Singapore Solar Powered Homes Survey

Take this survey if you live in Singapore and looks forward to lowering your power bills.

Ask Yourself. Donate Your Question.

Came across dropping knowledge today. The film featured in the home page tells of how Isrealis and Palestinian can work and play together.

Interesting initiative, which aims to turn apathy into activity. Can this work in our context?

Email Marketing Site

There are hundreds, or even thousands of email marketing sites out there that claims that you can earn money from reading emails of their advertisements. Too bad these companies are usually U.S.-based and a lot of the advertisements turn out to be useless to someone like me staying in Singapore.

Enters EmailCashPro.com, a Singapore Email Marketing Site that was just launched on 1 July 2006. A friend of mine, Shooperman, refered me to this site. Another friend, SimonTay, gave some level of analysis on his forum. I did not spend much time researching this, but thought, hey why not, exchanging a little of my online time (I spend a lot of time online, additional 30 secs per advertisement is not a big deal) for possible future returns.

If you also think like me, that there is no harm in spending 30 secs more to read each email advertisement to earn some spare cash, head down to http://www.emailcashpro.com/?r=dunpanic

You want home theatre system?

The last thing I expected from the fellow driver who pulled up alongside my car while stopping at a red-light junction was the question: "You want home theatre system?"

I was on my way to work in the late morning today, and stopped at a red-light junction. I heard some loud thumping coming from my left, and the driver in the van that pulled up beside me caught my attention. Having past experiences of kind-hearted fellow road users giving suitable warnings like "switch on your headlight", I thought this was another case, and thought to myself whether I have missed anything this time round.

I scrolled down my car window, and the driver popped the question, "You want home theatre system?" It took me a while to digest that, but before I completely understood him, he continued, "I took out too many units, if I send back to my boss, he will also sell away, so might as well give away."

Give away? For free? There is no free lunch, and so I asked him, "For free?"

"You give me a beer treat lah, I give you the system." Yah, sure, exchanging goods worth a few hundreds, or even thousand dollars for a couple of beer. Alarm bells started to sound in my head, and I quickly waved away, "No, sorry, I don't want that."

"You treat me to beer only, don't want?" "Sorry no. Thanks." With that, the green light came on at the same time, and we both went our separate ways.

Reflecting on this incident, any of the following scenarios is possible:
- It is a scam, cheating someone of maybe a hundred or two on beer money in exchange for faulty goods.
- The goods are stolen goods.
- The employee really hates the employer to his guts and took the opportunity of a big delivery to make some fast bucks, before going MIA from the employer.

All of the above cases involves illegal acts, which I believe is happening everyday around Singapore. The alarming thing is that manner in which people (or victims) are being approached now, openly and without fear. Does this show how desparate the guy is now? What are the fundamental reasons for such desparate behaviour? Food for though, my friend.

Are you prepared?

You might think that living in Singapore is reasonably comfortable, with the basic needs available within your reach: cheap food, cheap electricity, clean water.

Think again. If you did not already know, there is now a growing awareness of a Crisis (with a capital 'C') that started with renowned individual in the United States (include geologists, a Presidential Advisor, and even one Vice President). This is known as the Peak Oil Crisis.

Find out more about how this will impact your life in Singapore at SingaporePeakOil.

I have also started my own little peak oil related blog at We are not prepared....

Is it really so scary?

I got interested in local politics during the recent General Elections, interested enough for me to spend hours of my free time to read up numerous blogs, search through the various Acts, comb through the Parliamentary reports, devour a book or two and attend a number of Open House Sessions at the Workers' Party headquarters at Syed Alwi Road.

What brought me to the WP Open House Sessions was the strong feeling I get (from all the reading I have done) that something needs to be changed from the current status quo. Something is not quite right about how decisions are being made and matters are being handled.

This strong feeling overcame another feeling I had: what would be reaction from family and friends if they hear that I have attended the Open House Sessions. After all, in Singapore, a supporter of the opposition party is usually looked upon by the majority as some anti-establishment activist trying to rock the stable boat called Singapore Inc. This has changed some what amongst some during this elections, but still there are those who hold the firm view that one will be labelled with an unknown label once he associates himself with any opposition party.

The righteous feeling overcame the fear-of-being-ostracised feeling, and I proceeded to sign up as a volunteer. There is fundamentally little difference between a member and a volunteer, as far as I understand, with the difference that members get to have a say in party matters. When I told my parents about this, they gave me "the look", but conceded that as long as I don't "show-head" （出头）they have no objection. I interpreted that as meaning they don't want me to be someone so prominent that I might get to become a potential "target".

I joined the public outreach and sale of the WP newspaper on Sunday (23 July). When my parents found out about this, they were angered because I "showed-face". In my mother's logic, once I show my face, I will be marked in life: I will never get a government job in future; my son will not be able to obtain a scholarship in future; basically she feels that I will be jeopardizing everything. My father, the usually smiley and optimistic man, was a full-black face when I visited them for dinner on Sunday evening.

Being the obstinate son, I stood my ground, pointing out that I have the freedom to make my choice, being all of 33 years old now. They have no choice, but to grudgingly tell me that I have to be careful (of what? I don't know).

I came home and reflected on what was debated during dinner, and I know I should not have been too harsh with my mother when refuting her claims. What is absurd to me though, is the mere fact that I only helped out in the smallest possible way to an opposition party, and the reaction was already so strong. Is the fear factor really so strong that it has become so scary?

Eat less meat or more accurately, animal protein

Even more reason for us to eat less meat: T. Colin Campbell, the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University, presented a summary of his book "The China Study : The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-Term Health" at http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail735.html

If you have 4.5 hours to spare.....

... a video [SINGAPORE FORUM ON POLITICS 2006 THE (IN)SIGNIFICANCE OF POLITICAL ELECTOINS IN SINGAPORE] held on 25 February 2006 in NUS. (which is before the General Elections)

I am still only 1 hour into the 4.5hrs, but so far the speakers includes:

• a lady from Institute of Policy Studies (I think need to find out more)


• James Gomez (well known in Singapore by now)


• a journalist that used to work on Feedback under SBC


• Chandra Mohan - nominated MP

I thought I should post this link because the 3rd speaker (started speaking at some point before the 1hr-mark) is rather interesting with his criticism of the current media and his anecdotes.

Chandra Mohan's speech also has a message to people that they should not fear if they feel that they want to be active in politics.

[update later] I feel like a laggard....it seems like there has been quite a lot of traffic on this forum earlier on. Here's the detailed bios of the speakers : http://www.jamesgomeznews.com/article.php?AID=236.
Tomorrow.sg's post on this: http://tomorrow.sg/archives/2006/02/26/singapore_forum_on_politics_2006.html

Filed in: singapore politics

Did you know - Ministers on pension scheme

Someone told me in a forum that Singapore Ministers get pensions. I asked for the source to confirm this, but was told the information is public. Being curious, I took some time to research and was able to find the following sources which confirms that Singapore Ministers get pensions.

I found the following reports under the Singapore Hansard. On 16 Jun 2004:

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what is the justification for keeping Ministers on the pension scheme when all other public and civil servants have been converted to the Central Provident Fund scheme.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the civil service phased out pensions for most of the public sector in 1986, it consciously decided to retain the pension scheme for officers in a small number of key services, one of which is the Administrative Service. Administrative Officers need deep knowledge and long experience of policy issues. The service takes in some recruits mid-career, but it continues to rely heavily on officers who have joined at the entry level. For these reasons, the pension scheme remains relevant to them. As part of their overall package, pensionable officers receive lower CPF contributions than non-pensionable officers. Political appointees are also on pensions because their terms of service follow those of Administrative Officers.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, how does the Deputy Prime Minister expect citizens to take the uncertainty of retirement planning under the CPF, which is a defined contribution scheme, at their own cost, whereas Ministers and public officers themselves are under a guaranteed and defined benefit pension scheme, using taxpayers' money? In other words, their CPF may run out before the citizens die whereas qualified Ministers are taken care of by the taxpayers' money until they die. Am I right to say that?

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is an entire package. When we calculate the salary, we look into how much a person receives now, how much he receives in the CPF, and how much he can expect to save in pensions. And when a person retires, he has a choice of having a pension stream for the rest of his life or taking a commuted lump sum at the point of retirement. In fact, as a matter of fact, nearly everybody who retires prefers the commuted lump sum. Because you take a lump sum, you invest it, you do what you want. If it runs out, it runs out. There is no free lunch. If you do not have your CPF, you have the pension. If you have the pension, you have less CPF. So it all adds up to a finite amount. The Member's implicit question is: are the Ministers enriching themselves again? And the answer is, we are going on market terms and, if anything, we are paying below what the market is.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Clarification from the Minister. Does any serving Minister who turns 55 actually receive both salary and pension at the same time? If yes, should he be serving?

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I believe the answer is yes. That is the rule for the civil service, and the Ministers follow the civil service rules.

So it is confirmed that Ministers are on pension scheme. Interestingly too, that our PM Lee Hsien Loong confirms that serving Ministers who turns 55 actually receive both salary and pension at the same time.

The next question is what is the pension scheme for Ministers (how does it differ from the CPF scheme), and what's the big deal about Ministers being on the pension scheme. Another search result is the debate on Parliamentary Pensions (Amendment) Bill held on the 2002-07-08 sitting.

This Bill was to make modifications to the Parliamentary Pensions Bill (oh, so that is the Bill to look at, so I learnt from this debate) to include the years of service of CDC Mayor to be counted (reckonable, in the terminology used in the Bill) towards for the purposes of qualifying for pension scheme. The bulk of this debate is centered on Mr Low Thia Kiang's questions on the proposed amendment. (Ms Sylvia Lim also wrote an article on the Hammer Online on the points of view towards this amendment - [The Singapore Mayor: A Legitimate Ticket to a Parliamentary Pension?] )

One interesting exchange from this debate is the question raised by Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair:

Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Pensions Act was enacted in 1978 to provide for the grant of pensions and gratuities in respect of service as Members of Parliament and as holders of ministerial and other offices.

My understanding is that over the last decade or two, the emphasis has been to convert the pension scheme and encourage the granting of Central Provident Fund for our civil servants and employees. Of course, as volunteer employers, one can make voluntary contributions towards their respective CPF accounts. Would it, therefore, not be in line with the general policy of the Government to also convert pensions for Members of Parliament, ministerial and other offices, to keep in line with the rest of the working people in Singapore? In this way, our citizens would observe that Parliament has not introduced in any way any form of discrimination, as perceived by them, in favour of MPs, Ministers or other officers connected to Parliament, eg, Mayor, that is being introduced through this proposed amendment.

Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair was basically asking, "why instead of converting the MPs, Ministers and other office holders to the CPF Scheme, we are adding Mayors to the list of the office holders who could be eligible to the pension scheme" (paraphrasing by me). Mr Wong Kan Seng replied to Mr Low Thia Kiang's other questions before replying to Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair:

As regards Mr Chandra Mohan's question, I was quite curious as to why he is interested in Parliamentary pension when the subject does not really concern him. I now understand he is talking about a different issue, like why do we want to consider office-holders' appointments even as pensionable. He says that the trend has been towards CPF. Yes, indeed, it has been, but there are certain key appointments that we have kept as pensionable service, eg, the Administrative Service, Foreign Service and Intelligence Service are still pensionable services. There are good reasons for this. Similarly, for office holders, we think that it is important that they remain on pensionable service and, hence, we keep them on pensionable service.

But for Members of Parliament, we have made a decision way back in 1995 that all new Members of Parliament, elected henceforth, shall be paid CPF.

Two observations I have from the above exchange:

• Mr Wong mentioned that there are certain services that are pensionable services, and went on to say that there are "good reasons" for this, without further elaborating. And for office holders, "we think that it is important....", and also there was no explanation why it is thought to be important.


• Of the "urban legends" that I heard, that part about MPs being also on the pension scheme is not entirely true. According to the debate, MPs elected after 1995 are paid CPF.

So it is now getting clearer: office holders (later I learnt that this includes the PM, DPM, Speaker, Senior Minister, Minister, Senior Minister of State, Minister of State, Mayor, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Parliamentary Secretary or Political Secretary, puzzling that the Minister Mentor is not on the list) and MPs elected before 1995 should be on the pension scheme.

I went on to find out more by attempting to read and understand the Parliamentary Pensions Act available at http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/

The legalese gave me a giddy head, after reading and re-reading to try to understand it. I shall try to list down what I understand of the Parliamentary Pensions Act, but if anyone out there is able to understand it better, kindly point out my mistakes .

First I try to understand who really qualifies.
From PART I - PRELIMINARY:

"future Member" means a person —

(a) who becomes, by election or appointment, a Member at any time after 1st January 1995 without previously having been, before or after that date, a Member or an office-holding Member;

(b) who, having been a Member before 1st January 1995 but not being a Member on that date, becomes, by election or appointment, a Member at any time after that date; or

(c) who, being an elected Member on 1st January 1995, becomes —

(i) a non-constituency Member or nominated Member at any time after 1st January 1995 with or without a break in his service as a Member; or

(ii) an elected Member at any time after 1st January 1995 with a break in his service as a Member after that date,

and for the purposes of paragraph (c), a Member’s service shall be deemed not broken but continuous if, following the dissolution of Parliament or his seat therein becoming vacant under the provisions of the Constitution, he is elected as a Member at the ensuing general election or the ensuing by-election to fill that vacancy;

(a) is straightforward - any new MP after 1 Jan 1995.
(b) is for MPs who were elected before 1 Jan 1995, but are not an MP on 1 Jan 1995 itself. When these MPs subsequently get elected again, they will be considered future Member.
(c) is quite puzzling. (c)(i) basically says any one who was an elected MP on 1 Jan 1995 but subsequently become an NCMP or NMP. As far as I know, only JBJ falls under this category. (c)(ii) applies to any elected MP on 1 Jan 1995 with a break in the service subsequently.

From Part II, under Future and Nominated Members’ eligibility for pension:

2A. —(1) Unless otherwise expressly provided, a future Member shall not be eligible for any pension or gratuity under the provisions of this Act in respect of his reckonable service as a future Member, including any period which may be counted as such service by virtue of section 6.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt —

(a) a future Member who holds any office shall remain eligible for a pension under the provisions of this Act in respect of his reckonable service in that office; and

(b) a person who, on the date immediately before he becomes a future Member, has the minimum period of reckonable service as a Member to be eligible for a pension under section 3 (including any period of reckonable service which may be counted by virtue of section 6), shall remain eligible for a pension under the provisions of this Act in respect of his reckonable service as a Member as of that date.

(3) Any person who on 1st January 1995 is a nominated Member shall not be eligible for a pension under the provisions of this Act in respect of his service as a Member on or after that date.

Combine the above with the definition of future Members, essentially this is what I learnt:

• the office holders will be eligible for a pension


• MPs elected after 1995 who don't hold office, will not be eligible for a pension


• MPs elected before 1995 will be eligible for a pension, with exceptions in the next line


• MPs elected before 1995 but fall under the definition of future Member, will not be eligible for a pension.

Next I would want to find out is how the pension is calculated. However, after spending some time digesting it, I come to the conclusion that the formula for calculating the pension is too complicated as it involved too many variables. It is probably best left for another post later. The key thing though is that qualifying MPs have to serve at least 9 years and office-holders have to serve at least 8 years (as office-holders) to qualify for pension.

Filed in: singapore politics minister

Grassroot Organisation Advisers, PA and politics

I was surfing the web to find out more about what CDCs are, and came upon the following pages:

• http://www.southeastcdc.org.sg/around_SE-meet_the_people_session.html#potongpasir


• http://www.northeast.org.sg/hougang/advisor.htm

Interesting. The CDCs are government organisations, and the list of the other advisers on the first link are the MPs of the respective constituency. The odd thing is that the adviser for Potong Pasir is Mr Sitoh Yih Pin. Same oddity is observed in the second link. From the Northeast CDC web site, when I clicked on the link for Hougang SMC, I expected to see the website of the Hougang Town Council. Instead the page that was loaded was the Town Portal, and the adviser in Hougang is Mr Eric Low.

The conventional wisdom would lead me to think that since the advisers for the rest of the constituencies are the respective MPs, the advisers for Potong Pasir and Hougang should be Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Kiang respectively.

To understand why there exists the gap in my thinking and the current reality, I took some time to search and read up on RCs (known as Grassroot Organisations GRO), which come under their respective CDCs, which in turn come under People's Association.

The answer was finally found in the Singapore Parliament Hansard report for 23 May 2002. Mr Steve Chia asked a question:

Sir, the People's Association is a statutory board, a public body funded by the people through the State. As Mr Charles Chong has said, it has been passed between the Prime Minister's Office to the MCDS and now back and forth. Officially, its objective is to promote racial harmony, social cohesion and community bonding through its many CCs, CCCs and RCs. The People's Association is a public body and it should be politically neutral.

Yet, ever since its establishment in the mid-60s, the PA has played a very important role in rallying grassroots support for the PAP. This is not right, Sir. Can the Minister clarify if this is not an abuse of State funds? If the real objective of PA is to serve the people, then why did the PAP Government deny legally elected MPs from serving their wards by appointing PAP candidates who lost in the elections as grassroots advisors? It is so strange that all the grassroots advisors are all Members of Parliament, except in Potong Pasir and Hougang constituencies. Can the Minister justify why the PA is not appointing Mr Chiam, Member for Potong Pasir and Mr Low, Member for Hougang, as the official grassroots advisor respectively? Can the Minister explain why he allowed the PA to appoint the losers in the general election as grassroots advisors instead?

A few other MPs raised other questions, which were answered altogether by Mr Chan Soo Sen. The relevant part of his answer is:

Mr Steve Chia asked a question on PA that any Opposition Member would ask. He asked probably on behalf of Mr Chiam and Mr Low, but I think both have asked this question many, many times, and the answer is still the same. He got it right. The People's Association is a Government statutory board. It is not part of the PAP. The PAP MPs draw a very, very clear line between our PA activities, as well as our PAP branch activities. We do not hold our branch activities in the community centres. I can assure him of that. We are very professional about it. And since it is a Government statutory board, members of the public can come and use the facilities and take part in the programmes, regardless of political affiliation. But, when it comes to picking the people in charge, the Government, like picking people in charge of other Government agencies, will have to look for people who have the same vision, share the same objective, in order to do this job of leading the various grassroots organisations.

If we put the Opposition Members as the Advisors of the grassroots organisations, we can be sure that the grassroots organisations will be politicised. There will be no end of quarrels between the People's Association, who is supposed to be a Government body, and the ward which is with the Opposition. This will not serve the objective of achieving social cohesion. We owe it to the residents to ensure that politics stays out of our community centres. That is why PAP stays out of the community centres and we appoint people in charge to make sure that politics stays out of the community centres and the grassroots organisations.

Mr Chan Soo Sen went on to answer questions from other MPs. At the end of his answer was the following exchange:

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, I have three clarifications for the Minister of State. What vision and what objective are the Minister referring to? Has he tried any of the Opposition MPs to realise that their vision and objective are quite close to the PA?

Second clarification. Just because it is an Opposition MP, the grassroots organisations become politicised. It would not be politicised when the PAP candidates are appointed as grassroots advisers. Is that the case?

Third clarification. If the Minister wants politics to stay out, should not the elected MP stay in as the grassroots adviser instead?

Mr Chan Soo Sen: Sir, that is why the PAP MPs are the grassroots advisers, not the head of the grassroots organisation. We are only there to advise. So he got it right there.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: The MOS, in his answer, says the PA's objective is social and community bonding. CCCs, RCs, the community centres are non-political. And he said, "We draw a very clear line." I want to know from him how clear the line is, and how sure he is about what he says.

Mr Chan Soo Sen: Sir, I think I have not answered Mr Steve Chia's questions completely. So I shall answer his questions first.

I did not say that the Opposition Members do not share the objective of, for example, social cohesion. I am just saying that Opposition MPs, by their nature, would have to oppose some of the Government policies, and that would include some of PA's programmes and the methods of implementation, and so on. In doing so, bearing in mind the kind of passion that I hear when this subject was discussed in the Committee of Supply, we risk getting the grassroots organisations from opposition ward into political conflicts with the People's Association, rather than concentrating on helping the residents improve their lot. That basically is my point.

We, the PAP, are very clear about this point. Therefore, we draw a clear line. All Government programmes can be political to the extent that if we do a good job in any Government programme, for example, in education, or transport, we will get greater support in the next General Election. So if we do a very, very good job in achieving social cohesion, racial harmony, and we achieve better support in the next General Election, I would say that there is nothing wrong, Sir.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: The Minister of State seems to be confused with social cohesion, community cohesion and support for the nation to one that is ensuring bonding with the PAP. Would he clarify that?

Mr Chan Soo Sen: Since when did I say "bonding with the PAP"? I said anybody, regardless of political affiliation, could come and take part in PA's activities because PA is a statutory board and the community centres are public places. But when it comes to appointing people to lead these organisations, like all Government agencies, all Government statutory boards, Government will be responsible for those appointments, and Government has got the responsibility to ensure that the people appointed would have the ability to carry out the task that the agency is supposed to carry out.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, if I may clarify with the Minister. Are not elected MPs part of the Government service, as the elected MPs are elected by the people? We are here [Interruptions] not as Government, but as part of the body where we actually do this service to the people. Specifically, the Minister said that Opposition MPs are always opposing. Can the Minister give specific examples of what the Opposition MPs are opposing for the sake of opposing? Is it not the case that the PAP MPs nowadays are actually even more opposing than the Opposition MPs?

Mr Chan Soo Sen: So you are saying the Opposition MPs are now irrelevant?

The Chairman: Mr Charles Chong, could you withdraw your amendment?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, can I have a clarification?

The Chairman: Mr Charles Chong, please.

Mr Charles Chong: Sir, I thank the Minister and the Minister of State for the responses and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I am not too sure of how Parliamentary debates like these (this is a debate on ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE for a certain year) are supposed to be structured, and am not clear what is the amendment to be withdrawn. Maybe there is some form of limit in terms of the number of clarifications for each question, or it is the case that only the person asking the original question can ask for clarification. So maybe the way the debate ended was according to the protocols of Parliament.

Regardless of the way the debate was ended, the exchange still did not address and explain the basis of appointing advisers, especially the appointments of the two gentlemen for PP and Hougang. For the man-in-the-street like me, if PAP really wants to draw a very clear line, then at least the advisers for these two Constituencies should not be the very same person they fielded for the elections.

Filed in: singapore politics grassroots

Market Subsidy

After some searching and careful reading, I was finally able to extract the following from the debate held on 3 March 2006 on the Budget 2006 debate for the Ministry of National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan's reply to a query from Dr Amy Khor :

The third point Dr Amy Khor raised was this issue about implicit subsidies. How do we price our flats? The most important criterion in pricing of new HDB flats is affordability. We track affordability very closely. We track what are the various household incomes at various percentiles. We also track the market prices. We ensure that the price of a new flat is always at a discount to the market price of that similar flat, as far as possible. She knows, as a valuer, that it is not possible to have everything exactly the same. But as far as is possible, as far as the valuers can advise, we try to price the new flat at a subsidy to market price of a comparable flat.

What is the amount of this subsidy? It varies from place to place. It varies from time to time. The important criterion, as I said, is to ensure that there is affordability at various price points and at various flat types. And that is the reason why it is not possible for me to name a certain amount as the subsidy of the flat.

The above answer gives us confirmation that the price of HDB new flats are derived by the following process:

1. Choose a comparable private flat
   
2. Take the market price of the private flat
3. Apply some sort of formula
   
4. Arrive at price of new HDB flat
5. The subsidy is the difference between the market price of the prviate flat and the selling price of the HDB flat
   

This leads to a few questions:

• Based on what criteria is the comparable private flat chosen?
• What is the formula applied?
• Is the resultant Price of the new HDB flat higher or lower than the Break-even Cost of the flat?

The key point of contention is that, if the Price is a lot higher than the Break-even Cost of the flat, then the people will feel gross disjustice because we have to pay too much for the flat, while being told that there are heavy subsidies on the flat. However, the Break-even Cost of flats is not publicly available.

Filed in: singapore politics hdb

Rally locations for 04 May 2006

There are 5 PAP Rallies, 3 SDA Rallies and 1 WP Rally on 4 May 2006.

Why the u-turn in response?

First, Mr Mah challenges Edmung Ng to build flats:

Mah to SDA: Want to build flats for me?
SINGAPORE: National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan has reacted strongly to statements by a Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) candidate that the Government is excessively marking up the prices of Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats.

On Sunday night during the SDA rally in Yio Chu Kang, its candidate for Tampines GRC, Mr Edmund Ng Say Eng, said that he estimated, based on various tender reports, that the building cost of a $250,000 flat was only "$70,000 to $80,000".

This drew a firm response from Mr Mah, who is heading the PAP team in Tampines and will do battle with Mr Ng's five-man team at the polls this Saturday.

"Maybe I should invite him to come build my flats for me. It's certainly very misleading for anybody to quote figures just like that, so the onus is on him to tell me how to do it. If he doesn't, I'll ask HDB to subcontract all our building to him for $70,000 to $80,000. Maybe I'll give him a little bit more than that to cover his costs," challenged Mr Mah.

Speaking during a morning walkabout with his fellow candidates at Tampines Street 21, he told reporters that the actual cost of a flat depended on various factors like location and land prices, in addition to the construction costs of the flat.

Just metres away, the SDA team was doing its own rounds meeting residents though, unlike on Sunday morning, the two sides did not cross swords. When asked how he derived his estimates, Mr Ng, a 33-year-old businessman, explained: "This is based on reports that we have, some tender information and results, and our own calculations of building a five-room flat. The HDB has not been transparent in telling us what's the cost price of building a flat. We don't assume (our estimates) are correct, but we hope the HDB can clarify."

One other election rally issue that Mr Mah addressed was that of the vast amount of money being spent now on lift upgrading.

Workers' Party secretary-general Low Thia Khiang recently blamed the Government for a lack of foresight in not building flats with lifts stopping on every floor to cater to the current ageing population.

Mr Mah explained that it was "not a mistake" on the part of the Government. He said: "The flats built in the earlier years did not have lifts on every floor (because) the cost of the flat and the affordability to the people were very important, so we built as cheaply as possible."

He added: "Then gradually, the standard of living and cost of living increased, and flats became more sophisticated. So we started, from 1990, to build flats with lifts on every floor. Now we have to go back and retrofit (the older) flats, and we will do it within the next 10 years. That's the promise we make and we intend to keep it." - TODAY /dt

Then he changes his mind when Edmund takes up the challenge:

SDA's Edmund Ng takes up PAP's challenge to build HDB flats

SINGAPORE : Singapore Democratic Alliance's candidate for Tampines GRC, Edmund Ng says he is taking up the challenge by National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan to build HDB flats at lower cost.

Mr Ng says he has written to the Housing and Development Board requesting for costing information.

But Mr Mah, who is leading the PAP team in Tampines GRC, says the SDA candidate is just 'fishing' for figures and he has asked the HDB not to entertain him.

At a recent rally, Mr Ng had said it costs just $70,000 to $80,000 to build an HDB flat priced at $250,000.

In response, Mr Mah issued him a challenge, asking the HDB to subcontract building projects to Mr Ng.

When asked about Mr Ng's letter to HDB asking for cost details, Mr Mah says the onus is on the SDA candidate to back up his estimates.

Mr Mah says: "He is fishing for figures. He's got absolutely no clue what is going on. He just makes this allegation, just shooting from the hip. I've asked HDB not to entertain him."

He says HDB flats are heavily subsidised and that its prices are based on market value.

Mr Mah says: "The market value of the flat includes construction cost, land cost, infrastructure cost, providing lifts on every floor, and it varies from place to place."

So what is Mr Ng's next move?

Mr Ng "We have better things to do. We are currently very busy with the unemployment job portal. We don't run the HDB. It's up to them to disclose the figures."

As for the SDA employment website, Mr Ng says it has so far received 50 applications from Tampines residents since it was launched on Labour Day.

Mr Ng says it will kick start phase two of its employment initiative by linking up with companies situated in Tampines, Changi, Bedok and Loyang to help residents find jobs nearer to their homes. - CNA/de

Filed in: singapore ge2006 singaporeelections

First They Came....

Interesting poem found on a local forum:

First they came for James Gomez,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a minority,

then they came for Tan Wui-Hua,
and I didn't speak up because I didn't live in Aljunied,

then they came for Goh Meng Seng,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Worker's Party member,

then they came for Rahizan,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Muslim,

then they came for Sylvia,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a lawyer,

then they came for Low Thia Kiang,
and I didn't speak up because I didn't want to get into trouble,

then they came for me,
and there wasn't anyone else to speak for me.....

Someone pointed out that this is a reference to the original First They Came poem, which was translate from German to English as:

When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Filed in: singapore ge2006 singaporeelections

Rally Locations for 03 May 2006

There is a lunch rally between 12noon to 3pm at Boat Quay and the rest of the rallies are from 7pm to 10pm.

See this link for the bookmarks to the maps.

Filed in: singapore ge2006 singaporeelections

Locations for Rallies

I took some time to bookmark the Rally locations in del.icio.us. See http://del.icio.us/dunpanic/ge2006+rally+20060502 for the list of rally locations for tonight. If time permits, I will update my del.icio.us bookmarks with the rally location everyday up to polls day, simply change the last parameter in the URL for the day you are interested in.

Filed in: singapore ge2006 singaporeelections

Email to the Elections Department on graphic examples of voting

I thought it wierd that in the TV announcements this time round, there was no graphical example of what constitutes a valid vote and what constitutes an invalid vote. I wanted to be sure, since I am a first time vote. Being kiasu, I checked www.elections.gov.sg and also found only text explanation. As such, I wrote the following email to the Elections Department:

In the "How To Vote?" section of your website, under step 6, is it possible to include graphical examples of the Do's and Don'ts. In particular, images showing cases where a vote is considered valid and images showing the cases where a vote is considered invalid?
I remember from memory that the TV announcements on voting instructions used to include such examples, but I did not notice it in the current round of TV annoucements. Is it also possible to educate the public on this so as to reduce the possibility of spoilt votes?

I wonder if I will get a response??

Note: After I clicked on submit in the feedback form, I only received a javascript popup saying "Thank you", and I was returned to the same page with the feedback form. Not sure whether this means the message have been sent. I think I will wait until the end of today, if I don't get a response, maybe I can call the toll-free line.

Filed in: singapore ge2006 singaporeelections

Hougang Crowd

I woke up to a Straits Times that spent 2 full pages on the Gomez issue, and only half a page for Worker's Party and SDA's rally combined. Really, I think there is some truth to how our beloved ST deserves to be rank 140th.

With the mainstream media not reporting everything, I turned to the Internet, and boy, was I surprised at the photo I see at yawningbread's account (scroll down to see the photo) of the Hougang WP rally last night. While I thought the crowd at Yishun East was large, this crowd is at least 5 times large, to be conservative.

Filed in: singapore ge2006 singaporeelections

My second rally

After the first rally I attended last night held by the opposition party, I decided that I should balance it up with attending one from the ruling party.

My grandmother and aunts live in the Potong Pasir constituency. We had a family dinner and walked to the rally point as a group. When we reach the field, a first time candidate Josephine Teo was speaking. Honestly, whatever that was the content in her speech was lost in me, because it sounded like the constant droning of repeated themes in the campaign that I had heard many times. The only conclusion I had from her speech is that her mandarin public speaking needs polishing, and she is very far away from proving to be a bi-cultural talent, at least to the man-on-the-street like me.

I spent the time that Josephine Teo was speaking to observe the ground. The PAP setup is more professional, with good concert-like speakers that project the words of the speech in a hi-fidelity quality. This compares to the trumpet-like speakers I saw at the WP rally last night, which did it's job well but was a tad on the deafening side. In the middle of the field in front of the stage, platforms were placed on the ground in anticipation of a muddy field. These are the same kind of platforms we see placed on the ground for funfairs or carnivals. Well thought. :) However, if it rained today, the platforms would not have been enough for all that was there.

The MC for the PAP rally sounded like professional MCs, and this again compares to the WP using one of their own candidates to introduce speakers. All-in-all, the PAP rally set-up spoke of their consistant image of bringing professionalism to everything they do.

The crowd was not as big as the one for the WP rally. I estimated the size of the crowd [second photo] tonight to be about 1/8 of the crowd there was last night. Both tonight's photos and last nights photos were taken when I was standing at near the perimeter of the crowd, so the relative size of the stage tells you the relative distance I was standing from the stage, giving you the relative size of the crowd.

Minister Vivian Balakrishnan and Minister Lim Hng Kiang took to the stage, both giving their side of their point of view on why Mr Chiam See Tong's previous night's comments about an economic union is not a good idea. Vivian made a slight boo-boo when he attempted at talking about Sitoh Yih Pin in hokkien, because what my father (a teochew) heard was something to the effect of 'See-dor he peng' - translated to mean 'die at that place'.

Sitoh Yih Pin took to the stage after this, and his speech was something that caught my attention. He sounded sincere and genuinely wanted to serve. My previous impression of him being just the 'abalone-porridge-supplier' was changed when he claimed on stage that he was in touch with the ground. I confirmed immediately with my aunt on the spot, she told me that while previous challengers to the Potong Pasir ward were never seen around the ward, Sitoh Yih Pin is consistently seen at coffeeshops talking to people at least twice a month on Sunday mornings.

Sitoh went on to list out some of the things he did for the residences, of which there are some items that are genuinely beneficial. The one thing that oppositions can learn from Sitoh is that, while you are not the MP for the ward, you can still try to work your way into the people's heart by spending enough time with them. Granted that there are a lot of things that cannot be done through this channel, but small things will add up to what the residents can collectively remember you of. And of course, you can score points with listing out the things you have done while not being their MP.

The highlight of the night was SM Goh's presence and his speech. In his usual light-hearted manner, he gave a speech that was convincing and I believe could have helped some residents made up their decision. In the middle of the speech, the flood lights that were trained on the crowd suddenly went off one by one, until only the light on the rostrum was visible. SM Goh was unaffected throughout the effect, only a slight pause upon the initial blackout, and continued his speech (luckily the sound system was still working). Does show the class and style he has. One more thing that won my respect for him is that he did not harp on the Gomez issue like the other PAP candidates had. (In fact on TV news later he was seen talking a little on the issue, but closed with the comment that we should all move on to discuss bigger issues).

SM Goh give his vote of support for Sitoh, and a list of the reasons that the people should vote for Sitoh. Very convincing, I have to repeat, and very well delivered messages. The only thing that I was looking out for, which was not mentioned, was the earlier promised of raising the party whip for Sitoh.

SM Goh's speech was the final speech, and the MCs ended the rally with a series of cheers for PAP and Sitoh. Sad thing to say that in this respect the crowd does not respond too well, leaving one MC to start the cheer and often the other MC to respond.

The crowd dispersed quickly. I did not stay to see whether there was any sending-off like in the WP's case, but from the response of the crowd, I doubted it.

One WP rally followed by one PAP rally. Quite a good balance for a first-time rally-goer and a first-time voter. However, seeing that local issues concerning the constituency are being brought up in both rallies, my wife and I decided to attend to WP and PAP rallies for our own constituency when they come around to our place. More rallies to attend. :)

[One final point: I think the decision to ban podcast for this elections is really a bad decision. With between 5-7 rallies held each night, there are sometimes more than 1 rally that an individual is interested in attending. With the rallies all being held at the same time, there is no way physically a person can be in two places at one time. If podcast of verbatim recordings of the press conferences for all parties is allowed in the media, why don't the media also provide verbatim recordings of rallies everyday?]

Filed in: singapore ge2006 singaporeelections

Attending my first rally

When I arrived at Yishun St 11 at around 2045hrs, the traffic along the road was jammed up with vehicles trying to look for parking space near to the rally point. Looking out of my window when my car went past the field, I can see thousands of heads with their sights trained on the small figure in the brightly-lit stage in the distance, with the impassioned speech coming through the trumpet-style loud speakers mounted on poles erected on the ground.

15 mins later, I finally found a parking lot two streets away, in the neighbouring Nee Soon Central Consituency. No choice, the HDB parking lots in the vicinity nearer to the rally point was so crowded that even getting into the carpark was a problem.

I followed some others and treaded through the Yishun neighbourhood park, walking along a path with two street lamps broken down, rendering the path pitch black, save for the lights coming from the surrounding blocks of flats. (Hmmm....what has the incumbent MP done about this?)

Coming to the junction where the rally point is, I see that there were many motorbikes parked along the pavement, presumably belonging to other attendees of the rally. Crossing the junction brought me to the edge of the field, and I started to walk around to get a feel of the number of people who were there.

I cannot provide a good estimate of the number of people there, but from my many experiences of attending pop concerts, I can say for sure the crowd last night was definitely more than the crowd at either a MayDay or 伍佰 concert.

[crowd (with flash)][crowd (without flash)]

The ground was muddy, and luckily I anticipated that, switching to a pair of old beach sandals before leaving my car. As I weaved my way through the standing crowd to get closer to the stage for a better view, the ground got increasingly muddier.

I finally settled down at a point about a 100m away from the stage and started to pay attention to the speech. Dr Poh Lee Guan was at the microphone. Speaking with the standard slow, clear and powerful tone, he resembles Mr Low Thia Kiang from where I was standing (I have high myopia, so I cannot see very clearly even from 100m). It was only when he spoke about learning the ropes about running a Town Council from Mr Low in the last few years that I realised he was not Mr Low. :)

One interesting thing to note, which the media did not seem to pick up, is what Dr Poh referred to himself as: "Ah-Poh", and this is reminiscent of how Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian always refer to himself as "Ah-Bian". Dr Poh's speech was peppered with requests to the Yishun East residents to "Give Ah-Poh a chance to serve you", or "Give Ah-Poh a chance to prove that WP can run a town council". (Note: I am writing on the next day of the rally, so I cannot remember for sure, verbatim what was said, but that is what I got walking away from the rally). I am not a Yishun East resident, so I cannot be the judge of whether Dr Poh's claims about the incumbent Dr Ho Peng Kee are true or false. However, I do think that if I am an Yishun East resident, I would respond to his statement "Vote me in so that I can prove myself. If I am no good, you can always kick me out 4 years later." We shall see how many of the Yishun East residents think like me.

Throughout Dr Poh's speech, I looked around the crowd again, and noticed that even the corridors of the surrounding HDB blocks of flats were lined with people.

Although I arrived at the rally late, with only 1 hour left in the permitted time for speeches, I was lucky in the sense that the schedules of speeches for Mr Low Thia Kiang and Ms Sylvia Lim were arranged to be in the last hour.

Mr Low proceeded to ask Mr James Gomez to make a public statement about his administrative issue with the Elections Department. I think James Gomez was courageous enough to make a public apology for the matter. The matter has been blown out of proportions by both PAP and the media, with full pages of the Straits Times and minutes of national tv time on TV News dedicated to it. To me, the average citizen, the amounts to a smear campaign. What was a simple genuine mistake was made into a grave matter that has our PM and DPM harping over it. To give the media the credit, Mr Low made a mistake during his speech, when he said "making a molehill out of a mountain", but the Straits Times report corrected this when quoting him. To me, both the administrative mistake and the phrase mistake fall under the same category, permissible mistakes which does not need any further attention.

Mr Low's point of the night was on the accountability of the government. He pointed out that the reason that there is a need for spending money on adding after-the-thought enhancements is due to a lack of foresight and planning in the first place.

Ms Sylvia Lim won my support by parrying PM Lee's attack on the WP candidates by turning the attacks into her advantage. These has been reported in the media, so I shall save some typing time.

When the rally ended slightly after 10pm, the crowd started to disperse, and I followed suit. However, after walking a few steps, I noticed a crowd lingering near where the candidates were about to board their transports to leave the location. I went on to join the crowd and found many supporters chanting "Worker's Party". The police on duty had a hard time trying to convince the crowd to clear a path for the vehicles. The crowd only made way when a WP member wearing a light blue polo shirt with hammer logo come up to ask the crowd to give way.

It was really a moving moment, seeing the kind of support the WP is getting this time round. This is the first Rally I attended, so I am not sure if the level of support was the same during the last elections. Maybe some of the crowd that were there because it was a Saturday evening, maybe some were there for the fun of chanting "Worker's Party" in a crowd. However from the expression on most people's face, and the occasional overheard conversation between friends in the crowd, I can tell that
the level of unhappiness amongst the people is really quite high. Are we near the tipping point, for a radical change in the political landscape in Singapore?

I walked back two streets to where my car was parked, and changed into my clean shoes. Recalling that the last time I got my feet so dirty with mud was probably when I was serving my NS. Guess it is about time I start on the second phase of my National Service: stop being an apolitical citizen and do my due diligence to understand underlying issues before exercising my right to vote for the party that I think should receive support.

More rallies to attend over the week. :)

[photos at flickr/dunpanic/tags/crowd]

Filed in: singapore ge2006 singaporeelections