[redbean]

Is there a property bubble?

The commercial cum residential site at Choa Chu Kang and Woodlands junction fetched a cool $164m yesterday. Two years ago the bid was only $64m and not accepted. What does this tell? Cheap don't sell, no bubble?

When is a bubble a bubble? As can be expected, there will be all kinds of definition of what and when a bubble is formed. For the moment, one can expect 90% of Singaporeans between 30 to 40 years and owning a property to be in debt of $200k to $1m. This is likely to be the bank borrowing to acquire their dream home, a roof over their heads. Presumably they are servicing their mortgages at 30% of their incomes.

As long as the economy is running smoothly, no crisis or wars, they will have no problem paying their loans. When there is a crisis, two things could happen, one, losing their jobs, and two, property prices plunged. This double whammy will suddenly reveal that their properties are worth so much lesser in value, and they have no income to pay for their loans.

Maybe then people will say, it was a bubble. At current prices, most properties are priced way too high and this will give them ample room to collapse when the time comes. The gap between the current price and the value it will settle is another measure of the balloon that has been built in. Inflated prices in good time and realistic prices when people will not dare to splurge.

Do we have a bubble now? From $64m to $164m in two years! The developers will keep pushing the limits thinking that they can keep on charging more. And when in trouble, hoping that the govt will help them out so that they will not go bust. In the meantime who is going to help the people who need a roof over the head from having to pay a lifetime for it, at the prices the developers demand?

Who is the profiteer or who is causing the price to shoot to the sky? Must be the developer lah.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Stop the crap about relative affordability logic

Several MPs are going to Parliament to kpkb about housing affordability. They are going to question HDB about its original role in providing affordable housing for the masses, high prices, supply and demand, inefficient system and allowing rich private property owners to buy HDB flats. These are reported in the ST today. Are they crazy or what? Do they take all the kpkbs in the internet seriously and really think that there is a problem? Didn't they read the reports of HDB and Mah Bow Tan about how affordable HDB flats are and how efficient and perfect the system is?

Even this morning, two eminent scholars from NUS Dept of Real Estate, Tu Yong and Yu Shi Ming, reported that 'Housing in Singapore still affordable'. And they have authoritative figures to prove their point. How could MPs ignore such well research reports even if they don't believe in the comments of politicians? Unbelieveable!

Why did these two academics say that housing is affordable here? They compared housing data of London and Hongkong and found our data much better than theirs. 'In terms of affordability, Singapore has achieved a lower housing price to income ratio. On the whole, the figures reveal that the housing system here does deliver comfortable and affordable housing to the majority of Singaporeans.' Brilliant conclusion. Flawless arguments backed by indisputable facts.

So, who is still complaining about housing here not affordable? The MPs should better withdraw their intended questions in Parliament. They are going to get the same answers. Period.

According to the two academics, Hongkong and London's housing ratio are 19.8 and 7.1 respectively while ours is 5.8. Housing ratio is housing price to median annual household income. See, ours are cheaper and more affordable. Tiok boh?

In terms of comfort, we have 27 sq m for one person while Hongkong and greater London have 12.5 and 31.9 sq m per person. Ok London has bigger space than us because Europeans believe that comfort means more space. Don't compare with Australia when comfort means 300 sq m per person. That is not comparing apple with apple.

Using this kind of #$%@ logic of relativity, when Hongkong's housing ratio is 30, then we can push up the prices of HDB flats to 20 and pat ourselves that we are still cheaper. And when Hongkong is squeezing their people into 5 sq m dog kennel, we can build smaller flats and sell at higher prices and say we are still comfortable.

The same logic goes to the toxic bonds. Other people are selling it, especially the West, then it should be ok for us. The Americans are designing their stock markets to fleece the small investors with programme trading, and unfair advantages for the big funds to cheat the small investors, would these also be acceptable for us?

Can we use a more independent set of criteria of our own to define what is affordable and comfortable for our people instead of relatively logic and shifting goal posts? My simple definition is 30% of one income and repayable in 20 years and a space of 50 sq m person. No space? Who is the bum that said we have a lot of space? Or stop the influx of more immigrants to this little piece of rock. Our population density is now more than Hongkong, 6,814 to 6,460 and greater London's 4.761. Want to make it worst? It is madness.

And some MPs going to Parliament to ask why so many traffic congestions on the road? Wait till the lunatics increase the population to 8 million, then you will know what is congestion. Now it is so good, relatively speaking of course. Can't call it congestion. Even the packed MRT trains are soooo comfortable.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Can we accept 3% productivity growth?

With the best talents in the world, in monetary terms of course, can we accept 3% productivity growth as our target? I believe we are not paying peanuts for average talents. And we have been told that the last few years of growth were contributed by the foreign workers.

And should we be happy and claim to have done well if we can get 2% or 2.5% growth? I am still pondering over this very ambitious goal of 3%, like climbing Mount Everest. Didn't I say that a char kway teow stallholder could increase his productivity by 17% if he raises his price by 50c?

Maybe we are being modest and by the end of next year we will declare an achievement of 8% growth.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

The correct definition of Productivity

There have been too many confusing definitions of Productivity. Some believe that Productivity means up skill, re skill, multi skill, be cheaper, better and faster. These are myths. We have been doing all these for so many years but our Productivity remains flat. I think my definition to increase price like my char kway teow example is better. And some workers think that slogging longer hours, work harder or staying longer in the office to show the boss are equivalent to higher productivity.

Here is the correct version by Amy Khor. Productivity = doing more but in the same timespan or less. She forgot to post her credential as an example of what is higher productivity. She is MP, Mayor, Chairman of Reach, Chairman of countless committees, Advisors to countless committees, her own profession, and maybe, I am not sure, directors of some companies. And she did that within her 24 hours a day like everyone of us. Now that is productivity, doing more in the same timespan.

So those office workers who stay behind to slog late into the night, please think again. You are very unproductive, doing the same amount of work or a little more, but taking so much time. And those who are still thinking of multi skill and mult tasking, please do it within the same timespan or less.

Now I can see the brilliance and productivity of people who are directors of many companies. The more directorships or chairmanship the more productive.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

The best speaker in Parliament

Guess who? It hit me straight away when I tuned in to the 9.30pm news on Channel 5. Lim Swee Sway was propounding his Theory of Productivity in Parliament and the audience was dumbfounded. The camera panned across the House and the MPs and NMPs were wide eyed, mouth opened, and written on their faces was the sign of shock disbelief. They listened to him intensely and probably thinking to themselves how come they did not know of such a great Theory. Ok, I shall not put words into the Minister mouth. He did not call it the Theory of Productivity.

I will rate this 'Theory of Productivity' in the same category as the Theory of Relativity in its profound and impactful implications. Let me put it briefly, 1% increase in productivity of 3m workers equals 30,000 workers (I can understand this part) and this can be translated into something like 50% of something, or call it output. He went on so fast, with so many numbers that I could not grasp what they were. I scoured the papers this morning to confirm the numbers Swee Say quoted, but those buggers did not think it newsworthy to be printed. Nothing was reported. I can't believe it

My lesser brain could not understand the implications of 2% or 3% productivity growth. Now I understand. If 1% productivity growth can lead to 50% of whatever growth or output, 2% will give 100% of whatever! This is simply phenomenal. Forgive me for not knowing what this 50% is all about. But I will try to trace this amazing speech and theory and correct this post when I find it.

Whatever, Swee Say was able to captivate the attention of all the Parliamentarians when no one could.

PS. I appeal to the Straits Times to print Swee Say's speech in full.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

New immigrants for Civil Defence

40 years ago, when I walked the streets of London, I could pick up a newspaper and threw 2 shillings into a box and walked away. No one was there to guard the money. Today, I don't think we can leave newspapers on our streets and expect people to drop money into it and the money still remains there for the rightful owner at the end of the day. We are affluent and may not think too much of a couple of dollars. Would any newspaper vendor dare to do this?

Would anyone dare to ask foreign workers to look after their homes when they are away on holiday? There could be some exceptions and pre conditions. I would not. I would not even invite them to my home to familiarise themselves with what is inside my home, with extremely rare exceptions of course.

If we can farm the guarding of our homes and country to foreigners, we don't need citizen soldiers. I cannot imagine if security guard agencies are still hiring ex convicts or people with criminal records to be guards.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

What if HDB bungled?

According to Mah Bow Tan, the following are myths.

1. There are not enough HDB flats to meet demand
2. HDB flats are unaffordable
3. PRs push prices
4. Private property owners push up prices
5. Subletting of HDB flats is rampant.

The above are reported in the ST today. And he gave his reasons to dismiss them as myths. So I will add them into my column as myths of Singapore.

The following facts are either quoted from official sources or are well knowned, or maybe perceived wrongly.

1. In 2008, there were 79,200 new PRs and 20,500 new citizens.
2. In 2009, the numbers were 59,500 and 19,900 respectively.
3. Our population has increased by more than a millionn in the last decade.
4. Property prices are shooting to the sky with HDB flats tripling their values in less than the recent 10 years.
5. Mah Bow Tan said he was caught by surprise of the strong demand in properties.
6. HDB is scurrying to build more flats with 13,500 last year and another 12,000 this year. All these will take another 3 or 4 years to be ready. How many flats did HDB built in the last 5 years?

Has HDB bungled in the supply and demand of public housing for the people in the last 10 years? I think the official answer is no. Then why the unhappiness especially among young and new home owners? Myth?

During the tight supply of flats and surging demand caused by high population growth, have there been young people who failed to get their flats over these years and were booted out of the public housing system because their combined income went past the $8,000 ceiling imposed by HDB? If there are, is it their fault or HDB's fault? These young people are now caught in a dilemma, disqualified from HDB and not rich enough to pay for private properties. So how?

Would they be pissed off with the HDB and the govt? The answer will come in the next General Election if their housing needs are not solved by then. Maybe their needs are just a myth and all will still be voting happily for the PAP. Maybe not. Only the result will tell the true story.

In the meantime Mah Bow Tan can stick to his position and fight his election in Tampines, and win.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Khaw Boon Wan is a good man

Khaw Boon Wan acknowledged in Parliament that the Medisave is our money. And he is there to guard and protect our money. I say very good. Just guard the money and make sure it is safe. But don't have any more designs to take more money from the people to guard. It is too huge a sum and too big a responsibility. Don't ask for more. there is enough money for him to guard already. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in prison.

Also, good man don't keep thinking of taking other people's money without their consent, and to keep it away from the people till death do they part.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

I wonder how many of you watch the clips on Parliament shown on TV. I have a hard time trying to spot my favourite MPs as it flashed quite rapidly and often only showed a small section of the floor. It is very rare that one has the chance to see the whole house and all the MPs. And also, on a daily basis, the same few faces would appear again and again

What happens to those that don't appear at all? There are some MPs that appear to be on perpetual leave, or the camera just refused to look at them. Blame it on the camera man huh.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Looking at Parliament

Yesterday's In Parliament was showing quite a full house, maybe 50 MPs were present. Not bad attendance when they are only paid an allowance.

Over the last few sessions what impresses me most is the slate of our Malay MPs. I think there are a few doctors and several doctorates. Impressive. But what is more impressive is the way they present themselves, very professional, articulate and cool. The Malays need not look any further to find the role model for modern and sophisticated and well educated Malays. Just look at the who's who in Parliament. No need to wear head gears of robes to look like Arabs.

The Singaporean Malays have progressed in leaps and bounds and they look very very different from our neighbouring Malays. They are world's apart. They don't remind you of village chiefs and the days of Hang Tuah and Hang Jebat anymore.

So too are our Indian and Chinese descendants of indentured labours and coolies. They all, including the Malays, look more like the English aristocrats and gentries, and a bit of American Hollywood. Suave and very international. But once in a while, when irritated, a little of the crudeness of their forefathers still resurfaced. Maybe in another generation all the traits of humble origins would no longer be there.

CNA should have longer takes of In Parliament and beamed it across Asia. Maybe the Arabs, the Indians and the Chinese will all look towards their Singaporean counterparts as the role model of the future, successful and smart looking. And so will the rest of Asia. The Singaporeans will set the trend for others to follow instead of following and imitating others.

The Singaporean Style!
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Who the f@$% does he thinks he is?

CPF Life will be compulsory for those with $60k in their retirement accounts at the age of 65. They missed them when they got the bulk of their money out at 55. Now the net closes in and they are going for those who slipped out to be caught again at 65.

Who does he think he is? It is the people's money. Don't touch, you have no right to confiscate the people's money at your whims and fancy. You are no god, boy.

'Such was the level of interest in CPF Life that it was opened up last Sept to Singaporeeans and permanent residents aged 55 and older. Since then, some 37,000 people have signed up, committing a total of $1.7 billion.' Why such a great and popular scheme only had 37,000 members? If it is so great, people will all be rushing into it. And why the need for compulsion?

Is the govt so short of fund that it has to resort to locking up the people's money in all kinds of scheme? Boon Wan is waiting to transfer more money into Medisave.

The people who are not happy with a govt that thinks it can do anything with their money must vote for the return of their money in the next GE. They must assert their rights to their own money and tell whichever joker to lay his hands off their money.

I will definitely vote for the right to my money.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

High quality debate in Parliament

The Speaker of Parliament, Abdullah Tarmugi, thanked the MPs and Ministers for their high quality contributions and debate in the House. He said it was the best session he had seen in his 26 years in Parliament.

Chua Mui Hoong in her article in the ST this morning lamented that if the MPs and Ministers would just speak instead of reading from scripted pieces of papers, Parliament seatings will be that much more livelier and interesting.

Our Parliament has been turned into an exercise of reading essays. The questions were written and submitted in advance for the Ministers to reply. They will then be read out in Parliament and the Ministers will then read out their replies.

Was there any debate at all? Maybe thanks should also be given to the ghost writers for their contributions to the quality of the essays. I wonder how many of the essays read out in Parliament were written by the ghost writers. I think I can offer my ghost writing services too, with full confidentiality of course, at a small fee.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

No backdoor MPs

Parliament is geared up for hot debates in the next sitting when the issue of more NCMPs and NMPs are up for debate. I hope it will not degenerate into another question and answer session?

I kind of fully agree with the remarks and sentiments of MPs expressed in the ST today. Why make a fuss of having more NCMPs and NMPs when what is needed is quality and not quantity? And why all these backdoor MPs? They don't represent anyone. MPs must be elected by the people, not entering Parliament by the backdoors through all kinds of schemes. An MP that is not elected by the people, is not elected by the people. Period.

We need the people to ink in the ballot paper that this is the MP that they want to represent them. Without that, where is the consent of the people to say the MP represents them?

NCMPs and NMPs did not earned their place in Parliament. I fully agree with all the MPs who think so. So what's the big deal to be in Parliament?

I hope the MPs will take a strong stand in Parliament to remove all the NCMPs and NMPs if they are real in how they feel about the schemes. Please don't just ask questions and take the answers as the end of the story. Fight for your beliefs. If anyone don't think highly of the NCMPs and NMPs, say so when they have the chance to do so, in Parliament.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Is my impression correct?

Reading from the interviews with PAP MPs as reported in the ST, I got this impression that the PAP MPs do not think highly of backdoor MPs, ie NCMPs and NMPs. Does this implies that they do not agree with the system of bringing in non elected MPs, representing nobody, into Parliament?

If this is so, would they dare to vote against the bill that is planning to increase the number of non elected MPs? Or would they just go along and vote for it despite expressing strong misgivings and being condescending to those backdoor MPs?

Calvin Cheng is a great example of this 'disagree but be part of the system' syndrome. He accepted the appointment as a backdoor MP but spoke against it. Could we find people who will stand by their principles, take a stand on issues or things they don't agree and lump them? Or is this how our pragmatic people have been brought up to be, don't agree never mind lah, just accept it, kpkb a bit for show, and just play along?

Is being strong about one's principle an important factor in a person's character or value system?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

It was fun and good for a laugh

Several PAP MPs spoke strongly against the principle behind NCMP and NMP. They ridiculed it as a backdoor entry to Parliament, elected by nobody, representing nobody and speaking for nobody. Basically they opposed the scheme. So did Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim who opposed it for basically the same reasons.

The inconsistency and contradictory stand of the opposition MPs were picked up by Kan Seng who questioned Low Thia Khiang on his inconsistent stand. Why opposing a scheme and still support it? Ya, how silly for people to oppose an issue on grounds of principle and support it still. Low Thia Khiang stood his ground and said he would resign if his party wants him to take up a NCMP position if he lost his election. And all the MPs had a good laugh. It was all fun, and wayang I supposed.

Well at least Low Thai Khiang stood to his principle. This is something that is hard to come by.

What about the NCMPs and NMPs who were lambasted for being backdoor entrants? The criticisms thrown at them were unkind and rude in many ways, lack of credibility and speaking for nobody except themselves. Did the NCMPs and NMPs stand up to defend their pathetic positions? Or did they allow the attacks to go on and accept that the criticisms were valid, that they don't really have any right or business to be there?

Actually they were not the only ones to get in by the backdoor. Many got in in the same way and crowed like a cockerel that they were more equal than the NCMPs and NMPs. In reality they were there, by back door or front door, because of the system. It is the system that puts them there. And who voted for the system, the same cocks and hens who criticised the system.

Is this also a joke or another wayang?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.