Tweaking the NCMP scheme

Mar 29, 2013


Mix of electoral systems can work

BOTH Dr Jack Lee Tsen-Ta ("Changing system not the answer"; Wednesday) and Mr Devadas Krishnadas ("Proportional representation has its limitations"; Wednesday) have made valid comments on my commentary ("Picking out the winners in electoral systems"; last Saturday).

The proportional representation system has a long established history and been adopted by more than 80 countries. The interplay of many factors, socio-economic and cultural, determines the selection of a most suitable system to meet the needs of a nation.

[The "interplay of many factors" therefore undermines and renders irrelevant your "long established history" and "adopted by more than 80 countries" point. If the "interplay" determines the most suitable system, then what was the point of the preceding point? Verbose fillers?]

In Singapore, the first-past-the-post method has served us well, and it was never my intention to propose a replacement of the existing system by proportional representation.

However, a tweaking of the system by modifying the Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) scheme may add value and help solve the problem of scouting for capable people to stand for elections.

The suggestion of adding 10 NCMPs is merely an example; it could be increased to a greater number after we have gained adequate experience in future.
It is incorrect to say that "first-past-the-post" and "proportional representation" cannot be mixed.

There are a number of variations of proportional representation. Many countries adopt a mixed system of the two methods. Australia uses proportional representation in its Senate elections and preferential voting in House of Representatives elections. Germany, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea adopt mixed proportional methods.

[If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that for bi-cameral legislative bodies, one body (or house) may be elected with one system (say first-past-the-post) and another body or house can be elected by proportional representation. This is NOT the same as having a chimera (not to be confused with a bi-cameral parliament) voting system. So no. You have NOT proven that it is incorrect to say that the two systems cannot be mixed. Or rather, you have not proven that the two system HAVE been mixed in other places.]

I share Mr Krishnadas' view that there are limitations. The proportional representation "with the largest remainder method" used in Hong Kong favours small parties and encourages vocal minorities. But this is only one of its few variants.

Without the "largest remainder", it has worked well in Taiwan and other countries.

It is true that the system by itself may lead to fragmentation of votes and hence the need for a coalition government. But what I have suggested is to keep the "first-past-the-post" system largely intact, and just add a small number of NCMPs by proportional representation. The fragmentation of votes will not occur in our case.

Under the present Constitution, NCMPs are eligible to be appointed as ministers. It is again incorrect to say that this is "politically illegitimate".

[There is a difference between legally permitted and politically illegitimate. Devadas point was that it was contrary to democratic principles to have someone rejected at the polls to be allowed to make policy. So no, you do not seem to understand "politically illegitimate" to be able to say that it is incorrect.]

The American president appoints Cabinet ministers who are not elected members. In Hong Kong, ministers are appointed by the Chief Executive and they are not elected. The Taiwanese president appoints his premier and ministers who are not elected members.

[Yes. And the appointees are appointed by someone ELECTED by the people, and the appointees were not directly REJECTED by the people in an election.]

People may pose many questions on the present NCMP system. More should be discussed to make it relevant and useful in our parliamentary institution.
Ker Sin Tze (Dr)

[Relevant and useful is a good starting point. Unlike your proposal.]

Mar 27, 2013
Changing system not the answer

DR KER Sin Tze ("Picking out the winners in electoral systems"; last Saturday) proposed that the Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) scheme be altered to increase "participation in the decision-forming process" and "reduce the difficulty of enticing bright talents to serve in Parliament and the Government".

With regard to the first justification, the proposal might indeed have the effect of increasing diversity in Parliament.

As Dr Ker pointed out when discussing the Hong Kong electoral system, proportional representation tends to favour smaller parties and independent candidates. If that is the intention, should proportional representation not be extended to choosing all the elected MPs in Parliament?

Perhaps Dr Ker suggested having proportional representation for only 10 additional MPs so that the number of such "vocal minorities" remains small and unable to pose much of a challenge to the majority party's policies.

If so, it is rather difficult to see what the proposal adds to the existing NCMP and Nominated MP (NMP) schemes. I suspect people will be sceptical about the proposal, seeing it as merely introducing token alternative voices in Parliament with no real clout.

Incidentally, I am not sure why the NCMP scheme was termed as being "inactive" until Parliament revised it in 2010 by increasing the potential maximum number of NCMPs to nine. We have had NCMPs in Parliament since the scheme was introduced in 1984, except after the 1991 General Election when there were four opposition MPs in Parliament.

As for the second justification, it is already possible under the present constitutional system for any MP, including an NCMP and an NMP, to be appointed a minister, or even prime minister if that individual commands the confidence of a majority of the MPs.

Of course, in practice, it is highly unlikely that MPs other than those from the political party having a majority in Parliament will be appointed to the Cabinet. Increasing the potential pool of MPs by 10 will not really help to address the issue, because the true challenge that all political parties face is finding suitable people to stand for election in the first place.

Jack Lee Tsen-Ta (Dr)
Assistant Professor of Law School of Law, Singapore Management University


----------------

Proportional representation has its limitations

WHILE it is always useful to study other political and economic systems, it would be a mistake to do so without considering the historical and current differences in culture, law and politics ("Picking out the winners in electoral systems"; last Saturday).

Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore share similar characteristics as competitive economies, but that is where the similarities end. Even the fact that Hong Kong and Singapore were British colonies can be stretched too far - as evident by the contrast between Singapore's current sovereign status and Hong Kong's special relationship with China.

Applying the proportional representation approach to the Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) system is unsound.

First, we cannot have two systems of electoral practice - "first past the post", as is the current practice, and proportional representation. For harmony in our political principles, it must be either one or the other.

Second, if we were to change our parliamentary system to a proportional representation model, we should look at its limitations, not just its superficial attractiveness as being more democratic.

Proportional representation is a model that typically leads to coalition or minority governments. This may be a supportable outcome in large countries with powerful regional cities and provinces, but not in a tiny island with no economic or social distribution of power.

Third, appointing NCMPs as ministers is contrary to democratic principles. It would be politically illegitimate for someone not elected by the due electoral process to be given policy responsibility. It would not only give the incumbent an unfair advantage, but also cheat the people of their electoral choice of leadership.

It is possible to contribute to policymaking without distorting the political model, which has served us well to date.

Furthermore, the idea of introducing proportional representation for the NCMP system as a way to "entice talent" is oxymoronic. If a person cannot get himself elected, then either he is not seen as talent or the people have decided that the electoral winner is better.

We should not create "backdoor" routes to political leadership. If anything, given the growing electoral success of the opposition, the more pertinent question to ask is if the NCMP system will continue to have justification beyond this term of government.

Devadas Krishnadas

[Devadas point in the last para is, this may be the last election/parliament with NCMP. Dr Ker's proposal would seem to be a proposal to tweak the horse-drawn carriage with the Ford Model T in full production.]

Give ex-offenders a chance

Mar 29, 2013

MY SON was released from prison last September. He served a four-year sentence and has to wear an electronic tag for one year. He also needs to report to the police station once every two weeks.

He admits that he made a mistake, and wants to turn over a new leaf.

He is the family's sole breadwinner and is currently working as a technician, earning a gross monthly salary of $1,000.

After three months on the job, he was confirmed and promised a pay rise. But there has been no follow-up even after six months. Each time he raises the issue, it falls on deaf ears.

My son is now looking for a new job. But it is discouraging as many employers discriminate against him. Some require him to work long hours, others offer him ridiculously low pay, while the rest do not want to employ him at all.

This is because my son wears the tag and needs to report to the police station.

Why is he still being discriminated against when he has already paid his dues? How can he possibly change and be a better person when society is unable to accept him? It is no wonder that many former offenders return to prison. How can they possibly earn a living when employers are unwilling to give them a chance?

I do not deny that some former offenders return to a life of crime, but why discriminate against all the others just because of a few black sheep?

Everybody makes mistakes, but all deserve a second chance.

Fatimah Nachair (Ms)

[Another caring-to-the-point-of-over-protective (?) mother. Not quite sure how to describe her, but there is a hint of mothering when your mother writes to the press about your parole from prison.

So many misconception and unrealistic expectations in this letter.

"He has paid his dues".
Not exactly. If he has completed his sentence and paid his due, served his time/sentence, etc., he would NOT be electronically tagged. Prisoners given "parole" (not sure what they call in Singapore, so using the American term) with electronic tagging are technically still subject to prison regulations (i.e. they are still serving time) and may be recalled to prison during the duration of the term of the electronic tagging. So NO, he has NOT completed his sentence.

"Deserve a second chance"
If the complaint is that employers are unwilling to hire him or are trying to exploit him, my answer would be: He currently has a job with $1000 salary. That is $1000 MORE than what he would be getting in prison. His current employer HAS given him a second chance and after just 9 months, he is searching for ANOTHER job? Maybe I'm old fashioned, and 9 months these days are a lifetime (in which case the 1 year electronic tag must be an eternity, and the 4 years he spent in prison must have passed glacially), but I am from the generation that believes you stick with a job unless you have very good reasons to quit or change jobs. The fact that he has NOT taken up the other exploitative job offers indicate that his CURRENT employer is NOT exploiting him (as much).

Isn't that his second chance? Or you want his second chance to be gold-plated? Presented on a silver platter? Invitation sent by courier?

"It is no wonder that many former offenders return to prison... some former offenders return to a life of crime."
Maybe I am over-sensitive, but is that a threat? Blackmail? "Don't give my son a good job, he go back to be criminal then you know! And it will be all your fault!"

Or is it a highly sophisticated social commentary on our criminal-justice and social safety net/social compact where it is inherently "easier" to be incarcerated than to be "free" to struggle for a living with the rest of us? No?

To quote: "Dying is easy. Living is hard." This can be paraphrased to "Prison is easy. Freedom is hard" to suit this instance.

I hope that your son is actually doing his best to find his way in life. I hope that he is just considering all his options when he looked at other jobs and is realising that his current employer is NOT THAT BAD and while a little easy on the promises and tardy with following thru, is nevertheless giving him a decent job and a decent chance, and your son is appreciating his opportunity.

I hope that you are writing this letter on your own initiative out of concern for your son, and not at his instigation, and that you do so because you see his situation and feel more strongly about it than he does. I hope that when he finds out that you have written to the press, he will be horrified and mortified that you have made a big deal of the normal struggles of people trying to make a living regardless of whether they have a prison record or not. It would be a sign that his expectations are realistic and that is a good indicator that he will succeed.

I wish your son well, and you, I wish you peace of mind.]

Brain-death diagnosis based on stringent clinical criteria: MOH

Mar 26, 2013

THE Sunday Times reported on the case of Ms Suzanne Chin, who recovered from a coma ("Back from the dead: 'I have been blessed with a second chance'"; Sunday).

We are happy that Ms Chin has made a recovery. However, we are not able to comment on the case as we do not have access to specific information on her medical treatment in Hong Kong and what exactly was diagnosed and communicated to her family.

Brain death is diagnosed only when there is catastrophic brain injury. When brain death has occurred, blood flow and oxygen delivery to the brain ceases irreversibly and all brain functions are lost and will never return again.

Brain death is determined according to strict clinical criteria.

Once diagnosed, it is recognised both medically and legally in Singapore as death of the person.

This definition is similar to those used in countries such as Australia, Canada, Denmark, Britain and the United States.

[In other words, we don't know WTF standards HK uses.]

Brain death implies the irreversible cessation of consciousness, loss of capacity to breathe and other brain stem functions, and is accepted as the termination of a human's life; correspondingly, the diagnosis of brain death is very important.

The neurological criteria for diagnosing brain death in Singapore are based on current best medical evidence and knowledge, and are similar to those adopted by countries such as the US, Australia, and Britain.

In Singapore, all criteria have to be fully met for the diagnosis of brain death, including absence of pupillary response to light, absence of corneal reflex and absence of respiratory drive or spontaneous breathing, to cite a few; and when one or more of these tests cannot be done, additional tests to demonstrate the absence of brain circulation need to be performed.

In addition, two doctors are required to certify brain death, at least one of whom has to be independent and not involved in the care of the patient.

Doctors accredited to perform brain-death certification in our hospitals are specialists who have had appropriate training to certify brain death.

We would like to reassure the public of the highest standard of medical practice in our hospitals, and that correctly diagnosed brain death is not a reversible medical condition.
[So the fact that Ms Chin recovered from a "diagnosed" brain death would indicate that the diagnosis by the HK doctors were faulty.]

Kwek Tong Kiat (Clinical Associate Professor)
Senior Consultant,
Ministry of Health, Hospital Services Division
Head and Senior Consultant
Dept of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine
Tan Tock Seng Hospital

Lee Heow Yong (Dr)
Acting Director/Hospital Services Division, Health Services Group
Ministry of Health


[And this is the news article that prompted the doctors' reply:]


Mar 24, 2013

BACK FROM THE DEAD

'I have been blessed with a second chance'

Singapore lawyer declared brain dead wakes up amid calls to pull plug on her

By K.c. Vijayan


Lawyer Suzanne Chin is convinced that what happened to her four years ago is nothing short of a miracle.

The mother of two was living and working in Hong Kong when she suffered a heart attack, was hospitalised in a coma and declared brain dead.The head of the intensive care unit, two neurologists and a cardiologist told her husband to prepare for the worst. Soon, he was advised to take her off life support because, simply put, there was no hope.

Then, three days after she was admitted, she woke up from her coma. She recovered within a week and left the hospital. Today, she is living in Singapore, still working as a lawyer, still a wife and mum. She is well, and she is alive.Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon recalled her remarkable story in a speech earlier this month on euthanasia and assisted dying. When The Sunday Times contacted Ms Chin for her story, she agreed only to answer questions via e-mail....

[OK. First a politically incorrect joke about why a lawyer would be found to be brain dead... Never mind.

CJ Menon had raised this issue so that we can have a discussion about end of life issues, assisted death (or suicide) and euthanasia. Based on the online comments to Suzanne Chin's story (which were sharing of similar or related religious experiences) and comments to the letter from the doctors (Anti-HOTA), we don't seem to be ready to have a rational discussion.

Maybe we should just get back to that lawyer joke I wanted to tell... again, never mind.

My suspicion was that the HK doctors had screwed up, as the letter from the Singapore Doctors had implied. However, I searched for some information on this - hoping to see an official report from the HK doctors explaining this error or how to prevent this error. 

I found an updated guide on determining Brain Stem Death (BSD) from HK Society of Critical Care Medicine. Revised in Aug 2009. Just months after Suzanne Chin's miracle recovery from BSD. Possibly a response, though obliquely, to that incident.

I also found a post on facebook: 
https://www.facebook.com/RichardDawkinsFoundation/posts/10151516169355155

There was Suzanne's "testimony" as well as her brother, Dr Alan Chin who is a medical doctor. This was the second opinion from another neurologist, and Dr Chin's observation and narrative:

"We requested for a second opinion from a neurologist who examined her that afternoon.

Her pupils were fixed and dilated. Vestibulo-ocular reflex was negative. She had a negative gag and cough reflex. There was no pain reflex in response to deep pressure over sternum, fingers, and eyebrow. She was flaccid, a-reflexic and there was no plantar response. His diagnosis was also that of brain stem death.
That evening, Suzanne looked dead. She was cold and clammy; facial discoloration had set in, especially under her eyes. There was also a smell of death over her."

I would have preferred a more objective source, and maybe someone can find one. But if we take Dr Chin's testimony at face value, it would seem that the HK doctor did everything right, and Ms Chin was by all indications, brain dead, and this truly was an unexplainable miracle. 

BUT if we consider that Dr Chin might have some interests in promoting belief in miracles, his testimony may not be considered impartial.  Certainly, there is some validation of their belief if her condition were as bleak as he reported. Again, it would good to have an independent enquiry from HK medical authorities to provide a more unbiased report. Certainly if the HK neurologists had made a mistake, it would be in their interest to support a "miraculous explanation" as it would absolved them of any wrong-doing.

So in my mind, this is still unresolved.] 

HDB flat should not be for ride on the gravy train

HDB flat should not be for ride on the gravy train

TODAYonline

Voices

With home ownership crossing 90 per cent, it is difficult to understand why Singapore is building homes at a frenetic pace. Is there really a housing shortage?

From Michael Tan Hoe Heng -
25 Mar 2013

With home ownership crossing 90 per cent, it is difficult to understand why Singapore is building homes at a frenetic pace. Is there really a housing shortage?

The Housing and Development Board (HDB) sold 69,000 Build-to-Order flats from 2010 to last year. Where are these buyers sleeping while waiting for their flats? Do they all need a new flat?

There are 3.8 million citizens and permanent residents, with 82 per cent living in approximately 900,000 HDB flats — an average of 3.5 people per flat. What is a comfortable ratio before the HDB stops building more flats?

When prices are subsidised, there will be overconsumption.

A sign that we might have a misallocation problem, and not insufficient public housing, is that 43,500 whole flats had approval for subletting, not to mention there are flats being sublet without approval.

Why is the HDB wasting public money to build another 25,000 units this year? Why does one not permanently rent from these 43,500 owners instead of buying from the HDB?

The answer: One does not “get” money from the Government if one rents, and one cannot pay the rent using one’s Central Provident Fund.

When I started work, a colleague asked me why I was not queuing for a flat, along the lines of “the Government is giving you money; it’s stupid not to take it”.

I saw classmates applying for flats before they started work so they would not hit the income ceiling. An HDB flat was viewed as their first pot of gold.

We have been told of the perils of a welfare state: Once benefits are given out, they cannot be taken away. Subsidised HDB flats and various housing grants have become an entitlement programme, requiring substantial tax funding.

There is a temptation to appeal to voters by lowering flat prices. Young Singaporeans perceive that they are missing the gravy train of getting a flat that could sell for S$1 million but cost only a fraction.

While many who are applying for flats have genuine needs, how many young couples need a five-room flat? If we could filter out the investment demand, we would not waste resources building flats that owners are not interested in turning into a home.
Every country has limited resources. Should we spend more to build another flat, or use the same tax dollars to help an old lady who collects cardboard, or a child with special needs?

We complain that Singapore is a perpetual construction site, yet we are addicted to this asset enhancement. The HDB should continue to build homes for the poor, but should it aim to house 80 per cent of our citizens?

As the nation prospers, it is logical to expect that a smaller percentage, and not greater, needs subsidised public housing. I applaud the National Development Minister for reviewing the HDB’s role, which should not be to make people rich.

[It takes a brave man, a man of principles and conviction, to write this. It is rare to find a letter written so candidly.

Comments online:
Thumper Koh (edited)

Is it right for taxpayers who do not cash out by selling their flats to
subsidise the "profits" of sellers? At current prices, we are talking
about 100k (5 years holding period) to 400k (15 years holding period).

Sometimes it is not just about government earning but about being egalitarian.


If you look at the Case-Schiller index and rent-price ratios. The
prices should be 4 years of income based on 20% of wages to be spent on
rent and yearly rent at 5% of property price. Current prices are an
anomaly which frequently occurs in cyclical manner. They did not pluck
the 4 years out of thin air.

I believe that HDB prices are affected
too much by CPF. CPF is "free", people do not appreciate the difference
between 1% to 20% of their income on housing because anything less than
20% does not affect out-of-pocket money. Therefore pushing it close to
the 20% mark. Because you can achieve real cash profit from the
untouchable CPF.

Based on current median household income of
6,340. A HDB 4 room flat in non-mature estate should cost no more than
230k based on 30 year loan at 2.5% interest, CPF OA totally used for
housing. Those who over-leveraged with a lower interest bank loan should
be worried, the great quantitative easing (QE) will not last for
another 20 years, since we are already in the 5th year.

There is an interesting paper regarding housing affordability in Singapore before the current growth spurt.

http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/ecs/pub/wp-scape/0807.pdf

---


I agree the problem is CPF money. This is money that CANNOT be used for anything else EXCEPT to buy property. Hence, people think nothing of throwing everything in their CPF OA at housing... as investment...

Recently Khaw Boon Wan delinked BTO prices from resale prices, but when it was linked, there was a vicious circle.

Resale market pricess would be higher than BTO because those who are  ineligible for BTO or want to choose their location had to pay a premium over BTO. Then BTO were pegged to Resale prices, so as resale prices  went up, BTO prices increased. And buyers in the Resale market had to  bid higher premiums over BTO so resale prices went up. Pegging BTO
prices to Resale was the stupidest policy ever. Or smartest if the point was to raise BTO prices.

The delinking from Resale prices is a partial solution, because as long as Resale HDB buyers can freely use  their CPF to buy resale flats, reslae prices will continue to go up, and the discrepancy between BTO (which is now being arbitrarily or artificially held to 4 years income) and resale will widen. This is untenable, unnatural and will lead to a backlash.

The additional measure that MUST be included is to limit CPF funds to similar BTO prices in the area. So if a 3-rm BTO flat is going for $200k, resale flat buyers can only tap on their CPF for $200k. The rest must be cash or savings.

See this:
http://singapore2b.blogspot.sg/2013/03/how-to-contain-hdb-flat-prices.html

Don't forget aim of state-run kindergartens

Mar 23, 2013

THE main reason for setting up government-run kindergartens in the heartland is to ensure that children from disadvantaged families possess the necessary literacy and numeracy skills when they start primary education ("Parents fear rush for MOE kindergartens"; March 15).

It is therefore surprising for people to object to others sending their children to privately run kindergartens, and insist on nationalising pre-schools, claiming that this allows children to enter primary school on an equal footing ("Do more for pre-school sector, Govt urged"; March 6).

While we provide assistance to the disadvantaged groups, we should not deter those capable of taking care of themselves from being independent.

In fact, the home is the best kindergarten, and parents the best pre-school teachers. Wise parents do not send their children to expensive kindergartens; they send them to kindergartens nearby so that their children can learn socially acceptable behaviour in a conducive environment.

It amazes me to read that parents who can afford to drive their children from one class to another plan to register their children in the upcoming state-run kindergartens, because they think such kindergartens will have the best teaching methods.

If the number of applicants exceeds the number of places available and balloting ensues, won't some children from disadvantaged families be left out? Won't this defeat the purpose of having state-run kindergartens?

The misconception of the rationale for setting up these kindergartens is causing undesirable results. Shouldn't the aim be made clear to prevent further problems?

Yeo Boon Eng (Ms)

[This is a reasonable letter and I am not going to bash the points in the letter because it is a reasonable position.

I'm just including this letter because it gives ME a chance to present my "conspiracy theory".

Well, not exactly a "conspiracy".

Question: Before there were state-run kindergartens, where do low income and middle class parents send their pre-school kids?

Answer: PCF kindergarten. What is PCF? Poor Children's Fund?  No, it's the PAP Community Foundation.

For whatever reasons (i don't know, just speculating here), whether enrollment has fallen, difficulty in setting up PCF kindergartens in Aljunied, Hougang, and Punggol East, or PAP just deciding it has borne this burden long enough, the State will now provide what PCF had for over 40 years provided. ]

Peg flat subsidies to minimum occupation period

Mar 23, 2013

I AGREE with Mr David Goh ("HDB must return to its original aim"; Wednesday) that the Housing Board should increase the minimum occupation period (MOP) before a home owner is allowed to sell his flat.

The problem does not just lie with permanent residents buying our flats, but also Singaporeans who "flip" their properties.

Flat subsidies for citizens can be tiered depending on the MOP the buyer applies for.

For example, a buyer can get a $20,000 one-off subsidy if he opts for a five-year MOP, a $40,000 subsidy for a 10-year MOP, and an $80,000 subsidy for a 20-year MOP.

This will gauge whether someone wants to buy a flat for accommodation or as an investment.

Those who fail to satisfy the agreed MOP will have to sell the flat back to the HDB at the price it was bought.

This measure will not only help to control the number of citizens who are out to make a quick buck, but also make public housing more affordable for those who genuinely need a place to live in.

Owning an HDB flat must always remain a privilege that every Singaporean can enjoy, but not abuse.

Yeo Shuan Chee

[I don't want to bash these people who are just trying to get a place to call home. I understand their frustrations. But they don't seem to understand economics. Or have common sense. In part it is because whatever solution they come up with tend to be biased and short-sighted.

Their proposals tend to be short-sighted because they only want to solve THEIR problem, not the whole problem. Worse of all, THEIR solution doesn't even solve THEIR problem.

Increasing the MOP will mean fewer flats can be sold, so the supply of resale flats will shrink, and guess what? The resale prices will rise. HDB has recently de-linked their BTO flat prices from resale prices, but if they haven't, the BTO prices would also rise!

BUT since BTO prices have been de-linked from resale prices, then what is the issue with MOP and resale? Unless David Goh and Yeo Shuan Chee have both lived in their flats longer than whatever MOP they are proposing (10 years), and are trying to sell their flats at inflated prices, but are unable to inflate the price much higher because of the current levels of supply! If they can stop their neighbours from selling, their flats would be worth more!

And if they AREN'T current and long-time flat owners, they are solving a problem that does not exist (the high resale prices shows that there is insufficient supply, not too much), and which CANNOT help them to buy a BTO (HDB has already de-linked BTO from resale).

Singaporeans continue to prove to me that they are selfish, self-centred, self-absorbed, and can't see further than their noses when it comes to understanding their environment and circumstances. Oblivious - the defining characteristic of a Singaporean.]

Military service opened doors for him

Mar 21, 2013

"TELL me about your military experience."

I have been asked this question repeatedly at interviews for schools and work throughout the world. And I have learnt that the very best global institutions value my military skills, discipline and teamwork.

I started out poorly. After faring badly in junior college and being rejected by local universities, I enlisted for national service and, after my basic military training, decided to sign on with the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). I hoped to use my military service to bolster my applications for overseas universities.

The skills and experience that I gained in the SAF helped me break through seemingly impossible odds.

Are 'shrinking' HDB flats really affordable?

Mar 20, 2013

AS A parent of three, I have been following the Population White Paper debate and the recent budget announcements with concern.

The Government says it will build infrastructure well ahead of demand ("Major shift in planning strategy: Khaw"; Feb 7). We are assured that HDB flats will always remain "affordable". But these assurances are not convincing.

[In other words, "we don't believe you." Oh to be clear, if you read the rest of the letter, she doesn't believe the "affordable" part. Not the "build ahead of demand" part. Not sure why she put that in.]

It's only fair to make COEs affordable for all car buyers

Mar 07, 2013

[COE and Car Ownership policies brings out the crazies. Some are more silly than others. Most tend to get one basic thing wrong: they think car ownership is a right. Or more specifically, they think affordable or even cheap car ownership is a right.]

I DISAGREE with Mr Trent Ng ("COEs based on need: Let's not get on that slippery slope"; last Thursday) that the Government does not have an obligation to make certificates of entitlement (COEs) affordable to citizens.

His notion that "cars are a luxury good and not an entitlement" does not seem to take into account that the definitions of luxury versus necessity, or want versus need, are nebulous.

For example, the public accepts the need to ballot for primary school places and for HDB flat ownership. It is claimed that education and homes are necessities, but how far is that true?

There are enough school places for every child in Singapore. Therefore, having the convenience of going to a school of one's choice should be considered a luxury and not a necessity.

As for HDB flats, young couples already have a home in the sense that they can stay with their parents. To own a home for themselves, or even to upgrade to a better one, should also be considered a luxury.

[See what I mean about crazy? You have to be quite detached from reality to argue that your right to own a car supersedes a young couples need to have their own home. Or that wanting your own home for your spouse and children is just so much fancy luxury.]

The COE system is an artificially created system to regulate congestion on the road.

There should be equal opportunities for rich and poor buyers alike to own a COE, since cars owned by both groups contribute equally to congestion. Hence, balloting is the way to go.

I fully acknowledge that it is not the Government's responsibility to make the basic cost of car ownership affordable; however, it has a responsibility to make its policies fair for every potential car buyer.

Abel Tan

Comment online:
The crux of the letter above is simply this: "There should be equal opportunities for rich and poor buyers alike to own a COE".

What's your definition of "opportunity"?

Is this a true statement: Everybody, rich and poor, has the opportunity to bid for a COE, but only the rich who can afford to bid more, is likely to actually get a COE?

If the above is true, then everyone has an *opportunity*. And the letter writer has no point.

If you deem the above untrue, and that opportunity must equal actualisation of the goal, then balloting, as suggested by the letter writer is also not the way to go. If 20 people ballot for every COE available, then only the Lucky will get a COE. So 19 people will NOT have the opportunity to own a COE.

And since now COE is neither granted based on need or ability to pay, but purely by Luck, then EVERYONE will try their luck. And every COE will have THOUSANDS of people balloting for it. So for every one that gets a COE, there will be thousands who did not get the opportunity.

Unless, you charge a balloting fee, to weed out the free-riders.

There is already such a ballot. It is called Toto and 4D. Go buy a ticket. If you win, you can afford COE. If you bet enough.

Update: Response by abeltan.09 [Some time on 8 Mar 2013]

your oppotunity definition is irrelevant.
What kind of logic is this? Thats like saying everyone from the pauper in Africa to Bill Gates has the oppotunity to own a PRIVATE JET.but because the rich can afford it, they can get a PRIVATE JET.
If you cant afford something, your oppotunity will be ZERO PERCENT.
I have already abandoned COE balloting in favor of bid as proportion of ANNUAL income. The highest bid of income will get the car. For example, a middle income can bid100% of annual income and get a COE for $50,000, while a millionaire can bid 100% of his income , and pay $ 1 million dollars.
I submtted this a day later than this argument, but ST wont publish it.
This will ensure that affordability is not a concern when it comes to COE. You bid as much of your income as you need to have a car. If you need it more, you bid higher.

Reply to abeltan.09

(some time on the 9 Mar)

I don't usually like to do a point by point rebuttal, because it is very time consuming. But when every sentence you write is screamingly unreasonable, I will respond.

abeltan.09: "your oppotunity definition is irrelevant."

>>>     So, what is your “correct” and “relevant” definition? You claim to be a scientist by trade. I am rather disappointed that your writings reflect neither the discipline nor the precision of a scientific mind.

abeltan.09: "What kind of logic is this? Thats like saying everyone from the pauper in Africa to Bill Gates has the oppotunity to own a PRIVATE JET.but because the rich can afford it, they can get a PRIVATE JET.If you cant afford something, your oppotunity will be ZERO PERCENT."

>>>  This is what I mean by lack of discipline and imprecision. A private jet has a specific price. What is the specific price of a COE? If the price of a jet is $2m, you need $2m. The price of a COE had previously fallen to $2 (Nov 2008). You telling me you can't afford $2? Everyone who bid for COE in that category in Nov 2008 got a COE. My point is not that COE will be $2 again. But that there is a chance which is NOT zero percent (as you brazenly claim with no reference to facts or precedent) that bidders can get a COE.

abeltan.09:"I have already abandoned COE balloting in favor of bid as proportion of ANNUAL income. The highest bid of income will get the car. For example, a middle income can bid100% of annual income and get a COE for $50,000, while a millionaire can bid 100% of his income , and pay $ 1 million dollars."

>>>        And of course our lives revolve around your thought processes - impressive as it is. So this means that you are not a man of your word? You say one mindless thing today. Change your mind next week. And your ill-informed utterances of a week ago becomes irrelevant? You abandon and disown your words like an unwanted baby? This says less about your integrity, and more about the amount of thought and consideration you give to your words. Like I said, your writings reflect neither discipline nor precision one expects from a scientist.  Or for that matter, a reasonably intelligent, consistent, and logical person. One would expect a scientist to be more circumspect in arriving at conclusions. To weigh their words more carefully.

abeltan.09: "I submtted this a day later than this argument, but ST wont publish it."

>>>    They probably regretted publishing your first letter. Or not. Based on the number of comments here, they are probably patting themselves on their backs for picking a good troll. So by your own admission, you abandoned your ballot idea one day later. Your ideas change day by day, eh?

        
abeltan.09: "This will ensure that affordability is not a concern when it comes to COE. You bid as much of your income as you need to have a car. If you need it more, you bid higher"

>>>     In any case I had addressed your “proportional income bid” system where COE applicants bid based on a percentage of their annual income. Frankly, I do not know how you come up with these ideas. The only people who stand to gain are those with NO income:

“Wow. So smart. I got a grandfather and a retired uncle. I will get them to bid 7 million percent of their income. Sure get COE one!
BTW, what is 7 million percent of zero hah? My grandfather and uncle not working. But I will pay them back when they get the COE, and give them a bit of kopi money for their trouble.
You also got retired uncle or grandfather with no income right?”

>>>     And... let me guess:  you will now change or adjust your “proportional income bid” system to address this HUMONGOUS loophole in your proposal and tell everyone you have already abandoned your ill-thought-out first draft and can we all just give you a break and listen to your latest (half-baked) idea?

>>> Why don't you take a break, think thru your ideas, and test them out on some people, preferably someone smarter than you. If you are truly a scientist by trade, I expect some of your colleagues should be pretty smart. As for you, well, there is the Bell Curve and -2 SD from the mean is still considered normal.

Don't leave out singles when making policies

Mar 05, 2013


BEING a single Singaporean, I am discriminated against by policies time and again.

Cost of living is big concern

Mar 01, 2013

THE recent debate over the Population White Paper has missed the point.

[And, I picked this letter because the writer has missed the whole picture. Not just a point.]