goh meng seng, good or bad?
-
after witnessing so many posts by your dear "opposition-all-the-way" forumite, i decided to create this sorta poll. no offense to you GMS...its just to see what is everyone's opinion.
OK here it goes:
Should GMS:
1)RUN FOR PARLIAMENT?
2)BE OUR PM?
3)JUST TAKE HIS WHACKEY IDEAS ABOUT REFORM SOMEWHERE ELSE BECAUSE IT JUST DOSEN'T WORK/ALL TALK NO ACTION. -
Dear vito_corleone,
Please leave option 2 out. I would be very happy if there are good people to take the PM job, I am least interested in that.
IN fact, if there are more people who I feel is far better than I am to build a better, balanced political system in Singapore, I am most willing to lay back again, be my own armchair critic like most of the people here again! That makes life alot easier than now.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by vito_corleone:after witnessing so many posts by your dear "opposition-all-the-way" forumite, i decided to create this sorta poll. no offense to you GMS...its just to see what is everyone's opinion.
OK here it goes:
Should GMS:
1)RUN FOR PARLIAMENT?
2)BE OUR PM?
3)JUST TAKE HIS WHACKEY IDEAS ABOUT REFORM SOMEWHERE ELSE BECAUSE IT JUST DOSEN'T WORK/ALL TALK NO ACTION. -
I would even suggest that some of the PAP members cross over to the opposition like Dr. Toh Chin Chye, Dr. Tan Chin Bock and Tan Soo Khoon for the sake of ensuring a more vibrant Singapore where people are mature and can see the disadvantages of maintaining a dominent one-party rule.
Any persons who have possessed the basic knowledge of people's aspirations and needs and will identify himself as being willing and capable of serving the people without fear or favor like GMS should be welcome by all right thinking Singaporeans in the larger long term interest of the nation. I am sure many forumites will support him.
By making this recommendation, I am not necessarily anti-PAP or anti-government. I consider that I am pro-Singapore and any government in their right perspective should encourage people to be pro-Singapore rather than pro-party.
I hope all Singaporeans will grow in political maturity in due course instead of being divided along party line alone. They must have a stronger desire to uphold Singapore than any sectional interest. Otherwise they may one day regret the consequences of their narrow views and actions.
-
i vote for no.1 ? cos i don't think he can be pm yet, and the 3rd's stupid
-
He will have to be subjected to more questioning on his position on various matter and his plans before it can decided if he is indeed good enough.Originally posted by vito_corleone:after witnessing so many posts by your dear "opposition-all-the-way" forumite, i decided to create this sorta poll. no offense to you GMS...its just to see what is everyone's opinion.
OK here it goes:
Should GMS:
1)RUN FOR PARLIAMENT?
2)BE OUR PM?
3)JUST TAKE HIS WHACKEY IDEAS ABOUT REFORM SOMEWHERE ELSE BECAUSE IT JUST DOSEN'T WORK/ALL TALK NO ACTION.
Here is a few issues for a start:
1) Tax issue and balancing of Government budget. Alright we all know many of us hate the 5% GST, but I like to point out the government is in budget deficit last two years. So, does he support or is against it? And if against, what is his long term plan to balance the budget? And what will the impact be on various area if his plans are carried out?
2) HDB issue. Is the HDB overpriced? Additional information here. HDB is running at a budget deficit if you have look at it's annual report. It is taking grant from the government every year. So, what are the plans?
3) Property Price. He state his stand on this before. But I like to hear it again. Up or Down? Why? And how does he proposed that government should intervene. Note that government should only influence, not control.
4) COE, Car Taxes and Road congestion? Ideas and plans. Reasoning for plans.
Just a few issues for a start. -
Dear Qitai,
I have written a lengthy reply but somehow, it got lost when I tried to post it. This is pretty frustrating.
Before answering your questions, I think you need to understand the situation first. Sarek has provided some info on HDB. It is a matter of "accounting principles" in which HDB has "deficits"; it is about land pricing, basically. I have long pull punches on this "market subsidies" concept back in the 90s. The money just go round the govt stats board.
For the tax issue which is primary a question on fiscal policy, it is pretty complex. It is again, a matter of accounting principles that make the govt looks like having "deficits". From the concept of GDP, we know the govt constitute about 60% of the business entity. The wage to GDP ratio is about 44%, meaning the rest are income or revenues to govt sector and private enterprises. It is thus, easy to conclude that about 30% of GDP goes to the govt. GDP is $160billion, budget is about $30billion in 2003. Thus, the budget is only about 20% of the GDP. It would then mean that about 10% is "net gain" for the govt.
The reason why you see "deficits" in budget is due to the fact that the govt's accounting principles applies differently. It separates the money or revenue generated by GIC or Temasek from the budget. Only a small percentage of it goes into the budget. Thus, the "budget" does not really give a good overall picture of the health of the govt's financial standing.
The clue is further revealed when Temasek says it generated $7 back in 2003. If this is taken into budget consideration, then we should not be having "deficits" already!
The crux of the matter boils down to the obsession of the govt in putting everything into the reserves. It seems that there is no end in building up the reserves. I think I have already touched on this; the govt should determine the "optimum" level of reserves we need and then, provide growth which would cover world inflation subsequently. The rest of the money should be used on the nation, to more healthcare subsidies or even social welfare. We cannot just sit down here and say, oh there would be a persistent 4% unemployment but do nothing to help them.
As for "balance" budget, this is a "myth" of good governance. As a person trained in economics, I don't believe in it at all.
For example, the primary aims of fiscal policies are 1) maintaining the basic infrastructure of the society (social welfare, defence included), 2) influencing the economy via govt spending.
No. 1 is the primary objective. No. 2 is the "side effects". A govt should spend more during economic downturn, refrain from overheating the economy by spending less when the economy is booming. This will inevitably result in deficits during eoconomic downturn, surpluses during eoconomic booms.
We will look at GST now, after understanding the background information on the budget. The are two questions to be answered. 1) the effects of GST on income distribution 2) the necessity of GST. Almost all govts around the world love value added tax (GST). IT is efficient tax (i.e. you cannot run away from it if you are consuming in the system) and it is broadbase.
However, it is also regressive or unequal in effective tax terms. Those who are poor or of lower income, will tend to consume more thus, effective tax rate is 5%. Those who are rich or mobile, could save or consume other places; their effective tax rate is lower. And when tax rate on those who are paying tax is cut while applying GST, the effects will be more adverse to income distribution.
Of course, a similar percentage cut in income tax and increase in GST will definitely have a higher net gain in tax revenue due to the broadbase nature. What the govt is saying that it has not net gain effect is untrue; because this is only taking into consideration of the tax rebates to those who are already paying income tax (this will further aggreviate income distributions); not to those who are not paying tax. The base is very different. And when there isn't any rebates or accompanying packages, the GST increase will definitely result in a net gain in tax revenue.
However, GST helps the govt to tax on the "underground economy"; economic activities that are not reported to IRAS (like illegal gamblings, black market...etc). In view of this, I would support a minimum GST rate, would not support any further increase.
There is no necessity to, as I have shown that the govt has enough revenue to cover the "deficits". These "deficits" may just be a temporary phenomenon. Would the govt reduce GST when it has surpluses? I am afraid it would not!
Thus, in short, it is a matter of strategic management objectives that determines the direction of the govt fiscal policies. Finland has a similar big public sector, contributing about 60% of the economy. However, it provides a restructured social welfare as it is not obsess with blowing up the reserve bubble. It is "balanced" in such a sense and yet, it has balanced the need of financial prudence and its social objectives. We should seriously look at the objectives of our finanical management; an optimum level of reserves must be determined, thereafter, provide stready growth according to world inflation, then the rest of the money, be used on our citizens.
I will stop here...too tired to continue.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by Qitai:He will have to be subjected to more questioning on his position on various matter and his plans before it can decided if he is indeed good enough.
Here is a few issues for a start:
1) Tax issue and balancing of Government budget. Alright we all know many of us hate the 5% GST, but I like to point out the government is in budget deficit last two years. So, does he support or is against it? And if against, what is his long term plan to balance the budget? And what will the impact be on various area if his plans are carried out?
2) HDB issue. Is the HDB overpriced? Additional information here. HDB is running at a budget deficit if you have look at it's annual report. It is taking grant from the government every year. So, what are the plans?
3) Property Price. He state his stand on this before. But I like to hear it again. Up or Down? Why? And how does he proposed that government should intervene. Note that government should only influence, not control.
4) COE, Car Taxes and Road congestion? Ideas and plans. Reasoning for plans.
Just a few issues for a start. -
I will reply with my views and further questions in parts since I think this is easier to read this way. Also, I had the same frustration before too about losing my reply, so this will reduce that frustration.Originally posted by goh meng seng:I have written a lengthy reply but somehow, it got lost when I tried to post it. This is pretty frustrating.
Before answering your questions, I think you need to understand the situation first. Sarek has provided some info on HDB. It is a matter of "accounting principles" in which HDB has "deficits"; it is about land pricing, basically. I have long pull punches on this "market subsidies" concept back in the 90s. The money just go round the govt stats board.
On the Issue of HDB, I like to hear your reply since this thread is about you. I am suspicious about the account of HDB as well but perhaps one who is trained in economic like you can point out where there is problem better. I like to hear where exactly the accounting principles is wrong in this case if you care to elaborate. -
Hmm... the calculation seems too rough to me. Concluding there is 10% net gain for the govt. seems too far stretch for me. There must be certainly other cost like raw materials, contractors, energy, fuel etc just to name a few. I think that calculation is very misleading. So, I will only take this point as a pinch of salt.Originally posted by goh meng seng:For the tax issue which is primary a question on fiscal policy, it is pretty complex. It is again, a matter of accounting principles that make the govt looks like having "deficits". From the concept of GDP, we know the govt constitute about 60% of the business entity. The wage to GDP ratio is about 44%, meaning the rest are income or revenues to govt sector and private enterprises. It is thus, easy to conclude that about 30% of GDP goes to the govt. GDP is $160billion, budget is about $30billion in 2003. Thus, the budget is only about 20% of the GDP. It would then mean that about 10% is "net gain" for the govt.
The reason why you see "deficits" in budget is due to the fact that the govt's accounting principles applies differently. It separates the money or revenue generated by GIC or Temasek from the budget. Only a small percentage of it goes into the budget. Thus, the "budget" does not really give a good overall picture of the health of the govt's financial standing.
The clue is further revealed when Temasek says it generated $7 back in 2003. If this is taken into budget consideration, then we should not be having "deficits" already!
As for the accounting principle, are you suggesting it should be changed? I had the impression that it is a standard accounting principle across industries worldwide that you do not lump accounts of seperate entities together.
Anyway, do you have information on the flow of cash between government(MOF), Temasek holding and GIC? What entities are there beside these three which maybe holding Singapore's $$. Do you know if there is any source of information that provide this higher overview.
So, can I say that it is your view that those accounts should be taken in totality to determine if there is surplues or deficit in a financial year? -
So, can I also conclude you support the 5%GST then (putting the timing aside, which is really terrible)?Originally posted by goh meng seng:However, GST helps the govt to tax on the "underground economy"; economic activities that are not reported to IRAS (like illegal gamblings, black market...etc). In view of this, I would support a minimum GST rate, would not support any further increase.
There is no necessity to, as I have shown that the govt has enough revenue to cover the "deficits". These "deficits" may just be a temporary phenomenon. Would the govt reduce GST when it has surpluses? I am afraid it would not!
Also, further question is what if the deficit is not temperory? What would you do? -
Dear Qitai,
Yes, I do think the 5% GST is ok from a personal point of view. But it should be capped at that level.
You didn't get my message clear. The deficits, with prudence, SHOULD NOT BE permanent. When the economy recovers, there should not be a deficit but instead a surplus.
Furthermore, I have said that the overall financial position of the govt is healthy, there isn't a need to fear simply because of earnings of our reserves. IN fact, in my opinion, the govt should release the earnings from GIC and Temasek or any instituitions that are managing our reserves, to provide more for Singaporeans. I estimated our reserves to stand at least at $300billion. This estimation is quite close to the assets Temasek ($180+ Billions) and GIC ($100Billions) holds. In fact, a 10% earning would already mean $30billion which is the sum of our govt budget! But as PAP govt has said, it expects 5% return, then it is close to about $15billion. We need to balance the needs of social objectives as well as financial objectives. That's what I am saying.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by Qitai:So, can I also conclude you support the 5%GST then (putting the timing aside, which is really terrible)?
Also, further question is what if the deficit is not temperory? What would you do? -
Dear Qitai,
As for the HDB question, I will put it shortly, it all lies in the pricing of land. Through the Land Acquisition Act, the govt acquires land at very nominal prices, way below market prices. This is important for any govt all over the world, in terms of redistribution of wealth via land reform. However, when the govt uses it to build public housing, it sells it back at "market prices"; thus, from accounting aspect, it makes money from there. When HDB sells the flat to you, it sells below the price of the "cost", construction price plus land pricing determined by the govt. Thus, the govt, in the end, give HDB back a portion of the money earned from the land sales to HDB initially, as "subsidies".
This could be seen from the HDB financial report; under capital expenditures, a bulk of it comes from land purchase.
Interesting enough, from another perspective, the govt earns interests from HDB, about $1 to $2 billion plus. The amount of "grants" they give back is about $850million. So, how could the govt be "losing money"?
Only HDB "lose" money, not the govt.
Well, is this "creative accounting" in breaking down segments, it is up for you to judge.
Goh Meng Seng -
Dear Qitai,
I think you are quite similar to Paperchicken, likes to to give "questions and answers" type of format. Neverthless, I have completed two of your questions. The third one, already said but nevermind, I will put a slightly different perspective to it. Here are your questions"
3) Property Price. He state his stand on this before. But I like to hear it again. Up or Down? Why? And how does he proposed that government should intervene. Note that government should only influence, not control.
4) COE, Car Taxes and Road congestion? Ideas and plans. Reasoning for plans.
For question 3, whether we like it or not, the govt is the largest land lord and property owner via its GLCs in Singapore. Such monopoly powers are pretty rare in other countries but it is just a simple fact. Even the pricing of your HDB, govt has a hand in it via the rules and regulations set on the valuation structure, process and price bands.
The ill effects of past govt policy mismanagement via the "Asset Enhancement Scheme" has limited our options as a Nation. We are basically stuck with the negative asset situation for the time to come. You may argue about only those who speculate in the property market are caught; that's not true at all. Some people have to buy flats to live in and are subjected to the property bubble at that time. And the fact that HDB prices are "pegged" with the high prices at that time, on the pretext of "market subsidies", have paid higher prices back then. But it is interesting to note that nobody seems to be interested in how this "market subsidies" varies from before and after the crash of 1997. This "market subsidies" seems to have "shrunk" in size!
Anyway, property prices are sticky downwards, especially in Singapore when a small group of players have monopoly power over them. HDB controls the prices it sells its flats. Those GLCs in development condos control the prices. But since 1997, prices are still low, speak volumes of the sentiments or well being of the market; times are really bad when even those with monopoly powers could not prevent a heavy slide in prices.
Rental for business will definitely be affected, either direction. The opportunity cost concept applied in land distributions have affected the cost of industrial/commercial land, thus rental. It is not a practice in Singapore for landlords to "bite the bullets" and accept lower rental return; unlike Hong Kong, property prices are more volatile in accordance to economic situations.
In my opinion, the govt should curb the powers of those big boys in price setting. Singapore's property market is very small in relative terms. And sometimes, when I read the ways they set their CPF policy, I still wonder their rational behind such formulations.
There are obviously overconsumption of housing in Singapore with the public housing provided by HDB. It may sound strange to Singaporeans that one could blame HDB for such over consumption but the fact is that prices of HDB flats have risen alot in comparison from the 70s and 80s. Too much savings and monies are being absorbed into the housing sector and this is not healthy for an economy. We could still put a roof over everybody without resulting in too much savings being trapped in the property sector.
Thus, instead of asking me about what's my stand of the property prices, up or down, you should ask me about the management of such overconsumption. HDB definites have avenues to lower its pricing, as I have pointed out in my earlier post that in effect, the govt is not loosing money at all. It would mean a painful reversal of the "Asset enhancement scheme" that would affect alot of people of my generation.
The compromised position from such painful reversal is to freeze the prices of HDB flats, make it sticky upwards at present prices for X number of years.
For question number 4, this is a complex problem, not as simple as put up pricing mechanism and we would be happy about it kind of things.
PAP govt is using conventional economic theories in its implementation of BOTH the COE and ERP. COE is the "entry fee" concpet, while "ERP" is differential pricing. These concepts are used for maximizing profits for private companies, for example, of running a carnival fair.
The aim of the govt is not about "profit maximization" but instead, achieving social goals and objectives. this question involves alot of complex views but I will just put up simple propositions.
1) I think I am one of the earliest critic of the present bidding system; I reasoned that such bidding system is both inefficient and ineffective, but only serves to maximize "monopoly profits" received by the govt. A most efficient way to curb the "monopoly" power of the govt is to have the closed bidding system, pay as you bid but at the same time, creaming away the top 1% or 0.5% high bidders. I am not going to elaborate how this will work as an efficient system of bidding as it involves quite a bit of complex economic cum psychology views.
2) The system of ERP is NOT efficient at all, when demand of usage overwhelmed supply. The only way of "effective" pricing is to open up some routes that are totally FREE for cars to go into the city area, while remaining highways are kept at the pricing state. The primary aim of the pricing mechanism is NOT to maximize monopoly profits of the road supplier, govt, but to efficiently and effectively differentiate between "productive users" and "less productive" users. This concept involves alot of economic theories, I shall not elaborate furthermore.
3) If road tax is deemed as ineffective as comparedto COE bidding, why keep it?
4) There are other ways of solving the congestion problems in the long term which I have advocated in scs before. But this will affect alot of "big boys" in the commercial property market as well as public transport providers. There are two spectrums in the problem, mainly a relatively inefficient public transport system, and the redistribution of the overly concentrated economic/finance activities in the CBD areas.
5) A total liberalization of the public transport system is needed to solve these problems. They have implemented part of my earlier suggestions, to provide special "express" bus services from middle class clusters of residential areas to CBD. But they only provide it during peak hours, which is not what I intended to have. A better understanding of the benefits of a liberalized public transport system is to make good study of Hong Kong's public transport system. I shall not elaborate further.
6) To reduce the demands of road and thus, reducing the congestions in major roads to CBD will require us to use both social transformation as well as information technology. This sound strange right? Well, it is important for us to reduce the demand of having to do everything physically at govt offices. And even so, shift these fovt offices out of the CBD areas! REdistribute them to sub centres like Tampines, Toa Payoh, Ang Mo Kio, Woodlands etc. This will reduce the "peak demand" at the "peak hours". Financial centres should be shifted out of the CBD areas. IN Hong Kong, different district will have their own district and high courts, unlike in Singapore, it concentrates in the CBD. A decentralization program would be needed, with the supplement of Information Technologies in networking them together. I shall not elaborate further. Initially, I thought the govt is going to take up my suggestions made here when it starts to build alternative financial centres in Tampines. But alas, I think there are great resistance to such changes due to enormous vested interests of those property owners in CBD areas, I guess.
Anyway, I hope my answers are sufficient enough, though not in details. If your distrust of me is of personal bias, then I say, I don't think I could change it by giving such answers.
Goh Meng Seng -
I think he's GOOD. At least he know his 'homework'.
At least 'QUESTIONING' makes a START.
I'm not sure of his intention with all those topics though, but least I won't comment on them for now.
Hmm...
-
GMS, I appreciate you spending efforts to type such long replies to my questions. But before I give you my comments on your answers. Let me just tell you some additional reasons I do not trust you.Originally posted by goh meng seng:1) I think I am one of the earliest critic of the present bidding system; I reasoned that such bidding system is both inefficient and ineffective, but only serves to maximize "monopoly profits" received by the govt.
They have implemented part of my earlier suggestions, to provide special "express" bus services from middle class clusters of residential areas to CBD. But they only provide it during peak hours, which is not what I intended to have. A better understanding of the benefits of a liberalized public transport system is to make good study of Hong Kong's public transport system. I shall not elaborate further.
Initially, I thought the govt is going to take up my suggestions made here when it starts to build alternative financial centres in Tampines. But alas, I think there are great resistance to such changes due to enormous vested interests of those property owners in CBD areas, I guess.
Anyway, I hope my answers are sufficient enough, though not in details. If your distrust of me is of personal bias, then I say, I don't think I could change it by giving such answers.
Goh Meng Seng
The above quotes are example of your bragging how the government are stealing your ideas. Now, I certainly do not know the truth of your claim. Those are past events and everyone can say after the fact how they see all these coming. Additionally, a lot of those ideas are easily thought out by many people. By claiming they are stealing your idea, it sounds as if you are the only one who can and has think of these ideas. I certainly do not think these are so difficult to think ideas. On this point, if you want, you can consider it as my personal dislike on someone who likes to brag so much. The only way to make me dislike you less is to cut down on these bragging. This does not mean you can't point out faults in the government past policies though.
Additionally, your replies, though long, contains a lot of "addition needless" comments obviously aimed at bashing the government. I would appreciate if you can cut down on these unnecessary comments. One example is the ridiculous 10% GDP net gain projection I highlighted earlier in this thread. This is also another reason for my distrust of you.
Having said that, I will now ignore parts of your replies which I consider irrelvant and will confirm my understanding and further questions based on your replies. Now, back to the main topic. -
GMS,
i c no point for you in answering these questions..unless u r stupid.
i think u shd spent more time in groundwork than coming here to post ur theories ..unless u r lazy
Go n help the ppl at the ground more, rather than debate on wat PAP should do or what u can do..unless u r like the rest (NATO).
SnowFlag -
Have you considered the fact that Temsek's $180+ Billion is more or less locked into it's individual investment like SIA, ST, Singtel etc. etc. These assests in the form of shares can only be release in two methods - declaration of dividends by individual company or through the sales of shares. So, it may be restricted by market constraint.Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear Qitai,
Yes, I do think the 5% GST is ok from a personal point of view. But it should be capped at that level.
You didn't get my message clear. The deficits, with prudence, SHOULD NOT BE permanent. When the economy recovers, there should not be a deficit but instead a surplus.
Furthermore, I have said that the overall financial position of the govt is healthy, there isn't a need to fear simply because of earnings of our reserves. IN fact, in my opinion, the govt should release the earnings from GIC and Temasek or any instituitions that are managing our reserves, to provide more for Singaporeans. I estimated our reserves to stand at least at $300billion. This estimation is quite close to the assets Temasek ($180+ Billions) and GIC ($100Billions) holds. In fact, a 10% earning would already mean $30billion which is the sum of our govt budget! But as PAP govt has said, it expects 5% return, then it is close to about $15billion. We need to balance the needs of social objectives as well as financial objectives. That's what I am saying.
Goh Meng Seng
Additionally, those projection seems to project none-growing companies. Is that the vision that you have? SIA, Singtel, MRT etc are already at optimal size and not grow, but just churn out revenue to Temasek every year? What the wages for people working in these companies who are mostly Singaporeans? Do you expect them to have a constant salary under this environment?
Also, do you think 10% earning is realistic? This is especially given that Temasek holding has less than 10% earning over the last 10, 5, 3 or 2 years. Can we safely assume 10% is a good figure? What about the earning of GIC? Is it already at 10% or much less? -
he is analytical and is able to think from 'outside' the 'box'. dats all i realised.
-
I had the same suspicion on this. Do you know if there is any way to figure out where those borrwing comes from? And what interest is HDB being charged at for this? The account includes a lot of interest earned by HDB as well as a lot of interest paid by HDB which tends to cloud the whole report.Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear Qitai,
As for the HDB question, I will put it shortly, it all lies in the pricing of land. Through the Land Acquisition Act, the govt acquires land at very nominal prices, way below market prices. This is important for any govt all over the world, in terms of redistribution of wealth via land reform. However, when the govt uses it to build public housing, it sells it back at "market prices"; thus, from accounting aspect, it makes money from there. When HDB sells the flat to you, it sells below the price of the "cost", construction price plus land pricing determined by the govt. Thus, the govt, in the end, give HDB back a portion of the money earned from the land sales to HDB initially, as "subsidies".
This could be seen from the HDB financial report; under capital expenditures, a bulk of it comes from land purchase.
Interesting enough, from another perspective, the govt earns interests from HDB, about $1 to $2 billion plus. The amount of "grants" they give back is about $850million. So, how could the govt be "losing money"?
Only HDB "lose" money, not the govt.
Well, is this "creative accounting" in breaking down segments, it is up for you to judge.
Goh Meng Seng -
So, can I confirm that your stand now has change from the previous property price too low to the current stand that it should remain as it is?Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear Qitai,
Thus, instead of asking me about what's my stand of the property prices, up or down, you should ask me about the management of such overconsumption. HDB definites have avenues to lower its pricing, as I have pointed out in my earlier post that in effect, the govt is not loosing money at all. It would mean a painful reversal of the "Asset enhancement scheme" that would affect alot of people of my generation.
The compromised position from such painful reversal is to freeze the prices of HDB flats, make it sticky upwards at present prices for X number of years.
Goh Meng Seng
But yet, can this be actually done? HDB can of course fixed the price of new flats. But as it is, they are not even releasing much new flats now. So, the impact of them fixing the price may not have much impact on the bigger picture of the whole property market in Singapore especially condos and landed-property.
Or are you suggesting a total freeze even including re-sale flats? And how are you going to determine the current value of all flats? Note that flats in different area are valued differently, different floors, different neighbours, different views etc.. this essentially means each flat has a different value even if valued now.
If not, how else are you going to have this effect of freezing the property price that you mentioned? -
Dear SnowFlag,
I understand your point here. I am stuck in Hong Kong right now, for some reasons. I am making it a commitment of flying back once a month just to do the ground work. For the rest of the time, I think it would be good for me to participate in forums like this, to let the public, especially the middle ground people, understand the work of alternative parties like Workers' Party.
I also understand that there are obstacles in convincing everybody, but at the very least, I have tried my best within a certain constraints exercised. I view this as another form of "ground work" in the IT era. Politics is about reaching out to people and convincing people of your party's directions and visions are beneficial to the country.
And I have to say it again, voters, especially the middle ground moderates, SHOULD NOT compare us to the WHOLE CIVIL SERVICE. i.e. Expectations on alternative parties must be managed to a reasonable level. We do not have the fundings and all those public instituitions to work for us. People should differentiate between govt and political party. Most of the time, PAP uses concepts or results of the researches from instituitions like Institute of Policy Studies, EDB, TDB, DOS and other ministry's research arms to fulfill their political role. We do not have such capacity and in fact, shouldn't be expected to have such functions. Thus, it is an unfair comparisons made, when people keep asking us for "statistics" and conduct "surveys" as if the process of collection of vital statistics and conducting surveys are FOC!
Rest be assured that I do my part on my ground work when I am back in town. We must not miss the mission while executing the plans. Groundwork is important in reaching out to people; communication is equally important to win votes. To win votes from party supporters or sympathizers are relatively easy, basically strengthening the ground work would do. But to reach out and win the more skeptical people from the middle ground over, we need to do more than ground work. Communication like the participations through this forum, is important. We just work on different platforms for different target audience.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by SnowFlag:GMS,
i c no point for you in answering these questions..unless u r stupid.
i think u shd spent more time in groundwork than coming here to post ur theories ..unless u r lazy
Go n help the ppl at the ground more, rather than debate on wat PAP should do or what u can do..unless u r like the rest (NATO).
SnowFlag -
So, can I then summarizes your points asOriginally posted by goh meng seng:For question number 4, this is a complex problem, not as simple as put up pricing mechanism and we would be happy about it kind of things.
PAP govt is using conventional economic theories in its implementation of BOTH the COE and ERP. COE is the "entry fee" concpet, while "ERP" is differential pricing. These concepts are used for maximizing profits for private companies, for example, of running a carnival fair.
The aim of the govt is not about "profit maximization" but instead, achieving social goals and objectives. this question involves alot of complex views but I will just put up simple propositions.
1) I think I am one of the earliest critic of the present bidding system; I reasoned that such bidding system is both inefficient and ineffective, but only serves to maximize "monopoly profits" received by the govt. A most efficient way to curb the "monopoly" power of the govt is to have the closed bidding system, pay as you bid but at the same time, creaming away the top 1% or 0.5% high bidders. I am not going to elaborate how this will work as an efficient system of bidding as it involves quite a bit of complex economic cum psychology views.
2) The system of ERP is NOT efficient at all, when demand of usage overwhelmed supply. The only way of "effective" pricing is to open up some routes that are totally FREE for cars to go into the city area, while remaining highways are kept at the pricing state. The primary aim of the pricing mechanism is NOT to maximize monopoly profits of the road supplier, govt, but to efficiently and effectively differentiate between "productive users" and "less productive" users. This concept involves alot of economic theories, I shall not elaborate furthermore.
3) If road tax is deemed as ineffective as comparedto COE bidding, why keep it?
4) There are other ways of solving the congestion problems in the long term which I have advocated in scs before. But this will affect alot of "big boys" in the commercial property market as well as public transport providers. There are two spectrums in the problem, mainly a relatively inefficient public transport system, and the redistribution of the overly concentrated economic/finance activities in the CBD areas.
5) A total liberalization of the public transport system is needed to solve these problems. They have implemented part of my earlier suggestions, to provide special "express" bus services from middle class clusters of residential areas to CBD. But they only provide it during peak hours, which is not what I intended to have. A better understanding of the benefits of a liberalized public transport system is to make good study of Hong Kong's public transport system. I shall not elaborate further.
6) To reduce the demands of road and thus, reducing the congestions in major roads to CBD will require us to use both social transformation as well as information technology. This sound strange right? Well, it is important for us to reduce the demand of having to do everything physically at govt offices. And even so, shift these fovt offices out of the CBD areas! REdistribute them to sub centres like Tampines, Toa Payoh, Ang Mo Kio, Woodlands etc. This will reduce the "peak demand" at the "peak hours". Financial centres should be shifted out of the CBD areas. IN Hong Kong, different district will have their own district and high courts, unlike in Singapore, it concentrates in the CBD. A decentralization program would be needed, with the supplement of Information Technologies in networking them together. I shall not elaborate further. Initially, I thought the govt is going to take up my suggestions made here when it starts to build alternative financial centres in Tampines. But alas, I think there are great resistance to such changes due to enormous vested interests of those property owners in CBD areas, I guess.
Goh Meng Seng
1) Keep the COE system, but change it back to close bidding system but also pay as you bid as well as creaming the top 0.5-1% bid.
2) Keep the ERP, but control traffic mainly using price differential with possible free roads to encourage people to use those alternative paths
3) Scrap the 130% tax? - You realize that means a loss of ~ 1.3 Billion (out of a total of 25 Billion) in taxes which may have to be recovered in other forms.
4) Liberalized Public transport sector and re-distribute of the overly concentrated economic/finance activities in the CBD areas.
I hope I summarized it correctly. -
Dear Qitai,
Not exactly. Overconsumption of property could be managed the other way round. It depends on which sector of the property market you are looking at.
By shifting up the prices of private properties and holding the prices of HDB, it will shift demand back to the HDB sector. This will result a net effect of lower consumption in terms of $. One of the reason why we have a property market burst is because of the pricing of a HDB executive flat or mansionette, was very close to private properties. Thus, people would "upgrade" and thus, resulting in a spiral effect on the prices.
When the prices are down, the whole HDB market collapse and alot of people are caught. This results in unproductive capital lost.
Before the "Asset Enhancement Scheme", there is a great gap, in percentage wise, between the HDB sector and the private property sector. It creates a disconnection effect.
We could either now, bring down HDB prices relative to private property prices, or stay put and let private property prices to rise. Either way, it will result in widening in the income distribution, which is inevitable. It is just choosing which less bitter pills to take. And all this is a result of mindless persuit of "Asset Enhancement Scheme" with no counter checks on the govt's stand.
From the HDB dwellers' perspective, of course they would not be happy about it; why private property soar in prices but my HDB flats didn't increase at all? I think PAP govt is trying to use such strategy lately, while maintaining the prices of HDB, private property increase in prices.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by Qitai:So, can I confirm that your stand now has change from the previous property price too low to the current stand that it should remain as it is?
But yet, can this be actually done? HDB can of course fixed the price of new flats. But as it is, they are not even releasing much new flats now. So, the impact of them fixing the price may not have much impact on the bigger picture of the whole property market in Singapore especially condos and landed-property.
Or are you suggesting a total freeze even including re-sale flats? And how are you going to determine the current value of all flats? Note that flats in different area are valued differently, different floors, different neighbours, different views etc.. this essentially means each flat has a different value even if valued now.
If not, how else are you going to have this effect of freezing the property price that you mentioned? -
I agree with the idea on this. However, the issue remains that HDB can only controll the price of new HDB flats, not the price of re-sale flat? How can there be a effective way to stablized the HDB price now?Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear Qitai,
Not exactly. Overconsumption of property could be managed the other way round. It depends on which sector of the property market you are looking at.
By shifting up the prices of private properties and holding the prices of HDB, it will shift demand back to the HDB sector. This will result a net effect of lower consumption in terms of $. One of the reason why we have a property market burst is because of the pricing of a HDB executive flat or mansionette, was very close to private properties. Thus, people would "upgrade" and thus, resulting in a spiral effect on the prices.
When the prices are down, the whole HDB market collapse and alot of people are caught. This results in unproductive capital lost.
Before the "Asset Enhancement Scheme", there is a great gap, in percentage wise, between the HDB sector and the private property sector. It creates a disconnection effect.
We could either now, bring down HDB prices relative to private property prices, or stay put and let private property prices to rise. Either way, it will result in widening in the income distribution, which is inevitable. It is just choosing which less bitter pills to take. And all this is a result of mindless persuit of "Asset Enhancement Scheme" with no counter checks on the govt's stand.
From the HDB dwellers' perspective, of course they would not be happy about it; why private property soar in prices but my HDB flats didn't increase at all? I think PAP govt is trying to use such strategy lately, while maintaining the prices of HDB, private property increase in prices.
Goh Meng Seng -
Dear Qitai,
I understand your uncomfortable feelings towards my style. My classmates in University cannot stand me also. It is combatant, critical and have no rooms for stupid answers. This is basically because I take my work seriously, especially in academic research and studies. It is not the individuals that I attack, its his/her views/attitude I attack. I take public service even more seriously. When I see wasteful spending by the govt, it makes me angry sometimes.
I am a businessman, working up from scratch. If you ask many of the small businessmen, they will tell you the same thing; sometimes, better not reveal your business ideas or plans, especially through the GLCs or govt stats boards. They will steal your ideas. It is common views among entrepreneurs like myself. I will give them the benefits of doubts that all those are just coincidences; but too many coincidences will make it very unconvincing to me.
To have raw ideas is easy, but to have indepth, analytical, critical ideas will demand a different sets of attitudes. It is also very apparent when it comes to the execution of these ideas. Those who copy, will most probably end up with incoherent processes.
If you really want to know how HDB do their accounts, as any accountants or Financial controllers that have worked with MNCs before. It got to do with internal pricing and things like that to minimize tax liabilities.
Goh Meng Seng -
Nah, I am not afraid of combative. Those do not annoyed me. I am combative at times too. The problem is the bragging I mention above and the evident additions of unnecessary comments which are clearly aim in bashing.Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear Qitai,
I understand your uncomfortable feelings towards my style. My classmates in University cannot stand me also. It is combatant, critical and have no rooms for stupid answers. This is basically because I take my work seriously, especially in academic research and studies. It is not the individuals that I attack, its his/her views/attitude I attack. I take public service even more seriously. When I see wasteful spending by the govt, it makes me angry sometimes.
I am a businessman, working up from scratch. If you ask many of the small businessmen, they will tell you the same thing; sometimes, better not reveal your business ideas or plans, especially through the GLCs or govt stats boards. They will steal your ideas. It is common views among entrepreneurs like myself. I will give them the benefits of doubts that all those are just coincidences; but too many coincidences will make it very unconvincing to me.
To have raw ideas is easy, but to have indepth, analytical, critical ideas will demand a different sets of attitudes. It is also very apparent when it comes to the execution of these ideas. Those who copy, will most probably end up with incoherent processes.
If you really want to know how HDB do their accounts, as any accountants or Financial controllers that have worked with MNCs before. It got to do with internal pricing and things like that to minimize tax liabilities.
Goh Meng Seng
Also, I do not agree with you that you do not make personal attacks. You did it twice to me already in the thread "Singaporean do you want to be lead by the nose" as well as the thread on the noise thing. You have used the word brainwashed on your fellow forumates before just like others. I will not agree that the comment is not a personal attack. And as mention before, you made accusation about me saying something that I did not say about 6 times. You apologized the very last time so my resentment has lessen slightly.
Just how I look at you.