past. A Minister-Policy-Specific strategy. There are a few dimensions to this strategy and motivations of using such strategy. We have long heard about how PAP is not held accountable to their policy or management failures. Applying such policy will address the need of extracting accountability from the ruling party. Secondly, it will make the PAP and its ministers work harder to review some of the absurdity in their policies and do it right. Last but not least, it will raise the standards of political engagement from personality attacks to one that is geared towards open, matured and rational policy debates to work for the betterment of Singaporeans. All in all, I would say that the whole idea of being opposition members, to lend MM Lee's famous words, is to PUT THE SPURS DEEPER into PAP's HIDES, to make them worker harder and faster for the people's interests.Many people are anxious about having opposition parties to win more seats but have little idea about what that actually means. Winning seats is just a means to an end. The fundamental basis of power, is the people, for the people, by the people. Many people always demand opposition parties to come up with "solutions". But one should know that policy solutions need rigorously examination. While we could give a generation direction, policy specifics need to be examined very closely with data analysis. Opposition parties do not possess the necessary data sets to do such work, neither do they have a whole army of civil servants and think tank employed by the government to do the necessary policy research. Policy ideas could be mentioned but whether these ideas are feasible or not would need much in depth research by civil servants and think tank who are equipped with the necessary tools and data sets. The role of the opposition, thus, should not be entrenched in providing all nitty gritty specific solutions but rather, to act as an agent that keep the government in checks with good articulation of the flaws and ills of the policies put up by the ruling party. Opposition's fundamental role is to use the competitive mechanism provided by the electoral system as a leverage to extract a better deal for the citizens. My vision for Singapore's political sphere for the next decade is for it to develop into a multi-party proportional representative system. The citizens will be provided with the opportunity to make INFORMED CHOICES by open, matured public political discourses and debates. The political system is more about policy specific debates rather than personalities. A healthy and fair competitive environment for all political players to express their ideas and ideals. Opposition parties should not conduct themselves in such a "quiet" way. The media should make sure that it provides a balanced treatment and exposures for opposition parties.Many people asked about "what have you done for the voters". Most people think that only the incumbents could "do something" for the voters by writing letters for them, meet them to talk about their woes, run their town councils and such. But we must always remember that the FIRST PRIMARY ROLE of a MP is to debate policies in parliament, making sure that such policies are in the best interests of the people. I believe that opposition members who are yet to be voted into parliament have a role to play in "doing things for the voters". I have experimented it with the announcement of my intended contest in Tampines and providing my views on what went wrong with our HDB policies. Campaigning it on the grounds to explain the problems that Mah Bow Tan's HDB policies will bring to our younger and future generations. All such actions have put SPURS into PAP's thick hides. Within a short span of a few months, HDB has done a few somersault U Turns on its policies. One of the most dramatic U turns come from the fact that they are planning to build more rental flats after drastically reducing the numbers for last few years, even when MM Lee has openly expressed objection to have rental flats for Singaporeans.This is just a little "out-of-the-box" experimental political engagement that I have embarked on. It has proven its effectiveness in making the ruling party to do it right for Singaporeans. This is the kind of leverage that the competitive elements provided by the electoral mechanism could give us. Opposition members should walk out of their old conservative ways of conducting political engagement and start to utilize such leverage to try and get the better deals for our people. Walking or working the ground is no longer about knocking the doors and saying Hi and Bye. It could and should be more than that. We should be talking about politics and policies to our citizens, making comments on complex issues in the simplest terms as possible. Issues that are close to the hearts and minds of the citizens. To win the seats, you have to win the confidence of the voters that you can and will be an EFFECTIVE OPPOSITION MP in parliament who will always safe guard the interests of the people. Running a Town Council is important but just a distraction that PAP wants to put into opposition and voters' minds. To run a Town Council properly, we will need to employ professional Building and Estate managers. You simply cannot expect a doctor or a lawyer to run the Town Council all by themselves. Their more important primary role is to voice the concerns of the people in parliament to keep the ruling party in check.Utilizing the Minister-Policy-Specific strategy will be a good way in trying to refocus the voters' minds to the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of voting for their MPs. When they are considering whether to vote for opposition candidates, their primarily concern should be whether these candidates could help to safe guard their overall interests in parliament. Whether they have the ability and capacity to put up good policy debates in parliament. Of course, fundamentally, whether they could really "PUT THE SPURS DEEPER INTO THE RULING PARTY'S HIDES" to make them work harder and better safe guard their interests.Goh Meng Seng Ground Feedbaks & Politics The following is my reply to a forummer from Sammyboy Forum about the ground feedbacks and my thoughts in this lonely path of opposition politics:Quote:Originally Posted by scroobal View PostIf possible without giving the game away and within your party guidelines, is it possible to pen a few lines in a new thread on feedback and comments received during your walkabouts on Sundays as well as from your visits to coffeeshops. Also what your thoughts are seeing people,places as well as their condition. Also your thoughts on this journey.It will good for readers to share that journey and to find out what the common man on the ground feels. As you know, this is country that does not have a newspaper and we are trying to know more.It is ok. Feedback and comments received are vital for the government.The most common complain is still the influx of foreign workers. Even those aunties who work in coffeeshops, normally indifferent to politics, are voicing their discontentment against this influx of foreign workers who are competing against their jobs, suppressing their wages. Many jobless people are also blaming the foreign workers for displacing them. The ANGER from the ground is REAL.The Malay ground is shifting. Never before have I met YOUNG MALAY PROFESSIONALS willing to approach us to talk about the problems their community faced in the past. But this time round, they took their own initiative to do that, although in a more private way. FT policy and Housing woes are two main issues that are affecting their community adversely. Young Malay couples are finding it difficult to buy any HDB flats and the frustration is turning into anger.I have never felt so close to the Malay community as they are more forthcoming, willing to listen and support us after we reason it out how Mah BT's HDB policy is going to affect the younger and future generations. They would even willing to offer information about how some of their relatives who need to have a few families living in one single flat. And they are pretty aware about some of their fellow Malays have become homeless campers as well. (Yeah, I know after PAP read this one, they will go into knee jerk action to talk and provide goodies to the Malay community. It will be the leverage effect....)Although there are a great amount of anger on the ground, generally speaking Singaporeans are still rational in choosing who they will support. Contrary to PAP's worries about "protest votes", I feel that Singaporeans are more matured, rational and choosy when it comes to voting. The fact that we need to do a bit of sales talk and explanation on why Mah BT and HDB policy have to go before they are convinced in supporting us (as in buying our papers as a show of support) is a sign of discretion and rational assessment process. Especially so for our fellow Malay brothers and sisters. It has never been easy to sell our papers to them or getting their endorsement in the past. But this time round, they are willing to give us a chance.There are of course some skeptics as well as the die hard PAP supporters. The skeptics will ask sharp and analytical questions. It would be a challenge to win them over with a strong foundation of policy and economic knowledge but not impossible at all. Even if they are not totally convinced, but if you show the ability to engage meaningfully on the issues raised, they will still support you in the end. This is a time consuming process. As for the die hard PAP supporters, surprisingly they lack depth in their reasoning. Purely shortsighted views as well as the rhetoric of past success of PAP. Normally I will leave them alone.I feel that if there is going to be a break through, the main thrust will come from a big swing in the Malay community support. Especially from the young and educated Malay couples and professionals. They are more independent in their assessment of things and views. The middle ground is also shifting subtly. The two key issues are still FT policy and HDB policy.Interesting enough, even the elderly ones are showing discontent when they are not affected by FT and HDB policies directly. This has to do with rising healthcare cost and some other factors.Generally speaking, there is a certain percentage of people who will choose to support only certain opposition parties. They will make sure we are from the category of opposition parties before they show their support.When I go around, I actually feel a bit sad about the whole thing. While the present situation on the ground is naturally an "advantage" for opposition parties, but I think there are too much anger and negativity among the usually silent majority. A nation totally neglected of the people's welfare. A people who are basically pushed to the corners by the ruling party's inconsiderate policies. It is even more important for us, as opposition members, to use our leverage to extract a better deal from PAP government for our people.A candidate who only thinks about how to win the elections may not win at all in the end. This is because the head and mind are totally misplaced and misunderstood the fundamental basis of power. One could only win if and only if his head and mind are put on how to extract a better deal for the people from this ultra-capitalist ruling party. Many conservative opposition members always like to "keep the cards close to their hearts" so that PAP will not know about what issues they will raise to try to win votes. To me, this can no longer work for the new generation of voters. They want to see how opposition members work for them.... not literally in writing letters and doing charity work for the needy and poor. But in terms of how they could articulate and putting the spurs deeper into the ruling party's hides to make them work harder.Of course, revealing the "cards" early would mean PAP will have time to react or even find ways to counter argue against us. So be it. If they reacted as in the ways of Mah BT's HDB to right the wrongs of their policies, we would have fulfilled our role as an effective opposition...i.e. providing the effective checks and balances to the ruling party. If by doing so, will not make us win enough votes to get into parliament, so be it. We have done our part and play our role. In time to come, we will just fade away politically.Of course, if our supporters are motivated enough to help us spread our message through their virtual as well as real life networks, it may just help us better. If not, then it is our failure of leadership to motivate them to become our more proactive supporters as in campaigners. Although we are working against a PAP controlled environment, especially the main stream media, there are ways to win this war if our supporters are motivated campaigners. (BTW, the Chinese Zaobao has just refused to publish our rebuttal to some unreasonable slant against us, accusing us to be "opportunists")This is the way I am going to conduct politics from now on. Totally different from the traditional conservative ways. When the time is up, I will just follow my higher calling some day.Goh Meng SengEdit/Delete Message 以政治辩论让国人更了解政党政见 以政治辩论让国人更了解政党政见谨《联合早报·交流站》于2010年2月11日刊登陈汉豹先生之“反对党应深入民间并言之有物”，我代表国民团结党作以下回应：我党筹备淡滨尼集选区的竞选机制打从2006年大选过后就不间断的在进行着。加紧积极活动也已有一年之久，绝对不是陈先生所声称的“投机策略”。新组屋价格高涨也非一朝一夕所能形成的事。而且李总理并没有确定今年将是大选年，陈先生怎么会先入为主的认为我们此时提出竞选淡滨尼集选区，直接挑战国家发展部长马宝山先生就是“投机策略”呢？李总理有权迟至2012年才宣布举行大选。我们已经提早了两年为战役鸣鼓，何来的“投机”？如果陈先生有留意我党之党报“国民之声”或甚至我本人的部落格（singaporealternatives.blogspot.com）的话，他就不难发现我们一直以来都有谈及许多民生与政策的课题。对于组屋价格高涨的问题，我党也早在去年的国庆献词中相续的提到有些国人早已经沦落到无瓦遮头的地步，难道这也是所谓的“投机策略”吗？我党一向来都坚持勤于问政的态度去参与政治。我们也相信新一代选民都希望政党政治迈向于更开放，更理性和更有深度的发展。他们也想政党能更早让他们认识候选人，更希望能检视他们的政见。这就是为什么我党决定提早宣布投入各个选区的战役。我们也更希望能迎合陈先生的意愿，认真的与马宝山先生来一场严肃的辩论，最好是电视现场辩论，以便能真正顺应陈先生，让国人信服反对党并非“投机分子”，而是对时事和政策都有见解的参政者。能不能顺应陈先生的意愿，就要看马宝山的回应了。要不然，国人也只有通过我们的党报和部落格得到相关的政策资讯了。我也恳请陈先生能用更开阔的心胸去了解我们反对党个别的政治立场和其活动，不要以偏概全，对我们做出不公平的言论。在此顺祝国人新年快乐 年年有余风调雨顺 国泰民安吴明盛国民团结党秘书长启反对党应深入民间并言之有物（2010-02-11）● 陈汉豹　　我国的三个反对党就组屋课题瞄准淡滨尼集选区。不满屋价上涨是人之常情，之前不见反对党的解决妙方，等到大选才来大做文章，投机策略虽高明，却也露出司马昭之心。　　从以往的记忆中，我认为，反对党给人的形象通常有二，一是不论政府做什么都要反对，却提不出替代方案，只是为反对而反对。二是平时不见踪影，大选时分才像雨后春笋般冒出来，令人们觉得他们只是为竞选而竞选，而非要为民服务而挺身而出。　　时代已不同，反对党应该重新定位，不应一味扮演批评、攻击、反对的角色，而应以国家利益为先，以大局为重，监督政府的同时也无妨辅弼政府，彰显政治家的泱泱大度。不可为个人或一党争取人气和选票而提出不当批评，误导群众，若存有这类的不端的政客心态理应去除。　　我国建赌场乃情势所趋，经济所需，不过赌场之为害世人皆知。有鉴及此，政府成立全国预防嗜赌理事会，设立赌场管制局，推出管制法令与防赌法令，就是希望将其害减至最低点。　　针对赌场，反对党若有办法提出“牺牲最少社会成本换取最大经济效益”的方案，而不是只会将政府的良苦用心倜侃成“既要偷汉子又要贞节坊”，像这类言词，并非平心静气的分析讨论，而是以不伦不类的比喻来嘲笑施政时难免需要兼顾各方利益的两难情景，自己却又提不出更好的施政方针，结果反而可能令一些国人对反对党的印象会有所下调。　　凭情而论，反对党并不缺乏人才，缺乏的是人气。革新党开创法律诊所为民服务，正是争取民心、提高人气的好点子，这对反对党而言确是好的开始。　　殊不知，人民心中都有一把尺，都希望选出为民作主、为民服务的议员。偏偏，反对党从未深入民间，没干出成绩，没打好关系，就算与选民偶然相遇，也是你不知我，我不知你，谁敢投你（反对党）一票，搞不好拿石头砸自己的脚？　　虽然说“皇帝也可轮流做”，更何况是民主国家，大选中政权变天，更是不足为奇。但反对党如果一如既往，改不了“为反对而反对，为竞选而竞选”的作风；改不了“平时不烧香，临时才来抱佛脚”的习惯；也不改一改“投机取巧，心存侥幸”的心态而想在国会里占有一席之地，那就难矣。 新加坡的中国移民冲击 作者：錢曉慧09/02/2010新加坡的外来移民，尤其是中国移民增多，对当地社会造成了不小的冲击，而这也成为了当地关注和讨论的热门话题。前两周，当地一份中文报章报道 (Lianhe Wanbao)，一名新加坡少妇在地铁列车内，向女儿哭诉丈夫搞上中国女人，开口骂了一句「中国贱女人」。在一旁的一名中国妇女听在耳里，以为少妇在辱骂她，结果两人展开了半小时的骂战。这篇报道被当地以反政府言论著称的民办英文新闻网站转述。不过吊诡的是，网站并未将全部内容报道出来，只是描述两人发生争执，中国妇女死缠烂打。然后网站作者笔锋一转，把矛头转向新加坡政府宽松的移民政策导致大量中国移民涌入，给社会带来不良影响。网站的报道吸引了不少评论，多对中国妇女的行为感到不满，你一言我一语指出中国人言行举止丑陋。不过，懂得中文的读者看完原文后，就发现网站有断章取义之 嫌。在报章的小标题《狮城妇辱骂人引公愤》底下，其实描述了后续的发展。原来少妇辱骂人引起公愤，几名乘客看不过眼，认为是少妇无理取闹骂人，跟着中国妇 女和少妇下车，要帮前者讨回公道。网站在转述时将后半部分的结尾去除掉，显然是抓住了新加坡人对移民政策不满的心理，借此挑起本地网民对外来人口的负面情绪。除了地铁开骂事件，网络上也流传了一名来自中国的女性与新加坡老太太发生口角，前者怒骂老太太的录像。网民多倾向同情老太太，斥责该名中国女性的凶悍行为，接着同样的又将问题归咎于政府的移民政策。「看，这么多中国人」本地人同中国新移民的矛盾并非一日造成。两年前，有读者投函中文报指出，新加坡到处可见中国人的身影，而新加坡人对于外来移民大量涌入只能私底下悄悄地说：「看，这么多的中国人」。该文章也指出，中国移民「机关算尽」，只会捞取好处，例如让女儿成为公民，却让儿子保持永久居民的身份，到了儿子服兵役的年龄，就让他放弃永久居民的身份，到外国求学。这种做法看在本地人眼里，感到愤愤不平。据作者观察，本地人和中国新移民的对立情绪在民间已经悄然成形，因此该作者希望新移民能设法融入本地社会。该篇文章刊出后引起中国新移民很大的反响，驳斥作者的言论，指他以偏概全。去年，一名持永久居民身份的中国女子报名参加新中国60周年国庆阅兵式，并在中央电视台的访谈中亮出了新加坡永久居民的蓝色身份证，并表示「报效祖国是我最大的心愿」 。在移民课题显得非常棘手的时期里，女民兵这一句在平时听来再平常不过的话，却触动了许多新加坡网民的敏感神经，在当地引起不小的争议，有人斥责她的做法，也有人认为她只是永久居民，并非公民，没有必要对此大惊小怪。不少新加坡人的想法则是，政府一直对国人灌输爱国意识，要求他们在危机时刻履行对国家的责任。但是当前出现经济危机，政府却继续让没有效忠义务的外来移民涌入与人民抢饭碗，人民的利益又没有受到保护，这让许多新加坡人感到政府实行差别待遇。其实新加坡网民并非只是针对中国新移民，在此之前也与在新加坡的印度和缅甸网民展开骂战。并非排外去年9月，新加坡统计局公布的报告显示，新加坡人口截至6月底逼近500万人，而新加坡公民总数为320万人，占 64%。换句话说，新加坡人口中，超过三分之一是外国人。在只有约700平方公里的弹丸之地，几乎每个角落都可看到外国人的身影。至于其中有多少来自中国和其它地方，政府并没有公布确切数据。除了移民与本国公民的融合问题，人们更关注的是实际的民生问题：移民的涌入威胁到本国人民的就业机会，尤其是新加坡没有设定最低工资条例，低收入人口在面对大量廉价劳工的竞争，又没有最低工资制度的保障，往往无法赚取更高的工资维持生计。此外，人口在短时间内大幅增加，也使到资源紧张的情况出现：巴士、地铁变得非常拥挤，失业率增加、大学宿舍供应不足、房价不断被炒高，导致当地人没有能力负担原本是为人民而建设的公共房屋等。不过尽管网络上骂战激烈，日常生活中，大家的相处还是相当和睦。来自上海的张雨涵在新加坡求学，在这两年多的时间里，并没有感觉到周围新加坡人对外来人口存有敌意。不过20岁的她承认，在学校里除了在课业上跟新加坡同学有接触，其他时间她都比较常跟中国同学来往。研究新加坡移民问题的诺拉博士指出，尽管新加坡社会表面上显得相当和平，新加坡人一般也不至于会在言行上表露出对外来人口或对政策的不满，但这些网上的言论可能是一股暗流，所以也不容忽视。她指出，这种情况在新加坡尤其特殊，因为人们不能随意走上街头抗议，也开始不信任受政府管制的报章媒体，因此更多转向网络发泄情绪，网络言论因此具有重要意义。「新加坡人不如中国人刻苦」内阁资政李光耀新加坡政府显然听到人民对外来人口大量涌入所引发的不满情绪。总理李显龙去年9月表示将放缓吸纳外来人口的步伐，不过由于新加坡的人口老化加剧，生育率低于人口替换率，因此他指出仍需要引进移民以及劳工来支持新加坡的经济发展。不过今年1月，内阁资政李光耀在接受《国家地理杂志》访问时，直指新加坡人「不及中国人刻苦」，并表示如果新加坡人仍旧安于现状落后于竞争，那是他们自身的问题。李光耀的言论显然没有使国民的情绪得到舒缓，反而加深网民对政府的愤怒，也加剧对外来移民的反感，甚至有网民要求李光耀向人民道歉。强人李光耀虽然没有理会网民的要求，不过他后来转换论调，承认过去5年吸纳外来人口的速度太快，造成公共交通拥挤、房价被炒高等情况，因此有必要放慢引进的步伐。学者诺拉博士也是维护外来劳工权益的非政府TWC2执行委员。她指出，新加坡人对大量外来人口的涌入的不满久有所闻，但政府为了经济发展一味引进外国人口， 不仅没有很妥善地照顾到外籍劳工的利益，也似乎没有考虑到所可能引发的社会问题。她认为，目前政府在面对就业以及社会矛盾的问题上，仍欠缺更有效的解决方 案。为了解决本地人和外来移民的融入问题，政府开始举办更多交流活动，并拨款让新移民免费上英文课。此外，由于发现外来移民有群 居的现象，因此也正考虑为公共住屋区制定新移民配额，为新移民和国民制造更多接触的平台。另外，政府最近也推出措施帮助低收入工人接受培训，以更好地面对竞争。无论政府采取什么措施，外来人口带来的矛盾应该不会在短时间内化解，而这个问题应该会成为下一届大选的主要课题之一，因此对执政党人民行动党来说，促进新移民与本地人的和谐相处以及安抚人民的不满情绪，将会是当务之急。来源：http://www.bbc.co.uk HDB 101 This is an interesting article by a internet forumer from www.sammyboy.com By PAPSmear from Sammyboy Forum:I find that just talking to people I know, even educated people like school principals and what not, they are totally ignorant about the way the HDB system works. Here are some myths and misconceptions. Please add to them.1) "I bought my HDB flat"/"I own my HDB flat" - No you didn't and no you don't. You are a tenant, the the HDB is the landlord. Its says so in your contract. Than why did you just pay all that money for? What you have actually done is pre-paid your rent 99 years in advance, in one lump sum. That's why you have to borrow from the bank the $300K or whatever it is to move into your flat. So people, you are pre-paying your rent, not buying your flat. Get this concept first, than everything will fall into place.2) If I don't own it, than how come I can sell my flat for a lot of money? - What you have sold is not your flat. In other words, the four walls, floor, toilet fixtures etc. do not belong to you. You cannot sell something that does not belong to you. What you have sold to someone else is the right to occupy your flat for the balance of the 99 years lease. Lets say that your flat is 15 years old, which means that you have 84 years left on your list. The person "buying" it is willing to pay you x amount of money for the right to occupy your flat for the next 84 years, and he therefore will enjoy the rights priveleges of your flat instead of you. You have in affect, assigned your flat to someone else, with the stipulation that he will take over all responsibility of the flat (like conveyancing fees, upgrade costs, etc.) in addition to paying you the assignment fee aka purchase price. Its similar to subletting. Because the HDB is your landlord, the HDB has to approve all "sales", as the new person taking over your flat is going to be their new tenant.3) You are using your retirement income and funds to pay for your current living expenses - By enabling you to buy and pay for the monthly mortgage with your CPF, the PAP has in effect inflated the price of the flats, and forced the people into paying the inflated price by jeopardising their retirement for current living expenses. Most retirement advisors will tell you to pay for your cuurent living expenses with after tax dollars and from income that you are currently earning and not thru the use of funds earmarked for your retirement. But if people were to follow this retirement advise, they will find that their after tax dollars cannot buy too much. Hence, the PAP has allowed them to dip into their CPF account, and allowing to buy flats at an inflated price.4) Than why do so many people use the CPF to "buy" flats? - People do this because they are ignorant and don't understand the concept of retirement funds and the real purpose of it. You can see many retired aunties and uncles working at menial jobs and barely able to make ends meet in the twilight of their lives. This is a time when they should have been enjoying their retirement and not wondering when the next meal will be. If they had not spend all their money from their CPF paying for their flats, would their lives be easier? The second reason why people use their CPF is because the PAP have set the interest rate so low for the CPF accounts that people actually are losing money in their account because the rate of inflation is higher than what they are getting paid. Even if you max out all the avenues in your CPF to get better returns than what the govt. pays you, you will still not be keeping up with inflation. If the PAP pays people 8%-18% per annum interest on their CPF accounts, much fewer people will be enticed to withdraw funds for the purposes of acquiring a HDB flat. Why do I mention 8%-18%, well this is what GIC, Temasek, and other GLCs ostensibly earn when they borrow money from CPF for their own investment, money that is actually yours. Consequently, people are forced into dipping into their CPF for HDB flats. It is important people understand this PAP tactic.4)Well, I can sell my flat when I am old and retire on the money that I get - Yes, you could do that. But this is not the 70s and 80s anymore. The days of buying a $70,000 flat and selling it 25 years later for $400K are gone. There are many cases now of people losing money on their flats. And if you sell it, where would you live? Would you rent for the remaining years of your live? Would you downsize and buy a smaller and cheaper flat? Nowadays, its not unusual to purchase a $400K flat and still have to renovate it. If your flat ends up costing you $500K after reno and what not, how much do you have to sell it for 25 years later to make enough money to retire comfortably on? $1 million? The market for this price is iffy. And if you stay in the same flat for a long time, lets say 50 years or more, your flat will actually start to decline in value as the maturation of the leasehold period approaches. If you sell your flat at the highest point of its value, lets say in 10-20 years, where will you live? You will still need buy another flat at the new higher price to live in for the remaining 30 years of your life.5) Is what I pay for this flat really all I pay? - The simple answer is no. If you pay x amount for the flat, you have to factor in the following:-- Opportunity costs of foregone returns from your CPF that you have used on the flat.- Mandatory HDB money making schemes like upgrades that will add to the capital cost of your flat. In every country in the world, if the building has deteriorated to the degree that upgrades are needed, its the landlord that bares the burden. In uniquely SIngapore, the tenants pay for it.- Conservancy charges, that keep going up and not down.- Possible forced relocation to another flat in a new estate because your block has now be taken over by the HDB for demolition/rental to FTs, etc. Forced relocation means you have to now pay additional money for the new flat they want you to move to, hence increasing your capital costs.6) The long term consequence is a very expensive housing costs - If you look at many European and Asian countries like Japan, you will find that the same property stays in the same family for generations. Just imagine if a person owning a freehold property in another country can pass his property on to his son, and than the son pases it on his grandson, etc. over 3 generations. By the end of the 3rd generation, the property could be worth a lot of money. In the same scenario in S'pore, the property is worth nothing.So, what is the solution? The main gist of the solution is to minimize your exposure to the HDB. Some solutions I can think of:- Create 2 family households in a flat rather than one household. Kongsi with your siblings or parents and live in one flat.- Rent from the HDB instead of "buying"- Live in JB, commute to S'pore, after all 300K Malaysians do that every day.The whole game is set up for the HDB/PAP to win. They have set the rules, but this thread is intended to educate the people as to what some of these rules are. It does not mean that you will win the game, but it helps to know what they are. NSP Press Release on New 13th CEC National Solidarity Party New 13th Central Executive Council1.The National Solidarity Party has elected a new Central Executive Council (CEC).2.The appointments for the 13th CEC are as follows:President Mr. Sebastian Teo Kway Huang (张培源)Vice-President Mr. Christopher Neo (梁廷玮)Secretary General Mr. Goh Meng Seng (吴明盛)Assistant Secretary General Mr. Fong Chin Leong (冯展良)Treasurer Mr. Steve Chia Kiah Hong (谢镜丰)Assistant Treasurer Mr. Yip Yew Weng (叶耀荣)Organising Secretary Mr. Ivan Yeo (杨忠文)Assistant Organising Secretary Mr. William Tan (陈炳瑞)Webmaster Mr. Elvin Ong (翁明顺)Council Member Mr. Tan Chee Kien (陈志坚)Council Member Mr. Yadzeth Bin Hairis (雅释)Council Member Mr. Raymond Chua Kee Ann (蔡启安)Council Member Mr. Ong Hock Siong (王福祥)Council Member Mr. Cheo Chye Chen (蒋才正)Council Member Mr. Ken Sunn (孙祥凯)Council Member Ms. Lee Wai Leng (李蕙玲)Council Member Mr. Abdul Rasheed (阿都拉昔) 3.In preparation for the next General Elections, the 13th Council has decided to appoint the following members to be the Election Campaign Manager and Chairman of the newly created area branches:GE Campaign Manager Mr. Tan Chee Kien (陈志坚)Chairman of North East Branch Mr. Goh Meng Seng (吴明盛) Chairman of Central South Branch Mr. Ken Sun (孙祥凯)Chairman of South West Branch Mr. Christopher Neo (梁廷玮)Goh Meng SengSecretary General National Solidarity Party HDB Homeless Policy Recently，much has been said about my intention to contest in Tampines GRC. As stated in my comments to the mainstream media, I do not have anything personally against Mr Mah Bow Tan. I have the greatest respect for him. He is one of the most senior Cabinet Ministers in Singapore. He has won 3 general elections and is on the fast track to become Deputy Prime Minister. When PM Lee retires, Mr Mah is a leading contender to become the next Prime Minister of Singapore.Mr Mah’s high and mighty status does not however mean that he is always right and that ordinary citizens should not speak up when they see him pursuing polices which have caused great hardship to many Singaporeans. Mr Mah’s first policy failure is that he built an insufficient number of HDB flats to meet the needs of Singapore’s population. From 2003 to 2008, the total population of Singapore increased by 17.6%. The number of HDB flats increased by only 1.2%.The shortage of HDB flats has caused a destructive boom-bust housing bubble to be formed. The prices of resale HDB flats have skyrocketed beyond the means of many Singaporeans. New “subsidised” flats from the HDB have an over subscription rate of 5 to 10 times. If you succeed in getting a flat, you have to wait 3 years or more before you are able to get your flat.The huge demand for HDB flats is largely due to the increase in population. Over the past 5 years, Singapore’s population has increased tremendously due to the Foreign Talent policy. Given Mr Mah’s senior position in Cabinet, it is uncertain how Mr Mah could have missed this and be “caught off guard”. This is not something that just happen overnight. It has been a steady phenomenon for the past 5 years. A well documented consequence of the Foreign Talent policy is that it depresses wages in Singapore. Based on CPF data, the number of active CPF members (ie Singaporean Citizens and PR) who earned less than $800/ month increased by 36.8% to 214,448 in 2008.At current prices, a HDB flat is NOT “affordable” to a family that earns less than S$1,500 a month. The rise in the number of people earning less than $800/mth means that there is a significant rise in the incidence of families that earn less than $1,500 a month and cannot afford a HDB flat. Such families typically have to rely on renting heavily subsided flats from the HDB. It is here that Mr Mah made his second policy failure. It seems that Mah Bow Tan's HDB does not think it should rent flats to Singaporeans who could no longer afford a decent flat. This is further reiterated by MM Lee recently that PAP's direction is that they do not want to rent flats to Singaporeans as far as possible. In fact, even when people are forced to sleep in the wild, in the parks, along the beaches... etc, PAP has maintained such a strong stand ever. They would rather rent HDB flats to foreign workers than renting them out to Singaporeans. The Online Citizens' article has a special report on this unusual phenomenon happening in Singapore, under the nose of PAP governance.Statistically, from 2003/2004 to 2008/2009, HDB decreased the number of rental flats by 45.5%. As a result of this hard hearted policy, the waiting time to rent a subsidized flat from HDB has jumped to between 17.5 months and 25 months. Just not so long ago, right after GE2006, HDB has announced the demolition of a few blocks of rental flats in Mr. Low Thia Khiang's Hougang constituency. I also know that HDB is actively trying to get people who are staying in rental flats to get out. It is interesting to know that while HDB is actively reducing the number of rental flats for Singaporeans, they have been actively increasing rental flats for foreign workers here. It really makes me think about whether HDB's priority is to serve Singaporeans' housing needs or rather, the foreigners. This long waiting time for Singaporeans to rent a subsidized flat is in sharp contrast to foreigners who come to Singapore and work in the integrated resorts. These have been offered subsided housing IMMIDIATELY in the prime Toa Payoh district. For more details, please refer to the following article.Unable to “afford” a flat (because of Mr Mah's HDB policy) and unable to rent a subsidized flat (also because of Mr Mah's HDB policy), the natural outcome of such disadvantaged Singaporean families is to become homeless. Singapore does not publish statistics on the homeless. The official position of the Singapore Government is that there are no homeless people in Singapore. The recent tent shanty which sprouted in Sembawang Park, Changi Beach, East Coast Park, West Coast Park etc shows that this is not true. How many how many people have you seen sleeping in the common areas when you walk through the HDB estates in the small hours of the morning? Mr Mah’s policy failures have given rise to a small but growing number of homeless Singaporeans. Closing his eyes and pretending that they don’t exist will not make these homeless Singaporeans go away. Given his track record of monumental policy failures, would you want to entrust Singapore’s future to him? Maybe he will just give the same old catch phrase, "I am CAUGHT OFF GUARD" that his HDB policy has resulted in this growing number of homeless people. Goh Meng Seng NSP's views regarding the ESC's recommendations NSP's views regarding the ESC's recommendationsFri, Feb 05, 2010What is NSP's views regarding the ESC's recommendations?In general, we appreciate the government’s effort in trying to deal with new economic challenges in the next decade. However we feel that ESC is trying too hard in dissecting economic issues without realizing that the model of economy is tightly linked to the social-cultural- political aspects of the Nation. These “software” of the Nation will mold the mindset of the citizens which in turn will impact on how the economy will develop in reality.We need a more holistic approach instead of formulating quick fixes for short term gains. The U-Turn on the FT policy is a classic example on how such quick fixes applied in the past may just become irrelevant and worse, creating irreversible damage to our social fabrics.For a start, we would like to see the government play their role in assuring adequate housing for every Singaporeans. While we take care of foreign workers and students’ housing needs, we should not leave our citizens living in the wild without a roof over their heads. Housing is a basic needs for citizens before they could work on upgrading their skill sets and contribute to the society.Secondly, if we want our workforce to be more creative and innovative, an atmosphere of creativity, innovation and dynamic democratic vibrancy should be built based on a more open democratic system whereby diverse views are tolerated in schools, work place, civil service and the political sphere.Which specific areas/aspects/ issues/recommend ations does NSP agree with the ESC? And why?We have no issues with ESC’s broad direction as presented in their report although there is nothing specifically new. However we wish to highlight specifically the point on strengthening support for low wage workers and dependency on foreign workers which are more of a concern for these few years. We felt that this is long overdue. Our low wage workers have their salaries depressed by the constant influx of these foreign workers, making their livelihood tougher by the day. While many of these foreign workers enjoy very low rent flats provided by HDB, many of our citizens have to manage life with a mortgage of higher amount. Sometimes, they are even deprived of a roof over their heads while HDB demanded them to wait for 30 months before they could rent a flat from it.We have been expressing grave concerns about the government’s over-reliance on foreign workers since decade ago at every opportunity. We are finally glad that the PAP government, through the ESC committee, is finally taking heed to deduce this dependency.On the other hand, which specific areas/aspects/ issues/recommend ations does the NSP disagree with the ESC? And why?First of all, we are concerned about ESC’s suggestion to “Price energy to reflect real costs and constraints” on the household sectors. We would like to understand more in details and monitor the pricing implementation process to ensure households are not severely burdened.Singapore’s energy pricing is already on the high side in this region. We should take care of implementing pricing policy that would affect our costing in living as well as doing business.Secondly, we do not agree to ESC’s recommendation to look into nuclear energy as the alternative energy source. Singapore is too small a place to take the risk of having a nuclear disaster of any sort.Thirdly, we feel that it is totally inadequate for ESC to focus only on labour productivity. We should be looking at Total Factor Productivity as well, which will include Capital Productivity. While the government pays lip service in grooming local SMEs, our over reliance on MNCs and GLCs has impeded the growth of our local SMEs. A more relevant study should be done on the economic model of Korea and Taiwan. These governments play an active role in providing funds and facilities for technological research and upgrading their enterprises into Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) instead of mere vendors providing parts and services for MNC plants.ESC has made bold vision about building Singapore into a Global-Asia City but we feel that Singapore should leverage more on its regional role. What is missing in this ESC report is the strategy of more integration in regional economies, creating an economic hinterland for Singapore. There is no mention about whether Singapore will work actively towards a more comprehensive Free Trade Zone in Southeast Asia or even Southeast Asian Economic Union. We feel that Singapore should start the economic integration with our closest neighbours and expanding to other ASEAN countries in the long run. We need an enlarged consumer base before our Nation could maintain continuous growth for decades ahead.The focus on innovation and creativity should not be measured solely on dollars and cents spent in research. The cultivation of innovation and creativity needs a whole generation of mindset changed through our educational system as well as political climate. There is no way for a nation to depend solely on foreign researchers for their sustainable economic growth. Our people must be cultivated through their daily lives. Let’s start with our political climate.Goh Meng SengSecretary GeneralNational Solidarity Party Leave no man behind? - Homeless Campers, The Inconvenient Truth Prime Minister Lee has used this phrase "Leave no man behind" in one of his speeches. He has made the promise that no Singaporean will be left behind in the midst of widening of income distribution and widespread retrenchment.However, the story told by The Online Citizens seems to suggest otherwise.When are fellow citizens lost their jobs or have drastic income cut due to any reasons, they were totally left in the wilderness, in the parks and beaches. I have the opportunity to join TOC and some activists to visit these "Homeless Campers" and it hurts me to see how our fellow citizens are being ill treated in such a disgusted way. Due to the absurdity of the HDB housing policy, many of these campers were unable to rent any flats from HDB or that they were asked to wait for 30 months or more. They could no longer afford their HDB flats for one reason or another and were forced out of their flats. I could not understand why HDB could readily convert two whole blocks of flats into dormitory for foreign workers who are working in the casino resorts but they were unable to rent any flats to these people whom they know are the genuine cases of hardship. This will be one of the many reasons that will keep me going to contest against the Minister of National Development. Our PAP leaders have repeated prided themselves with the self-made belief that "There is no Homeless in Singapore" but such INCONVENIENT TRUTH revealed by TOC must have hurt their pride so badly that they would rather send their army of civil servants to harass these Homeless Campers instead of offering genuine help!I would now call upon the ministers of these relevant authorities to search their soul deeply on what they really believe in. Minister Khaw has said it right, they must do the right things instead of just trying to do things right. I would also make an open plead to the Prime Minister himself, to get these people to work towards his very own vision of "Leave no one behind". It should be done with more respect to human dignity and decency instead of administrative brutality. Goh Meng Seng It is about HDB policy, not Mah Bow Tan From Channel News Asia:NSP says it intends to contest election on housing issuesBy Teo Xuanwei, TODAY | Posted: 31 January 2010 2331 hrs Photos 1 of 1 HDB flats SINGAPORE: The National Solidarity Party (NSP) has said it wants to engage in a debate on housing issues with National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan.NSP's Secretary General Goh Meng Seng said it intends to contest the General Election in Tampines over Mr Mah's policy decisions and not over personalities.The 39-year-old businessman said: "As Mr Mah pointed out correctly, it's not about Mr Mah or about me, but his HDB policy, which will affect this, the next and future generations."The five-member Group Representation Constituency (GRC) of Tampines, which is helmed by Mr Mah, is a potential battleground that several opposition parties are eyeing in the next General Election.Besides NSP, there are indications that the Workers' Party (WP), Singapore Democratic Party and Reform Party may weigh in as well.Asked to rate NSP's chances at the elections - it has been unsuccessful in four previous attempts - Mr Goh said matter-of-factly: "It's up to us to convince constituents that Mr Mah's decisions are not good."If we fail to do that, we deserve to lose. Nobody owes us anything."The WP's organising secretary Yaw Shin Leong said no decision has been made as yet whether it will contest Tampines GRC.- TODAY/irFrom TodayOnlineSINGAPORE - A day after National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan responded to one of the opposition's election strategies - and that is to target him on housing policy issues - the National Solidarity Party has clarified that the fight was over his policy decisions, and not over personalities."As Mr Mah pointed out correctly, it's not about Mr Mah or about me, but his HDB policy, which will affect this generation, the next generation and future generations," NSP's newly-elected secretary-general Goh Meng Seng told MediaCorp yesterday."It's not because I dislike him. I have nothing against him."The 39-year-old businessman also said Mr Mah should justify his comments on Saturday that HDB's policies are for the "good of the people"."As MM Lee said, Mr Mah should fight his own battle. He's a seasoned politician who has fought many electoral battles, and I have high respect for him." he said.He was referring to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's comments at a housing conference last week, where he said if Mr Mah was unable to defend his housing policy, "he deserves to lose" at the next General Election.Mr Goh agreed, and said, "Voters have to make an informed choice, so politicians have to defend their policies, especially if they're unpopular. Let people judge for themselves, simple as that."If he wants to have a debate, I can do it anytime. It's up to him."The five-member group representation constituency of Tampines, which is helmed by Mr Mah, is a potential battleground that several opposition parties are eyeing in the next election. Besides the NSP, there are indications that the Workers' Party (WP), the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and the Reform Party (RP) may weigh in as well.Asked to rate NSP's chances at the elections - it has been unsuccessful in four previous attempts - Mr Goh said matter-of-factly: "It's up to us to convince constituents that Mr Mah's decisions are not good."If we fail to do that, we deserve to lose. Nobody owes us anything."The WP's organising secretary Yaw Shin Leong said no decision has been made as yet whether it will contest Tampines GRC.The RP said "it is not interested in Tampines at the moment," while SDP could not be reached for comment. Inadequate Public Transportion III ( Final) This week has been a victory of sorts for every netizens who have been putting up articles on how key public services have been unable to keep pace with our rapid population growth. In a stunning flip flop, MM Lee made the following statement: “We’ve grown in the last five years by just importing labour. Now, the people feel uncomfortable, there are too many foreigners. Trains are overcrowded with foreigners, buses too, property prices have gone up because foreigners with permanent residence are buying into the market. ” - MM Lee 28 Jan 2010 Straits Times This is in complete contradiction to Minister Shanmugam who had made the following statement just a few days earlier: "The first misconception is that somehow there are five million people and that's putting pressure on all of us. It doesn't.'Of the five million, 3.2 million are citizens and roughly 500,000 are permanent residents (PRs). The remaining 1.3 million are here on temporary work permits and they 'impose no burden' on the public housing system" - Minister Shanmugam.While small, this victory shows what Singaporeans can achieve if we stand together and speak with one voice. It of course remains to be seen if MM Lee’s statements will translate to concrete policy changes or if this is just nice sounding pre-election rhetoric. If you play Texas Hold’Em, you will recognise that MM Lee has done the equivalent of folding the PAP’s hands as it was increasingly obvious that they were “bluffing”. While they would now most certainly like to “move on”, let us continue to examine the impact of the FT policy on key public services and road conditions.In this last article on transportation, let us examine the impact of immigration on car and taxi use.From 2003 to 2008, the total population increased by 17.6%. The car population increased by an astounding 35.1% !!! The taxi population increased by 25.4% !!! The road network however increased by only 5.1%.It seems that the only public transportation that has increased far beyond the population growth is the taxi population! This may be a good sign for taxi companies like NTUC Comfort but it may reflect something else on our economy itself. It means that there are more Singaporeans losing their professional jobs and they eventually switch to driving a taxi for their livelihood. This is validated by the various news report about how an A-Star researcher ended up driving a taxi. Many of these NEW taxi drivers are mostly middle age people who are highly educated and qualified in their previous jobs. There are mangers, engineers etc and yes, I have met some of them before. This reflect a serious problem of another dimension of the influx of foreign workers. These Singaporeans who were forced to drive taxi when they are substituted and displaced by cheaper foreign workers are basically “underemployed”. It means that the resources that our nation has put in the development of these people are being wasted altogether!On the other hand, this table helps explain why in spite increasing ERP charges, our roads are increasingly congested. Instead of increasing the car population at a sustainable rate, LTA appears to have adopted a revenue maximization model of issuing large numbers of COEs in excess of their road building program. The increased car population causes congestion. LTA then proceeds to increase ERP charges to “ease congestion”. As noted by MM Lee, the primary reason for why trains and buses have become more crowded is because of population growth. Like Singaporeans, PRs and other middle income foreigners need to get to work too. The increase in the car and taxi population is however greatly in excess of the population growth rate of 17.6%. The likely reason for this is because of a “substitution effect”. This “substitution effect” was first proposed by a commentator in Lucky’s blog. This commentator had suggested that perhaps the MRT was getting more crowded because more people were switching to use the MRT.The table above and the table on SBS bus ridership contradicts this hypothesis. Instead it would appear that because public transport in Singapore has become cramped and uncomfortable, people are switching to use cars and taxis. This applies to both Singaporeans and middle income foreigners. The magnitude of the switch in the face of repeated increases in COE, ERP and taxi fares is testament to just how badly the Singapore public transport system has been degraded. I was not the first to spot this trend. Lucky first wrote about it here.The whole series of charts and analysis I have done so far contradicts the Ministry of Transport that they are aiming to increase public transport usage by converting those car owners to utilize public transport. The ministry has aimed to increase rail network and train services to achieve that. However, contrary to the ministry wishful thinking, it seems that the public transport system has reached an unbearable point that more and more people are switching to owning private cars.The provision of comfortable, effective public transportation is a responsibility of all good governments. The central guiding principle should be serving the transport needs of the people first and profits second. Unfortunately the current Transport Transport Minister， M Raymond Lim, seems to be putting profits first and the transport needs of the people a very distant second. Goh Meng Seng Inadequate Public Transportation II In my previous article, I showed how SMRT has been unable to keep pace with population growth from 2003 to 2008 in providing corresponding growth in their services. This has been made worse by SMRT trying to make a fast buck (profit increase from $72.1 mil to $149.9 mil). Most probably the LTA under the Minister of Transport was closing both eyes throughout these years. Predictably, the analysis has been criticized as being “simplistic”. However, in Singapore’s context, statistics and data are very hard to come by when the whole establishment mindset is to provide as little information as possible to the people. Even academia has problem in getting proper and relevant data or statistical breakdown. However simplistic data does not mean that it will necessarily give false conclusions. In fact, it gives more powerful demonstration of the relevant correlations between the data sets, backed by daily observations in reality.Besides, SMRT publishes strange and confusing performance statistics. For example, in its earlier annual reports, it included important data that states the cost and profit of providing service to each passenger. Intriguingly, such statistics are missing now. Maybe it is the fear of people like us to use such statistics to show how SMRT has been profiting from its demand on fare increases. On the other hand, often the statistics provided by them can lead to strange conclusions. For example one commentator in Lucky’s blog came to the very strange conclusion that on average, our MRT is half empty. I have done my sampling recently, taking the train OFF peak hour and I did a count on the number of people in the carriages. There are 50 seats in a carriage (6 rows of 7 seats plus 4 rows of 2 seats at the corners). All seats were taken and there are definitely more than 70 or 80 people standing. That will be about at least 120 people in the carriage. It is not "very cramp" but it sure feels crowded.This would seem to be very strange to the thousands of less fortunate Singaporeans who have to endure a cramped and uncomfortable MRT ride every day. For those who are interested to look at SMRT’s kinky KPIs, please check out here. I believe that from now on, SMRT will do away with certain data (i.e. occupancy rate) or even the whole segment of these data in its future reports so that people like us will not use these “against” it. As long as there is no regulation or law to demand public transport companies to provide certain crucial data for analysis to safe guard public interests, such blatant abuse of statistics and data will carry on. They will just show you things that will make them look good.Anyway, after having examined SMRT, the next obvious focus of attention would be SBS Transit and the Singapore bus system. Unlike SMRT which publishes strange and confusing statistics, SBS Transit has a policy being economical with their numbers and telling people as little as possible. The following is the url link to their latest performance KPI . Instead of providing meaningful numbers, they present a PASS/FAIL table whose sole objective appears to be to drive home the message that they overwhelmingly PASS. Fortunately with a little bit of effort by my researcher, it is possible to produce a table that is similar to the previous SMRT table. YearNumber of busAnnual RidershipProfit Total PopulationResident Population2003NANA4114.83366.920042,418 24,810,622 49,169 4166.73413.32005**2,708 24,556,804 51,536 4265.83467.820062,794 25,093,678 56,133 4401.43525.920072,830 26,163,764 50,022 4588.63583.120082,885 27,575,502 40,580 4839.43642.7 Total Population and Resident Population from Table 3.1 Yearbook of Statistics 2009SBS Transit Statistics from SBS Transit Annual Report 2004 to 2008 ** Fare AdjustmentBus Fleet change (2005 to 2008) 6.5%Increase in ridership (2005 to 2008)12.3%When I first saw the table, I was somewhat puzzled. From 2004 to 2005, there was a huge surge in the size of the SBS bus fleet (12.5%). This is as compared to 2005 to 2008 when the SBS bus fleet increased by only 6.5%. Further research revealed why. For those who remember, SBS Transit pushed through a very huge and unpopular bus fare increase in 2004/2005. The SBS Chairman was so pleased that the Transport Minister sided with SBS rather than Singaporean bus commuters (who voted for him !) that he gave the following self-serving speech at the 2005 SBS Transit AGM.As there have been no major fare increases since 2005, the SBS bus fleet has therefore grown by only 6.5%. For the same period, ridership on SBS buses increased by 12.3%. This increase in SBS ridership is very closely linked to population growth. From 2005 to 2008, Total Population grew by 13.4%. It would appear that unless SBS Transit is allowed another major fare increase, the SBS bus fleet will NOT be increased to keep pace with ridership and population growth. We can therefore expect SBS buses to become increasingly more crowded until SBS presents their next demand for more money.Looking at the earnings after tax, it can be seen that the SBS Transit senior management team has not been as good as driving profit as SMRT. Unlike SMRT whose profit increased from $72.1 mil to $149.9 mil (by cramming as many people as possible into their trains), SBS Transit’s profit after tax has remained fairly constant from 2004 to 2008. It would be good if SBS Transit can provide more details for why SBS Transit’s profit numbers are so poor as compared to SMRT. I have not been able to discern the reason from their annual general reports.One possibility is that SBS Transit has been involved in a number of high profile projects which failed. For example, we have TV Mobile which ceased as of 31 Dec 2009. It is unknown how much SBS Transit lost as a result of that unsuccessful program. If the money had not been spent on this project, how many more buses could SBS Transit have operated to improve the public transport system? Of course, the most common excuse will be blamed on “high oil price” which is not very convincing for the drop of almost 20% of profit from 2007 to 2008. Aside from failed projects, SBS Transit also likes to invest in expensive high tech toys. A good example of this is the IRIS system which was highlighted prominently as a success in the 2008 Annual General Report. It is unknown how much SBS Transit spent on IRIS and how much is spent annually to maintain the system. However instead of spending millions to tell people when the next bus will be coming, wouldn’t it make more sense to spend those millions to increase the bus fleet so that the next bus comes faster? Goh Meng Seng Inadequate Public Transportation ** My apology. We have made an error in our interpretation on the statistical table. The occupancy rate refers to the average number of people in a single cabin carriage at any one time. But the conclusion is intact.The following is a Table compiled to show the contrast of population growth vs MRT development. SMRT Total Number of Passenger Trips (Million)SMRT Car Kilometres Operated (Million)SMRT Average Operating Car OccupancyTotal PopulationResident Population2003394.3 89.6 56 4114.83366.92004391.5 77.4 63 4166.73413.32005402.6 75.1 66 4265.83467.82006413.8 75.5 67 4401.43525.92007434.9 77.1 69 4588.63583.12008469.3 78.0 73 4839.43642.7  2009*     510.2         85.2          73                                  ------     ------        Total Population and Resident Population from Table 3.1 of the Yearbook of Statistics 2009MRT Statistics from SMRT Annual Report 2007/2008From the table above, we can gather the following facts (from 2003 to 2008 as the population figures for 2009 is not available yet):Total Population Growth 17.6% Resident Population Growth 8.2%SMRT Total Number of Passenger Trips (Million) Growth  19.0%SMRT Car Kilometres Operated (Million) Growth  -13.0%SMRT Average Operating Car Occupancy Rate Growth 35%What do the above statistics tell us? It is quite puzzling to me actually. The public transport companies like SMRT has been increasing their fares for the past 7 years but it seems that their service standards have dropped with respect to the population growth. It is very disturbing to note that while demand on MRT has increased steadily for the pass 7 years (We are unable to get the 2009 figures for population growth yet) in tandem with the increase in population growth, SMRT has actually DECREASE their train service frequencies by as much as 13%! An increase of 19% of demand couple with a decrease in supply of 13% will naturally result in packing the MRT cabins with more people! This is reflected in the increase of occupancy rate from 56 persons in a carriage to 76! It means that on average, Singaporeans will find the MRT 35% more crowded than 2003! I guess the LTA is sleeping on this development while agreeing to PTC and public transport companies' demand in increasing their fares! I hope this is not another "Caught Off Guard" situation for the Ministry of Transport as it is for Ministry of National Development. Someone up there have to be accountable for mismanaging the whole situation for Singapore. WP NCMP Sylvia Lim has categorically questioned the PAP government on whether they are doing enough to cater to their aggressive FT policy which has artificially increase the population by 17.6% from 2003 to 2008. Yet, the PAP has continued to sleep on this important issue. We have seen how Ministry of National Development under Mah Bow Tan has totally mismanaged the housing needs in view of the expected increase of housing demand due to influx of FT. Now it seems that the Ministry of Transport has also totally mismanaged the transportation sector. There is no silly excuse of "Caught Off Guard" as the opposition party has already raised the alarm as early as 2006! Singaporeans have to see clearly that we are paying TOP WORLD CLASS salaries for these ministers but yet, we are having them mismanaging the situation here. The Ministry of Transport and LTA are only concerned about setting up more ERPs all over Singapore because that is the SACRED CASH COWS that will make money. Who cares about the general welfare of Singaporeans in squeezing in MRTs and Buses (yes, I believe we can show the same inadequacy if we build the statistical table for buses) everyday due to their mismanagement. The Ministers have hardly experience the frustrations of normal Singaporeans who take public transport daily. The MRT train frequency is really third world standards! It is about time Singaporeans should give PAP the wake up call! Vote the respective ministers out, give a clear signal to the PAP government that we want accountability! We want ministers who put Singaporeans' welfare as their top priority, not how much money their ministries could save or make as their top priorities. If the above analysis is not convincing enough for you, then please take a look at the following table: SMRT Total Number of Passenger Trips (Million)SMRT Car Kilometres Operated (Million)SMRT Average Operating Car Occupancy (Person)SMRT Profit after tax and minority interest (S$ Mil)2003394.3 89.6 56 72.1 2004391.5 77.4 63 89.5 2005402.6 75.1 66 126.7 2006413.8 75.5 67 103.4 2007434.9 77.1 69 135.4 2008469.3 78.0 73 149.9 For the period from 2003 to 2008, SMRT profits have increased 107.9% from $72.1m to $149.9m!What does this mean. There is an increase in demand, increase in fare but SMRT continues to reduce supply by a drastic reduction in 2004. While the demand continues to increase, it suppressed the corresponding supply while continued its demand of fare increase. The so call "improve in services" is just lip service. Service standards has dropped while SMRT just let the trains get more cramp!LTA under the Ministry of Transport, kept both of its eyes closed for all this while! This is totally unacceptable for a world class government with top pay! It seems that our PAP government only takes good care of corporate profits while neglecting the welfare of Singaporeans, allowing them to be reaped off by suffering sub standard services with increased prices. Do we continue to let them be or give them a wake up call? The choice is yours.Goh Meng Seng * I have added the figures of the SMRT side without the figures of population data here. The increase in the car operated per kilometer is partly due to the opening of circle line. This means that frequency of trains in other older lines might not have improved at all. Besides, this is offset by the increase in the demand, partly due to the increase in population (estimated about 3% plus if total population is to reach 4.99 million). As the result, the occupancy rate is just about the same. This result doesn't change the main point that since 2003, the trains are getting very cramped, about 35% cramped. When the authorityies come a-helping -- beware! I am putting up articles written by TOC writers here basically because TOC is down again by DDoS attacks. Andrew LohWhen the National Parks Board (NParks) relaxed camping rules in December 2004, it cited the popularity of the activity among Singaporeans as a reason. Campers would no longer be required to obtain camping permits. "With the relaxation of this rule, we hope more families and friends can enjoy camping in our parks,” Dr Leong Chee Chiew, NParks Chief Operating Officer, said then. “This is part of NParks' ongoing efforts to enhance parks users' experiences, and bring more people into our parks". NParks said between January and October that year, it received 10,000 applications for camping permits.Well, the relaxed rules lasted about 5 years.There were 12,000 campers in 2008 who used the various parks in Singapore. In March 2009, the permit system was reintroduced because of, ironically, the popularity of camping among Singaporeans. Among the new stipulations, camping days were limited to just 8 days within a one-month period. Campers can only camp for a consecutive 5-day period within a month.The jump in permit applications in 2008/2009 perhaps coincides with the economic downturn. One of the consequences of the economic malaise was the number of people who defaulted on servicing their mortgage loans from the HDB or the banks. In a report in January 2009, the Sunday Times said “such defaults have climbed from 5 per cent to 8 per cent of all HDB home loans.” In total, some 33,000 households were in arrears for more than three months. This means one in 12 borrowers are in default, a rise from one in 20 previously. Members of Parliament have also confirmed seeing more of such cases at their Meet-The-People sessions. So, what happens when one is unable to service the loan? Aisha (not her real name) and her husband have been bracing the outdoors camped out at Sembawang Park for several months. They had been living with Aisha’s mother until September 2009. When the family could no longer pay the loans, they had to sell the flat, otherwise it would be repossessed by the HDB. Unfortunately for them, the flat was sold at a lower price than when they first bought it. When her mother applied for a rental flat from the HDB, she was told that she could not as the rules say she had to wait 30 months as she has just sold off her flat. In any case, even if she qualified, she would have to wait anything from 5.5 months to as long as 19 months, according to the HDB website, before one would be available for her. So, where does she go in the meantime? As for Aisha herself, who is seven-months pregnant, she had sought help from MCYS previously. The officer that she met, we’re told, suggested that she put up at a hotel in Geylang instead because “it is cheaper”. It is believed that there is only one home for the homeless in Singapore, run by New Hope Community Services. We understand that it is already at full capacity. The homeless have no choice but to sleep out in the open, at parks and void decks. Yet, it seems that even this is not allowed. When the raid on the homeless took place on Saturday, it was obvious that it was a poorly-coordinated and desperate attempt at ridding the park of the homeless campers. The police, which came with officers from MCYS and NParks, and with their patrol lights flashing, started ordering the campers to dismantle their tents and also issued summons for infringements of camping rules. The authorities must have known about the situation at Sembawang Park for months. If they did not, one would have to question their competency. Would it not have been better then for the authorities to visit the place quietly, speak with the homeless, find out about their plight and help them, rather than come in such an intimidating fashion? It makes one question if the aim was to truly help the homeless or simply to intimidate them or haul them away into oblivion. After all, why issue summons and bring the police along? And when the homeless families were taken to a facility at Angsana Home, which is located just beside the Institute of Mental Health, they were not allowed to leave the premises at any time.By what authority were they so illegally restrained and confined?Does that sound like “helping” the homeless?And the authorities had no idea where to house the campers, besides telling TOC that they hope to find some voluntary welfare organizations to take them in. Yet, the issue here is a bigger and more important one – that of the affordability of public housing. With more and more people defaulting on their mortgage loans, and prices of flats reaching ridiculous ranges, how many more people will be driven to homelessness? Already, the Minister for National Development has tacitly recognized the problem by announcing that his ministry would be building 7,500 more one and two-room flats over the next three years for the public housing rental scheme. This is in addition to the 42,000 current public rental flats, bringing the total to almost 50,000.Would an additional 7,500 rental flats over the next three years be enough? Given that the waiting period and the waiting list itself are so long, one would question if this is adequate.Where do the homeless sleep in the meantime?Thus, the authorities, particularly those from NParks and MCYS, should be more understanding and merciful with regards to homeless campers. These homeless have nowhere else to go. Ironically, just beside Sembawang Park, a new housing development – Watercove Ville - is being built, boasting beachfront living for those who can afford it. In the meantime, the homeless have to tread carefully, in case another posse of authorities come a-helping, with the police in tow – lights flashing and all.-------Read also TOC's report on the raid on the homeless at Sembawang Park on Saturday night by MCYS, NParks and the police. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=254377408963&id=14440041382&ref=nf Raiding the Homeless in the middle of the night... Joshua Chiang / Andrew LohThey have been camped out there for months, but no one from the government agencies seem to have known about them – perhaps until The Online Citizen’s report on 13 January. TOC had reported that some 15 homeless families were camped out in tents at Sembawang Park. Three days after TOC’s revelation, on 16 January, Saturday, at around 10pm, officers from the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), and NParks, together with some 10 policemen, swooped down on the park. When TOC arrived at the scene at about 10.50pm, there were two police cars and a pick-up van. Some of the homeless were seen dismantling their tents. When queried about why they were being asked to do so, the NParks officers said the campers had broken “rules and regulations”, even though most of them still had valid camping permits. The summons referred to Section 9(1)(a) of the Parks and Trees Regulation Act 2005 which makes it an offence to conduct a barbeque without a permit, among other things. The camping permit does not include permission to barbeque, apparently.The officers insisted repeatedly that this writer identified those among the campers who were homeless and that their names and particulars be given to the officers. This writer declined to do so. TOC then asked if there were any representatives from MCYS. A female officer stepped forward. On being questioned, she would only say that those who were homeless would be brought to an “institution”. When TOC probed further on what this “institution” is, she disclosed that she was referring to Angsana Home, located at Buangkok Green, next to the Institute of Mental Health. http://www.streetdirectory.com/asia_travel/travel/travel_id_6760/travel_site_89755/ The home is part of Pelangi Village, a purpose-built Social Welfare Complex and houses the elderly destitute and ex-drug addicts.TOC understands from the campers that Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, minister in charge of MCYS, had visited the camping site last Thursday afternoon. In the evening of the same day, two of the families were told to pack up and were then effectively carted off to Angsana Home. When they arrived at the home, they had to pass through a security gate which could only be unlocked with a pass by one of the attending officers, who claimed to be from MCYS. Once they were brought to the room where they would stay, they were told that they could not leave the premises. To do so, they would have to make a request. According to one of the families, when they requested for food, they were given two pieces of roti prata to be shared among the family of six persons. The mattresses they were provided were also in bad condition. Some of them had rashes the next morning after having slept on them.Two of those locked in had to go to work in the morning and asked to be let out of the premises. Their request was denied. Eventually, one of them told TOC she lost her job because she was unable to show up for work. When TOC asked the officer about this, she said she “guarantees” that those who needed to go to work would be allowed to. Still, TOC told her, it isn’t quite right for the authorities to forceably keep these people behind locked gates and to confine them. After all, they have not committed any offence, neither are they criminals who deserved to be locked up. Further, the homeless do not seem to have been given a choice of deciding whether they wanted to be housed at Angsana Home. According to the lady from MCYS, the stay at Angsana would be a temporary one, until MCYS finds a place for them. She said it would be “for a day or two”.It is hard to persuade people you want to help with such complete lack of coordination and heavy-handedness, TOC told her. Not with police cars with lights flashing, officers from the government ordering tents to be dismantled and summons being issued. We suggested that there were two choices – one, the campers would be allowed to stay for another day or two while MCYS looked for a proper housing option for them; or two, if they were to be housed temporarily at Angsana, they have to be assured of freedom of movement. By this time, a senior female officer had taken over the discussion. She agreed to let the campers stay at Sembawang Park until Monday, 18 January, when six of the campers will meet with her at the MCYS office for further discussions to resolve the situation. She said she will push for the HDB to issue “interim flats” to the campers in the meantime, or to see if any Voluntary Welfare Organisation could take them in temporarily. TOC spoke to some of the homeless about a week earlier and we understand that some of them had applied for rental flats with the HDB. However, their applications were rejected for various reasons. Some have also paid repeated visits to the HDB to apply for these flats.When asked where these homeless people would go if they were chased away, a senior officer from NParks said, “We will help.” One of the campers retorted, “By putting us in Angsana?” The officer looked away and replied, “That is the help.”TOC understands that a summon for overstaying could mean a $200 fine, something which the homeless can hardly afford. Campers are only allowed to camp for a maximum of eight days in a month, with consecutive-days camping fixed at a maximum of five days.We asked if the authorities would consider waiving the fines from the summons issued to the homeless campers. The MCYS senior officer said she would speak to NParks as, she said, it was not in her power to decide. It was almost midnight before the situation was finally resolved – at least for now. Only five out of the 20 or so tents were left standing – and none of the homeless was carted off to Angsana Home. HDB Mortgage Slaves I have been writing a lot on HDB policies and the ills of it recently basically because I am keeping up the pressure on the Minister of National Development to do something about it. Mr. Mah Bow Tan has been very hardworking recently. I should say that he has made his utmost efforts recently to appear in Main Stream Media (MSM) to explain his HDB pricing policy is still "affordable". Mr. Leong Sze Hian of TOC (The Online Citizen) has written quite a number of comments and queries on HDB policy. He has made many valid points and HDB has so far unable to provide satisfactory answers to all the questions raised so far.According to Mr. Mah Bow Tan and his statutory board HDB, HDB flats are still "affordable", citing the "fact" that most Singaporeans are using less than 30% of their income for their HDB mortgage payment.However, I should point out here that the Minister and his people have missed the point totally. They have based their "affordability" argument on a mortgage of 30 years. When I bought my HDB flat, I have tried to choose to go a mortgage of 15 years instead of 25 years. We settled for a 20 year mortgage instead. My reason for a shorter mortgage is that the longer mortgage you have, the more interests you pay. And the increase of interests is not linear but rather compounded. Furthermore, imagine if you buy your flat at the average age of 27, if you go for 30 years of mortgage, it would mean that you could only pay off your mortgage at the age of 57! And if you use all your money in CPF to pay the mortgage, you will have no money for your retirement! So what happen if you don't have enough savings for your retirement? In fact, the problem of insufficient retirement financing is surfacing slowly. The extend of the problem will explode in the next two decades when 3 generations of Singaporeans have spent all their money in financing their mortgage (for 3 decades) and have nothing left for retirement at all.Now PAP government will tell you that oh, you can actually do a reverse mortgage of your flat! How nice of that, right? But it would mean that after slogging for 30 years, you will have nothing left to leave for your children! In fact, the kind of "precision mathematics" that the PAP government has laid out for most Singaporeans is that most of us will be enslaved by the whole system! You will be slave to your HDB mortgage for all your working life and please make sure that you don't lose your job during this 30 years period else you will be living like those campers at Sembawang Park, Changi Beach, East Coast Park... without a roof over your head. But the best thing is this, even if you managed to pay off your mortgage for the 30 years of your productive life, you will be left with nothing for retirement! Thus, the PAP government will OFFER you to reverse mortgage your HDB flat! Meaning that you have paid hefty interests (believe me, the total amount of interests you are paying may even be 50% of the loan if you loan from banks!) in paying for your HDB flats, you will end up selling it away cheap cheap to the government or banks! And if you die early, the government of bank will have the last laugh in taking your whole flat without paying anything further! It means that, we will practically become SLAVES of our HDB mortgage! I would advise my young readers that if you are looking for a flat, make sure that you could pay off your mortgage in 15 years at your comfort zone... preferably 25% of your total household income. At the very worst, take only 20 years of mortgage and nothing more than that. If you can't, you better consider other alternatives. Don't be enslaved by this system, this myth of "affordability". I will continue to fight the PAP, urging people of Tampines to vote Mah Bow Tan out, to send a strong signal to PAP that we do not want to be enslaved by the very system that they have built. We don't want our children to pay crazy prices for just a PUBLIC HOUSING which will in the end enslave them for the rest of their lives. We want to tell the PAP government that they could no longer fool us with such flawed argument and mathematical calculations. Most importantly, we want change to the way on how our lives are being governed. Goh Meng Seng Come on MPs. Get off your butts! -- Andrew Loh This is another article by TOC writer, Andrew Loh on the homeless at Sembawang Park.Andrew has revealed that MCYS has acted to get the pregnant woman under a roof since TOC writers and social activists visited the Sembawang Park campsite. However, the main issue of housing is yet to be resolved.I am going to keep the pressure on the Minister of National Development high up as long as his ministry cannot provide a solution to these people as well as other homeless people camping around Singapore in tents. I am contemplating to make a video of these campers and keep campaigning for BASIC HOUSING RIGHTS for Singaporeans.Let's see whether Mr. Mah Bow Tan's ministry does anything about this issue.Goh Meng SengAfter the General Elections in 2006, the newly-formed P65 Members of Parliament from the People’s Action Party (PAP) were the speakers at a public forum. It was organized by the PAP’s Youth Wing. There were three MPs there – namely Teo Ser Luck, Zaqy Mohamad and Michael Palmer, all freshly-minted young MPs.During the Q&A, I asked about the poor in Singapore and how the grassroots were not doing enough to help them. I sarcastically remarked that these organizations were more interested in karaoke-ing than in helping the poor. I mentioned karaoke because there were news reports at that time about the Community Clubs having these sessions which were loud enough to bother residents. Why were the organizations spending precious resources in singing? Why were these not used to help the poor instead?MP Michael Palmer took issue with what what I said and rebutted my remarks. No surprise there, of course. While the grassroots are independent of any political parties (well, they’re meant to be anyway), PAP MPs, who’re appointed as grassroots “advisers”, are expected to defend these organizations.Yet, one wonders what these very same MPs, such as Michael Palmer, would say if he visited Sembawang Park. There, families of all types are camping out not because they love the ourdoors but because they have nowhere else to go. Their stories vary – from being kicked out by relatives whom they had disputes with, to defaulting on their HDB or bank mortgage loans. And they are not an overnight phenomena. In fact, many of them have been camping out in tents there for months.Children, infants, teenagers, braving the rain and the sun, the unpredictable weather.Many have applied to the HDB for rental flats but have been rejected, for various reasons. In the end, this dogged adherence to HDB rules by civil servants have resulted in a ridiculous situation where even a seven-months pregnant woman has to endure camping out at Sembawang Park.“We’re not looking for pity,” she tells me. “We only want a roof over our heads for our children,” she confides as her eyes well up and tears start to fall. Her other two children runs around, oblivious to the predicament their parents are going through. She had skipped her doctor’s appointment because she says her husband needs the money to go to work. She does not know how she us going to afford the hospital bill when she finally has to deliver her third child.Minister for National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan, was kind of proud to announce recently that two blocks of flats in Toa Payoh would be reserved for another group of people who would otherwise be homeless as well – the foreign workers.It makes one wonder where the minister’s priorities are and if he is aware that there are homeless Singaporeans struggling to keep their heads above water, and their sanity at the same time.The situation in Sembawang Park – where as many as 15 families are camped out – has been so for months, as I previously mentioned. One would therefore have to wonder several things:1. What has the MP there done about it? Why, apparently, has he not done anything?2. What have the grassroots organizations there been doing? Surely, they’re aware of the situation. I’ve seen them, the GROs, hold big events there on weekends, some involving as many as a thousand people.3. What about the MCYS? Surely, being the ministry in charge of helping the less fortunate, it must have known about the situation for a while?It is ridiculous, to me, that so many families should endure living in such a way at the park when they could easily be helped. For example, when we highlighted the plight of the pregnant lady, officers from the MCYS immediately put her up at a shelter and promised to expedite her request for a rental flat.Why did it take our intervention before the ministry took action? Was it because they were afraid that The Online Citizen would expose the situation?Yet, Sembawang Park is not the only park where the homeless camp out. We understand there are similar homeless people at East Coast Park, Serangoon Park and elsewhere.If we can build dormitories for foreign workers, or reserve blocks of flats for them to stay, why can’t we do the same for homeless Singaporeans?With property prices reaching ridiculous heights and the cost of living not letting up, it is no wonder that we are seeing more homeless Singaporeans.What would be even more sad is if the government retracked the rules and disallowed camping at the parks – just as it disallowed begging in S’pore in the 80s. Perhaps this will then allow it to boast that there are no poor or homeless people in Singapore. I would not put it beyond the government to change the rules. It has already been changed once – from unlimited camping periods to the present rule which states that one can only camp at a designated area in a park for a maximum of 8 days each month. Once your 8 days are up, you'd be asked to leave - or pay a S$200 fine, which some homeless people, poor as they are, were told to when they "over-stayed".One only hopes that the government will do what is more substantive – to find long term housing for those who can no longer afford public housing – rather than be more concerned about superficialities such as presenting an impression or image to the world that Singapore is so clean and prosperous that even the genuine poor and homeless are not seen in public.For now, my advice to those in government or the grassroots organisations and the MPS is this : Get off your butt and get down to Sembawang Park! No Singaporean should live like this!And yes, you might wanna give the karaoke-ing a rest too! People of the Tents -- Joshua Chiang While HDB is busy taking care of FOREIGN WORKERS employed by PRIVATE CASINO OPERATORS, our OWN CITIZENS are forced to live in tents without a roof over their heads! We have to vote Mah Bow Tan out to send a strong signal to the PAP government that Citizens should be the government's priority!The following article is written by Joshua Chiang on their visit to Sembawang Park. This will become my main election issue against Mah Bow Tan if their housing problems are not solved by then.The campsite had a holiday feel to it. Clothes hung on makeshift clothes-line. Small stoves and barbeque pits occupy the floor around the park shelter. There were fishing rods, crab traps, guitars, styrofoam boxes, unwashed plates and utensils as well. At one of the shelter, there was even a table on which were two containers of syrup. People - mostly Malays - sat in the shelter, chatting, laughing. A couple arrived with their kid pushing a small shopping cart of groceries. I counted 23 tents pitched on a grass patch about 50 meters long. The kampung spirit certainly lived on in these people, one would assume.Except that most of them would rather not be here at Sembawang Park. They were here because they had nowhere else to go. You could say they are homeless, but you would be wrong. The homeless do not exist in Singapore. They are merely 'temporarily displaced'.Andrew and I spoke to a couple seated inside one of the shelters. The male - his name is Zazali - had a place to stay, but he came on weekends to see his friends staying here. He was a very friendly chap, but as he spoke about the people living here (he claimed there were about 15 households), you could sense the frustration in his voice.When it rains, he said, the tents became flooded, even with the extra layer of canvas on top of almost every single one of them. (Next time you want to know if the campers are merely here for a day or two, or much longer, look at their tents). So what happened to the people inside the tents? I asked. They come to the shelter, Zazali replied.I looked around at the open shelter and asked how would it stop them from getting wet in a heavy storm. "Like this," said Zazali standing behind one of the pillars."And when there's a strong wind, everything fly," he continued, gesturing at the items around him. "Everything."I imagined a whole family huddled behind one such pillars, most likely with a huge plastic sheet wrapped around them, pelted by the rain with the wind billowing around them, and wondered how anyone could live like for months at a stretch.But apparently they did.Somehow living like that had become the norm for them. Every eight days, they would go to the nearby AXN machine to re-book the use of the grass patch for their tents. (Legally no-one can camp at the place for more than eight days a month, but they somehow managed to get around it by getting their friends or older family members to take turns registering) But there were a few who had smaller networks of friends and family members, and they were fined up to $200 when they couldn't re-book the turf.They showered and washed their laundry and dishes, and got their drinking water at the nearby toilet."At least here, it is free," Zazali noted. "At East Coast (Park) you pay 20 cents per entry."They cook their meals on portable gas stoves. Sometimes visitors would offer them their leftover barbecued food.Didn't any organizations come to donate stuff, I asked. He shook his head. It appeared that the only people who visited them were the park rangers. And it was usually to ask to see their permits.We were joined briefly by a young teenage boy who introduced himself as Sulaiman. His family of five - minus his father - had been staying here for four months ever since their uncle decided not to shelter them. His mother was in her 40s. Until recently, she was the only one in the family working. His eldest brother, who was sleeping in one of the tents, just found a job in the shipyard nearby.They had tried applying for one of the HDB rental flats but were told the waiting period was 13 months (and even then it was on a case-by-case basis, and also subject to an income-cap regulation). They were told the same thing when they approached their MP, or more accurately, the MP's assistant.I forgot to ask if they had tried the open market (after all, if two people were working, they should be able to afford to pay the rental of $500 a month - which is the usual rate now), but I guessed having helped a friend find a room to rent before, most landlords would not want a family of five to share a room when they could offer the same room to a single person who is bound to be less of a hassle)We found out later that Sulaiman and his siblings had stopped schooling. Whatever the reason, we made a mental note to find out more when we return. Poverty should not be an excuse for stopping people from getting a decent education if they want to. (We also found out much to our astonishment that Yanni - the girl with Zazali- had been suspended from school for seven months - an awfully long time for whatever offenses she had committed)"You go talk to them ," Zazali said, looking in the direction of the tents . "They get to know you more, then you will see them cry sometimes."Pretty soon it was time to leave. We shook hands and gave our word that we would highlight this issue in whatever ways we can."Thank you for listening," was Yanni's parting words. I felt the urge to tell her that many times that was all we could do, but held back. I guessed she knew as much. But at the same time, that was what the tent people needed at the very least. For someone to listen. For people to know.On our way out, we passed by a piece of land designated for the building of eighty houses. There is little doubt that there would be a mad rush for these units when they're completed, even if each unit costs two millions. After all, it is next to a beautiful park, and faces the sea. If you're lucky, your house might be the one getting the best view of the rising sun at dawn.There is little doubt too that the tent people would trade all these for somewhere they can sleep without getting wet whenever it rains.(you can join this group to see more photos, or if you know people with similar stories to share http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?gid=243022663629&ref=ts) 漫谈双文化-作者:冀居·谢 漫谈双文化 作者:冀居·谢 2010.01.06 近日有些网络英文论坛为了标榜服务“全新加坡人”，而在文章的选择方面加入了少量的华文评论，却引起一些网友的反弹，认为看了很‘苟猥’，有者还认为降低了该坛的评论水平。是的，单语舒适应该是人类的共通惰性，特别是年纪越大，越钟意和怀念乡音。另一方面，如果以1980年完全消灭华校为分水岭，而又假设行动党的双文化见解和政策是正确作为前提，至今教育了二至三代的双语/双文化人，能够优游涵泳于两个世界，然而对于语文的敏感度却似乎有增无减，这本身就是一个奇怪的现象。 林瑞生说宁愿两科都五十分也不要做个单科状元；甘愿做双栖的小青蛙，也不要成为单方面的陆地跑步或水上游泳的冠军。既然执政党的愿望那样炙热，为何会生出一个独尊英语的社会，是哪个环节出了错误，还是一开始就有人不断地说谎？ 维斯瓦在国会发言，发现执政党越是声嘶力竭地高喊融合，各种族各语言的隔阂越深。他举的一个例子，我小时候也很有印象，就是第八波道是分时段为华族和淡米尔族服务的，所以我跟祖母一小一老常在华语节目结束后接下去看淡米尔片，老实说我对淡米尔片歌舞场面的喜爱，远在美国人发现Bollywood之前。 现在很多商家和政府机构把文字内容呈现给各族大众夸大成十足的难题，或者干脆自行选择只用英文呈现，其实就是一种鸵鸟心态。我记得马来西亚的漫画家Lat就把小时候看露天电影的记忆画出来，布做的天幕上有一半的画面是被华、巫、英的字幕所遮盖，不过大家还是看得津津有味。因为大家都知道，要维持多元文化，让所有人都能一起欣赏，这样的一点让步是必要的。 也不知道什么时候，华文和 “offbeat”划上等号，认为华文呈现的东西都是逊一点的。看到西片有中文字幕，觉得很offbeat，可是当银幕上的人物讲德语或者法语，他们又眼巴巴希望赶快有英文字幕的辅助。他们说英文是世界主流，娱乐主要来自英语产品，可是他们有没有想想电子科技产品的龙头是日本和南韩，电脑游戏方面中国也渐渐赶上，这一二十年来就有很多新玩意儿是先有日文版、韩文版，将来可能有更多是先有中文版，然后才翻译成英文给那些懂得英语的人使用，他们有因为这样而看不起使用英语的人吗？我想不会。 新加坡的年轻人很多都喜欢自诩是双语，但是第五波道的很多外地节目只听得懂一半，有时就转向本地制作的第八波道，因为只有第八波道的华语水平适合他们；所以第八波道就成了为老一辈识字不多、还有识华文字不多的新一代服务。他们看不懂两岸三地的节目，因为华文太“深”！比如昨晚我看韩剧《李算》，有一句“席蒿待罪”，“蒿”是粗糙的织席材料，念hāo。但是字幕却打成“席藳待罪”，配音员也跟着念错，念成gǎo。 新加坡台面上的人物，能够应用双语发表演说和写文章，达到舒适程度且信手拈来的，我看只有一个吴明盛，竟然还是个反对党人物，对于推动双文化的执政党和二丑们，这是多么大的讽刺！四五百万人才出一个，这需要多高的智商，俨然是挟泰山而超北海的不能事，大家别傻了。 有人说不用中文发表的原因是因为打字太麻烦，真的吗？撇开“单指神功”不谈，英文打字要学会用十指来打，也一样要下苦工的。我记得中学的时候还乘着假期花钱到加东购物中心学了十多课才学会的，那时隔壁的奥迪安戏院还在放映《唐山大兄》。 很多人对于眼前事物的理解是不问原由的，比如为什么新加坡的老年人有一部分不能够使用电脑，那一部分就是使用华文华语的人，是这些人比较笨吗？其实不然。根本就是人为障碍的问题，视窗中文版在两岸三地随便都可以买到，但是在本地却完全没有人引进，还能够说我们是提倡双文化的社会吗？只要电脑界面的文字是认识、会看的，其实已经成功了一半，接下来就是熟悉和重复练习的问题罢了。把视窗只能呈现一种英文视为理所当然，才是耽误和剥夺了很多老人上网的机会。就以火狐（Firefox）这个浏览器来说，可以有70多种文字的呈现，中文还分简体和繁体两种，并且每个月都在增加。而我们还执拗于先去spur学会英文才能掌握电脑这个工具，到底是谁先入为主的观念让我们这样笨下去的？ 有人说懂得英文，世界所有政要的名字都能够一目了然，而不必像中文那样，一地有一地的翻译。他这样说的时候，大概心中只有欧美，或者更准确地说是雅利安语系的 christian names 吧，亚洲、非洲的名字一样也是不了啊， “Ai Iijima”还不如“饭岛爱”更为人所知。 在亚洲，虽然日本、南韩、台湾和大陆的英文程度都不如新加坡，但是人家对于好莱坞电影的欣赏比我们层面更广、更投入，吸收得更多。世界要多元化，不同的文化可以通过翻译来交流，单语化是愚蠢的结论。而翻译也是社会分工的一部分，吾生也有涯，并不一定要自己来。那些认为自己懂得英文可以直接欣赏英文戏剧的人，为什么在欣赏自己的母族文化时，却要靠英文字幕，这一点你们想过没有？ 成语“求全责备”好像很义正词严，其实其近义词却是“吹毛求疵”，这些人用很狭隘的视角，常在门缝里把人看扁了。 Commemorating JBJ - The Icon of a Lost Generation 5th of Jan is the birthday of the belated democratic fighter, Joshua Benjamin Jeyaratnam, better known as JBJ. I attended the commemoration gathering at Hong Lim Park this evening and gave a short speech. My speech revolves around the theme, JBJ is the Icon of my generation, the lost generation. Why lost generation?I am coming to 40 year old, born in 1970. My childhood was spent in the era of White Terror. Throughout my first 10 years of living, I have been "indoctrinated with fear" by my parents and elders. Whenever I talked bad about the government, they would just try to shut me up, warning me "The MATA (policemen) will come after you!"It is no wonder my generation of peers are generally politically apathetic and will even shun me if they or their spouses work in GLC, GIC, Temasek or the civil service. There are many opposition members who are in the 20s, 35 below, 50s, 60s and even 70s, but very few at the age of 37 to 40 now.When I attended TOC's 2009 year end event last week, I was very impressed with the relatively huge turn out who are mostly in their 20s and early 30s. Some are older, 45 and above but I find very few who are of my own age. It hits me that my generation is burdened by the indoctrination of fear that we received during our impressionable youth. The young ones who are born in the 1980s are hardly brought up with fear deliberately instilled in them. However, their youthfulness would also mean that they may not really know JBJ as the icon of my generation. JBJ won his as well as opposition's FIRST electoral battle in 1981's by elections after one and a half decade of PAP's monopoly of power. But that was a quiet victory to the general public because the victory was not telecast live on TV. JBJ did it again in the subsequent General Election in 1984. I believe those in their 20s now would not understand fully what it means to be a REAL VICTORY against all odds. When JBJ's victory was announced on TV, there were screaming and cheering breaking through the night in the area where I stay. He was the man that has broken the silence of the fearful generation. JBJ has broken the monopoly of PAP and put a dent in PAP's myth of invincibility. This happened in an era of white terror where the majority of Singaporeans were living in fear exerted by the PAP's ruthless demolition and massive detention without trial of its political opponents. PAP's hatred of JBJ arises from the fact that he was the one who have broken that big egoistic myth of political invincibility in polling. But to many of us of this lost generation, he is the LIGHT to our blind fear. He has shown us that it is totally possible to win against all odds, against the ruthless tyranny of monopoly rule. JBJ has forced the ruling party, in their very own fear of losing more seats, to start changing the electoral rules so to prolong their monopoly of power. Even change the Constitution to disallow legal appeals to the Privy Councils when JBJ won his case against the PAP government when he appealed in Privy Councils. ironically, it was PAP's fear of losing any seats to JBJ that made them did so many things which disgust many people like me. Notably, the introduction of pork barrel politics of HDB upgrading in 1997 and the amendment of the GRC system to further expand them in sizes, contradicting the very principle of "appropriate minority representation" that the GRC was first argued for implementation. As a voter of Cheng San GRC which was contested by JBJ's team, I was literally held hostage by the PAP with the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong threatening us that there will be no HDB upgrading for us if we do not vote for PAP. Our rubbish chutes will pile up. We will have last priority even in lift rescue services as compared to other PAP wards. JBJ's team attracted ALL the heavy weights ministers from PAP to contest in Cheng San GRC. PM Goh personally declared that he was putting his reputation and stake into the fight in Cheng San. Then the SM Lee Kuan Yew stepped in, followed by his Son. It was then, my political awakening was invoked thoroughly. All these events that happened against JBJ have made me realized that as long as PAP is in power, it will forever, for its own political self interests, hold Singaporeans hostage with whatever "weapons" they have when it comes to voting. They will continue to instill fear in Singaporeans by holding us hostage. They will continue to disregard the basic fundamental political rights of Singaporeans. The most important question that I have asked myself is, do I want my children and future generations continue to live in the very fear that my generation has lived through? Do I want them to continue to be held hostage by such self-serving ruling party? Always have that invisible hand that will always be on their throats, threaten to strangle them if they do not vote for them? Or just choke them to silence? Absolute not. There are only two options left for me if I do not want that to happen. Either I save enough money and emigrate out of this place or I stay back to fight to effect change to this political system, all for my future generations. I decided to stay back and fight for change eventually.I have lent my torchlight to the speakers who speak tonight for reading their scripts. This very torchlight has the privilege of shining through every words of tribute that the speakers have made. JBJ was and forever will be the torchlight of my fearful generation. JBJ might have left us but his undaunted fighting spirit to change Singapore has not died. We should continue to fight for change, not merely from the electoral battles, but also to effect change to the general mindset of Singaporeans. Fight for the Change of the mindset of my Lost Generation as well as your generation. WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW OURSELVES AND OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO BE HELD HOSTAGE BY THE PAP! We should liberate ourselves from the knuckle dusters and fear created by the PAP. The only way is to break their monopoly of power which will break their arrogance into humility. I hope, with the torch that shines on everybody that is present tonight, we could carry on the legacy that is left by JBJ. Not everyone will choose the path of front line politics but everyone could do their part in talking to their peers, their families and friends about the need to change our sterile mindset in order to liberate ourselves from PAP's ransom seeking. I also hope that all my readers would do the same. For the sake of ourselves and our future generations, we should start asking ourselves whether we want our children to continue living in the very political fear that we have gone through. My generation has lost the opportunity to really appreciate the democratic light that JBJ has shed on us. But I hope the younger generations which have experienced less indoctrination of political fear in their lifetime, would continue to effect the change that JBJ has worked so hard in his whole life to initiate. The future lies in our hands.Goh Meng Seng