Singapore Democrats

Of course the HDB flats are subsidized. I am assuming that the bidding process to determine the fair market value of the land actually achieves a price that is close to the fair market value. If anyone can make a good argument or provide evidence that the final price of the land determined via the auction is grossly inflated to the point where the discount given by the government only brings the price of the land back to its fair market value, then this article would be correct in that the government does not provide any subsidies for the land. But then, my next question is whether the government subsidizes the cost of building the flats?

Regardless, what this article fails to recognize is the basic concept of opportunity cost. Setting aside land for HDB flats has an opportunity cost which is the next best alternative or use given up. In this case, the government is losing revenue by not selling the land to private parties. For example, if a parcel of land is priced at $1 million by private parties and the government only charges $600K to HDB flat buyers or sells the land to HDB for $600K which then passes on this entire amount to flat buyers, the government still loses out by $400K. This is the additional $400K that the government could have received by not building HDB flats and selling the land to private parties. The statement that the government is some how engaged in trickery (i.e. purchasing land from itself) when it sells land to the HDB is simply misguided. The government is simply recognizing part of the economic cost of providing HDB flats.

The SDP does good work in publicizing the social inequities in Singapore and fighting for more democracy. But its economic illiteracy and unjustifiable antipathy to global trade and free market ideology damages its claim to be a credible alternative to the government.

The government however can always say that they do not control the land price, but the market does (via bidding). So your argument breaks down.

Excuse me, there are much more hidden facts and figures that have been swept or to be more polite kept under the carpet and, if exposed, these will definitely, flabbergasted/appalled Singaporeans profoundly that such absurdities really happen beneath the glamorous cosmetic make-up of the ##sole## public housing agency in Singapore!!!!! Not to mention, being awarded the “World Habitat Award” by the respective ignorant and idiotic international organization with superficial knowledge of hdb!!! What a shameful lot?

One good example is that the sg ordinary, did not own so much land in Singapore—more than 80%, what it owns today are, mostly through compulsory acquisition from the ordinary citizens with a “damn bloody cheap compensating price” under the disguise/camouflage of future national development!!!! Now, the sg is using those cheaply acquisitive lands, partly through land-sales to “private-sector” and, partly through respective government agencies to profiteer from innocent Singaporeans!!!!

More to be exposed by other parties who have an interest of letting the public know the real truth!

Hey Boring Accountant, WTF are you talking about? The gahmen doesn't buy land, it merely declares it as state owned. It doesn't incur a single cent in acquiring the land. It then sells the land to HDB who in turn sells it to CPF members.

From the gahmen's standpoint, it gets the land for free and then makes money by selling the flats. And then claims that the flats are subsidized? Give me a break. Save your free trade lecture for somewhere else.

What business is it of the gahmen to count opportunity cost and make money from the people from land? The land belongs to the people, not the PAP. God gave us the land. For a group of hi-falutin sounding pr**ks to commercialise the terra firma and then sell it back to people to fatten the GIC and Temasek is not free trade. Its exploitation.

And people, like the elderly, have to become homeless when they cannot afford the land which they own in the first place. Figure that one out. Its like oxygen. If the PAP had its way, it would bottle the damn thing and sell it to Sporns.

Free trade? Credible gahmen? Save it, pal. This line may have worked before 2008. But the pigs on Wall Street showed us what the free market is all about. SDP is right on the money, err, I mean dot.

Most of the land were acquired by the state under the land Acquisition Act in the 70s and 80s and land owners were forced to move out for minuscule sums of money. Will the MSM investigate all this?

To BoredAccountant:

From being an insignificant land owner at the time of self-rule in 1959, the state under the PAP government has now become the major landlord, owning more than 85 per cent of the land in Singapore. It was able to do this mainly through the Land Acquisition Act that was meant to appropriate land by the state for national developments such as building roads, schools and other public amenities, including providing subsidized housing for the people.

And so, what you call the loss of “basic concept of opportunity cost” is erroneous. Land originally belonging to private individuals and groups such as clan associations were forcefully acquired at pittance for the sole purpose of providing subsidized housing.

The government itself became the “acquirer of land and builder of subsidized” housing through its HDB and did not allow “private parties” to enter this market. So, selling of the acquired land meant for public housing to private parties and comparing it with loss of "economic cost" is, in itself, a violation of the land acquisition act.

Next, on your statement that SDP does fight “for more democracy”. SDP cannot fight “for more democracy” when there is no democracy under PAP. What the opposition party is doing is to fight for democracy. One cannot fight for “more” when there is nothing in the first place.

“Economic illiterates” are those in the PAP amassing millions of dollars in “salary” but unable to anticipate the economic tailspin that has plunged the country into since Oct 2008. What these PAP illiterates are left with is to wait for the US economy to recover. By placing the economy on an “autopilot“ mode, by being a mere appendage of the US neo-liberal economic vagaries, the PAP believed that there would be continuous growth, justifying, among others, its greed for astronomical salary unheard of anywhere in the world.

But as the saying goes, the chicken has come home to roost. The reality has finally hit the roof. exposing the ineptness of the authoritarian PAP, a direct result of its long fettered economic illiteracy.

"The government however can always say that they do not control the land price, but the market does (via bidding). So your argument breaks down."

Bidders (i.e demand) account for only half of the market. The govt (i.e supply) controls the other half. So the govt and the market are not two separate entities.

Demand is consistent and inelastic, and can be predicted through statistics. Supply on the other hand, is entirely up to the govt.

Are your parcels of land not selling high enough? Simply sell less of them, and the price will automatically go up.

By the way, the buy-one-get-one free analogy is not accurate.

A better analogy would be, a banana that used to sold for $1, but the seller puts up a sign that says "Usual $5! NOW ONLY $3!!!!!"

Interesting.
It seems that the government has created wealth in this country by:-
(1) Taking lands by force.
(2) Opening the doors to immigrants
(3) Controlling the release and supply of land. This and (2) cause price to go up.
(4) Sell at high price and hand out loans and earning interest.
(5) Making Singaporeans work hard for the government to repay the loan, since their savings are wiped out buying the house.

Betrayed, Seelan Palay, foxtrot made some valid points which the SDP and other opposition parties should fine tune and attack the PAP this coming election. Forget about human rights, just concentrate on HDB and health care, 2 moneymaking scams by the PAP, with the electorates and the battle will be won – hands down!

Just to remind the SDP, every “single-past-election”—all pervious GEs, the major manifesto of the ruling party is proclaiming loudly and shamelessly that the "g waiting in office if elected" will "subsidize heavily" on PUBLIC-HOUSING (HDB), HEALTH-CARE AND EDUCATION TO ALL SINGAPOREANS, as every Singaporeans count!!!!

Because under the ruling of this autocratic, dogmatic and dictate g, first, the social-welfare provided to the citizen is closed to zero--as "it" always promulgate relentlessly that Singapore is not a welfare-state, second, there are totally no different in social status and benefits or whatsoever, between Citizens and prs and to a lesser extend fts, except marginal advantages in public-housing, health-care and education.

Now, the ruling party fails miserably in two major proclamations out of three, i.e., public-housing and health-care, except education. (In actual facts, if you consider so many scholarships given out mainly to the SEA and Chinese students to a lesser extend India students, ###using taxpayers’ money###, to study in local schools and ***universities***, the ruling party also fails in this major task)

This type of outrageous ridiculousness will be totally loathsome to the ears and minds of the electorates to hear and accept! Once, the ignorance ordinary citizens abominate the present ruling party, you should know the result! Good luck to SDP pertaining to the fore-coming GE!!!! Million-cheers to democracy!!!!!!!

That describes the PAP leaders led by their super-master schemer LKY fittingly.
One can list a number of their brilliant but diabolical schemes to "con" the citizens....
1 cpf
2 grc
3 gst
4 1-day cooling off period
5
6

Some fair criticisms to my initial post.

I readily admit in my earlier post that my analysis breaks down when the auction price grossly exceeds the fair market value. Perhaps someone has the information on what fair market value of land in Singapore should be given the market imperfections (e.g. government control of land, government affiliated bidders, etc.). Just curiosity on my part.

Most developed countries, democratic or not so democratic, that I am aware of have a version of the Land Acquisition Act. The Singapore government is not alone in short changing original land owners. That does not make it right, but it may be a necessary evil. I don't know where I stand on this issue of eminent domain since there are good arguments on both sides. Regardless, the only Singaporeans being cheated by the government actions appear to be the original land owners who had to give up their land to the government for less than fair market value. Would it make any difference to most HDB owners if the government paid fair market value for the land and then charged HDB flat owners for the full or partial cost of the land? In this case, the profits are merely transferred from the government to the land owners. HDB owners still pay for the land. Hardly a general benefit to all of Singapore.

To Seelan Palay: The opportunity cost argument still holds regardless of how the government obtained the land. Opportunity cost is measured by the next best alternative given up and not the acquisition cost of the land. For example, I take a bucket of water from the reservoir without paying and I have the choice of watering my plants or selling it to someone for $1. If I water my plants, I have an opportunity cost of $1. If I take the $1, my opportunity cost is not watering my plants. Basically, each use has its associated cost which must be accounted for lest you distort resource allocation. You are correct in saying that the PAP does not appear capable of handling the current adverse economic environment. And they are grossly overpaying themselves to the point of corruption. But the PAP at least acknowledges and understands certain (not all) economic principles. I just think it is unfortunate that the SDP chooses to bash easy targets (in other articles on this site) like corporations, global trade and free markets without recognizing that they are also responsible for wealth creation. It is easy enough to call for the redistribution of wealth and the establishment of an extensive welfare state, but I would prefer that the SDP also come up with a decent plan on how to pay for it.

As for asoaso's argument about the people owning the land and the evils of capitalism and free trade, I don’t think there is enough space in this post to even get into that argument. But I will say that private property rights is generally agreed to be a essential factor in economic development and the creation of wealth. As for free trade and capitalism, it is an imperfect and harsh system. Unfortunately, it is the least worse option. Communism failed. Socialist countries with overly generous social welfare programs and restraints on free trade and capitalism are facing increasing strains on government budgets and lackluster economic performance. There is no free lunch. Everything has a cost. Too much tax burden on corporations will stifle job creation.

The role of government is not to meddle or interfere with market forces when they are working properly. Government should only regulate when the market fails. Also, the role of government should be to help its citizens adjust to market forces and provide aid to economically displaced workers.

You can add ERP to that list, maxchew.

Make sure you mention:-
1) "Get out of my elite uncaring face".
2) French cooking lessons.
3) Males citizens serving NS to protect PRs, who take the land, house, jobs and scholarships.

Dear Boring,

Let me make it as simple for you as possible. A subsidy is financial assistance given, usually by a public body, to private organisations or individuals. It also usually means that the body that is giving the subsidy does not profit from the transaction.

Eg: If the gahmen buys an expensive drug and pays $100 for it to a pharm but sells the drug to patients for $20, then it has given a subsidy of $80. The tab of the $80-subsidy is borne by taxpayers.

But if for some strange reason, the company gives the gahmen the drug for free, and the blady gahmen then takes the drug and sells it to patients for $20, then it is not a subsidy. All it is doing is just making less money.

According to your logic, the gahmen could have made more money had it sold the medicine to a rich patient for the full 100 mullahs. But just because it doesn't, it cannot claim that is opportunity cost. Why? The simple reason is that it didn't fork out money for the drug in the first place. Geddit?

Private companies can claim opportunity cost because they don't get things for free. They buy them. Meaning they paid money for whatever they own. The gahmen doesn't, understand?

The fact that you keep equating gahmen to a private business says a lot about your brain. Private businesses are PRIVATE!! Governments are elected, at least they are supposed to be. Just because this PAP one ain't, does not mean that it can behave like a private #@1*% business and count opportunity cost.

If you need more tuition lessons please let me know. Happy to oblige. :D

If the govt does not sell it, then you have to buy from the rich patient, the market. So it is still a subsidy, isn't it?

To asoaso:

I will take up your offer for tuition lessons if I need to improve on my ability to make nonsensical economic arguments. You should trot down to your local library (based on your post, it seems like its been a long time since you visited one) and pull out a textbook on basic economics. For your benefit, I repeat that opportunity cost does not have anything to do with acquisition cost.

In any economic decision making, one must factor in opportunity cost to ensure the proper allocation of resources. Now that the government has "stolen" the land as you call it, they have an asset worth $1 million for example. By selling the asset to the HDB for less than its worth to private parties, the government is forgoing some profit. This lost profit is a subsidy. The HDB owner is also benefitting IF the price of land charged by the government is less than that charged by a private developer.

Good one asoaso! When you example it so simple, even a dim witted person can understand. Don't blame these people who have been fed years of propaganda.

Article comments:

The subject of this article appears to be about 2 things - 1) the way the government makes a profit and passes it off as a subsidy and 2) the government pretends that housing is affordable when in fact it leaves you with no life savings. I do see a few things that are slightly problematic with this article's 2nd point (the 1st I agree with, though I never really thought of it that way before).

1. Firstly, looking at the theory of needs, what are the basic needs of human survival? Any P6 student should be able to tell you - shelter, water, food and air. The rest deals with quality of life. The article implicitly admits that eventually, people *will* own their own properties. Compare this to places like the UK or US, where generally, people *rent* - and pay rental till they die. With this requirement fulfilled, retirement money can be channeled into purchasing the other 2 requirements that you have to pay for.

2. Only the OA is used to pay for the HDB fees. There's still the SA for retirement. If a person has to use his SA moneys to pay the balance on his apartment, that probably means he's not living within his means. The government isn't expected to protect idiots from themselves. The article is correct in this aspect. However, i think that most people would generally be more prudent and *not* plan to use their SA to finish payment on their apartment (unless they have no choice but to).

Another problem about this article (and quite a few others) is that I don't really see any feasible alternatives put forth (heck, i don't even see any alternative put forth!) - something which I'm actually quite surprised at, considering it's a political website meant to win supporters.

Suggestion to the SDP: If you want to win support, don't just complain. Complain, come up with a credible, valid and implementable alternative and SHOW that it's better and incentivise people to vote it into power. Complaints aren't going to get you too many votes.

A common refrain i hear is 'I don't like the PAP, but there isn't any credible alternative'.

Give us one and SHOW it to us.

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

@Asoaso: Actually, BoredAccountant's definition of Opportunity Cost is correct. What is means is just that by doing one thing, you cannot do another thing. Like if you sleep, you cannot play soccer - so your opp. cost is soccer. Actual money doesn't need to be involved.

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

@BoredAccountant:

I have some counter-arguments and comments on your posts.

1) Purchase of land at fair market rates

True, most HDB owners wouldn't give a crap if the government had to purchase property at fair market rates - so long as prices remain at the same level. However, have you ever considered the feelings of the landowners, which you just apparently casually brushed off? The Government's land acquisition policy is inherently unfair and unjust to the last landowner of the land which it acquires. that landowner may have spent his life savings, thinking he got a good property for rental so he can retire comfortably on the income and 2 years later - oops! reacquisition. He gets paid a pittance compared to whatever he forked out at current market values and has recouped maybe 20% of the loss? if he's lucky? The government takes it, gives it to the HDB, redevelops it and sells it again at current market values minus a bit - which it tags as a subsidy, as Asoaso pointed out. Sure, it incurs opportunity cost - but nett? It should make a pretty hefty profit. It's just smaller due to the opportunity cost. And I don't think opportunity cost qualifies as a subsidy. Otherwise a supermarket can 'subsidise' all it's products by NOT selling them at exorbitant prices.

The word 'subsidy' is quite misleading. Generally when people hear 'subsidy', it means that 'oh, someone is sponsoring part of the cost of something'. People generally don't equate 'subsidy' with making a direct profit. Education qualifies as subsidised, but not HDB purchase.

For all you know, the entire problem is over technicalities. Maybe a better term would be 'discount'? *shrug* Perhaps. But I feel that 'subsidy' really shouldnt be used here.



2) Private Property Rights

You mentioned that 'private property rights is generally agreed to be a essential factor in economic development and the creation of wealth'. I'm not actually sure what your point was getting at, but i do think this fact is relevant.

Did you know the PAP deliberately excluded the concept of private land ownership and fair compensation from the Constitution? Read the Parliamentary Debates when they were debating that point for their reasons. Similarly, they deliberately excluded the right to vote. Therefore, ordinary citizens do not have any constitutional right to own property - in Singapore, it's a 'privilege' granted by Parliament.



3) Capitalism

I think you shouldn't lump together capitalism as a philosophy and as a market system. While singapore has a capitalist market, we have a socialist government (which they self-admitted, by the way). Socialism basically involves (if i'm not wrong) redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor in society through active government intervention.

The CLAA is an example of a socialist philosophy in action. However, it's applied too impartially - the rich and the poor are both treated the same way, despite the poor needing it more.

As much as i dislike the idea of the government 'cheating' people of their money through legislation, I think you do have a point in that it's the best system. There are some kinks that i'd like to see worked out, though - e.g. it's one thing to reacquire property owned by a businessman or company, it's another to take it from a normal middle-class family, for which it represents a large part of the family's life savings.

BoredAccountant:

You have taken a stand which is the damnation of the SDP as a credible alternative to the PAP government. Naturally, this position of yours is based on one narrow perspective of the many facets of life. And to base it on this singular viewpoint of contention to make such a judgment, it would normally be considered to be imprudent.

The issue here is more about the meaning as to the role of government in its provision of services (in this case, housing and CPF) to its citizens.
As widely known, the original intention of the HDB was to provide the low cost housing to the low income group to buy and owned the homes which in return to give them a sentiment of having a stake of Singapore and as an encouragement to further worked hard.

For PAP to profit on the housing originally designs as a low cost social housing service to serve the majority of the people, seems surreal to many of the older generation. But it has been happening for many years.

Some of us could argue that the role of the government was very limited in its social provision and therefore it was right for authority to think of profit and that the government was simply expected to maintain law and order and to protect the country from invasion. But please, Harry Lee did interfere onto our lives for example, on our language policy, babies, education, marriage etc. The onus is appropriately on the government to provide and not to profit us since it has often told us on how we live and govern our life. We give up freedom for “happiness”, isn’t it?

BoredAccountant

"The SDP does good work in publicizing the social inequities in Singapore and fighting for more democracy. But its economic illiteracy and unjustifiable antipathy to global trade and free market ideology damages its claim to be a credible alternative to the government. "

For a so-called self proclaimed accountant to talk about democracy and human rights, surely raises alarm bells especially in Singapore, right? Accountants here tend to be overprotective of their ricebowls, isn't it?

From what you have wrote, you are not an accountant or one who is uninformed about democracy. In the latter case please do your homework before you accuse the SDP of economic illiteracy.

Wahlau, Boring, you are one seriously confused kid.

"Lost profit = subsidy?" Ah hia, are you ok or not? This is exactly what the SDP was trying to say about the banana example. You raise the price, sell the stuff cheaper and then say subsidize. Like that the laylong shop giving cheap sale discount 50% is also subsidizing us. Lost profit mah... Friend that econs book you have on your table better throw away.

"The HDB owner is also benefitting IF the price of land charged by the government is less than that charged by a private developer."

Now try this: the gahmen sets HDB price at about 10 percent of our wages and leave the rest of our CPF alone for our f**king retirement. That will really benefit us instead of your idiotic notion that just because it sells HDB cheaper than it charges private developers, we benefit. As i said, save your snakeoil for somewhere else lah, bro.

You assume that its the papee gahmen's role to be in business and okay for it to be profiting from the people on something as basic as housing. Why should the gahmen be in this business in the first place which is causing so many people to go into longterm debt that they need to use their CPF retirement money to pay for a roof over their heads?

You want to have income when you retire or a roof over your head? Can you choose?

kmt,

The next time you check your CPF account, you tell me whether your SA (I take it that you mean special account) is enough for your retirement or not, assuming you are not one of those rich ones who have already retired.

Most people will need 2/3 of their last drawn salary to live on when they retire. SA enough? Even the gahmen has admitted that whatever is left in the CPF kitty after paying for your damn flat is not enough. And you say enough.

I know what Opp Cost is. What I take issue is with the fact that the papee feels that it has to do one or the other = make (less) profit or count Opp Cost. One, why should it make profit in the first place? We're so used to this idea that it is natural that the gahmen profits from their dealings with the people. Why do we have to accept this as a given? Two, why should you even count Opp Cost and then pass it off as subsidy?

On the point about alternatives. That's where you get so f**ked up like Boring. You just need a few clicks to get into the party's manifesto section and the alternatives are there. I could but I won't spoonfeed you. You probably need the exercise, at least your fingers could benefit from it.

When the opp criticises your papee, you say opp like to comprain. Quickest way to degrade the points made. Point out that poorer folks are without a roof over their heads because the HDB flats are unaffordable and the papee's response? Opp just comprain and comprain, no alternative (which is a lie in the first place).

Opp should show they have credible alternative ideas. Why don't you tell your papee friends to stop controlling the media, using the ISD, suing the opp, and appointing corrupt judges who don't have backbones. Until then stop blaming the victim, will you?

Hello thekmt,

Actually, I am using subsidy broadly to include both direct and indirect subsidies. Indirect subsidies include the provision of goods at less than fair market value. To use your example, supermarkets are in fact subsidizing consumers if they have the pricing power and can sell their products at exorbitant prices, but choose to sell it for less.

My mention of property rights is in response to asoaso's rant about land belonging to the people and given by God. A reasonable and logical extension of that argument would be an attack on private property rights. By the way, I am using property rights in the legal sense which includes tangible and intangible goods like land, money, patents, etc.. Based on the Index of Economic Freedom, Singapore ranks high on the protection of private property rights. I did find your fact about the PAP's restrictions on land ownership interesting. The PAP seems perversely eager to deny property rights to Singaporeans while extending them to businesses and corporations. Still, it is consistent with the PAP’s overwhelming desire to promote economic growth at the expense of individual citizens.

I don’t think Singapore fits the model of socialism as it is commonly used with regards to social policy and redistribution of wealth. If anything, I agree with the SDP’s arguments that the PAP is actually comfortable or at least indifferent about the unequal distribution of wealth to the extent that it does not cost them political support. But in terms of economic policy, Singapore is definitely a pupil of socialism. Singapore’s domestic economy is heavily controlled by the government which also owns or controls much of the property and factors of production. It is not surprising that the productivity growth in Singapore is dismal. Governments are often poor at running companies and directing resource allocation. It would also be interesting to actually find out how much money the government has wasted through in trying to promote certain industries besides their tragically inept and costly investments in foreign companies.

To Brendan: Are you sure you are not from the PAP? After all, you seem to argue like them. Instead of attacking the argument, you attack the person. So accountants don’t have a right to express themselves? Perhaps you want to take away the right to vote for accountants or for anyone you deem unworthy?

Also, according to you, I am accusing the SDP of economic illiteracy. How does studying about democracy make me a better critic of the SDP’s economic policies? Would it not make more sense to ask me to study more economics? Well, I should keep my response short so you have more time to go see a doctor. You obviously hit your head hard on something and it is clearly affecting your cognitive skills.

>>> Expensive does not mean good.


http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_465712.html

Dec 12, 2009
More falling windows
Lack of maintenance is one reason for such incidents at HDB blocks

>>>While singapore has a capitalist market, we have a socialist government (which they self-admitted, by the way).

It is actually neither capitalist nor socialist, it is more primitive than both - it is actually feudal.

If it is really capitalist, then the state of public transport would have been better, just like Hong Kong, which is very effective and efficient.
If it is really socialist, then the citizens would have enjoyed better benefits.

It is in fact a system that inherits the weaknesses of both systems and is neither.

((It is actually neither capitalist nor socialist, it is more primitive than both - it is actually feudal.))

It's neither a country nor a nation, it is a family fiefdom steeped in greed and corruption.

@Asoaso:

Firstly and most importantly, can we be civil in our posts? That includes leaving out the epithets and personal attacks.

Thank you.

Now, I agree with you on the Opp cost / Subsidy thing, so I don't really see why you're counterarguing. I just said that BoredAccountant's definition of opp cost was correct.

'Most people will need 2/3 of their last drawn salary to live on when they retire'. Correction: you need an income of 2/3 of your last drawn salary to maintain a COMPARABLE standard of living. I am not talking about a COMPARABLE standard of living, i am talking about the BARE-BONES BASIC necessities of living - food, water, shelter. If you own your own home (and the govt doesn't acquire it) when you retire, shelter is taken care of. The SA is probably enough to cover most of the costs of basic food, electricity and water. Your life won't have much standard, but it's enough for survival. There will always be people who slip through the net and have not enough money in their SA through no fault of their own, true, but no system is perfect. It's definitely better than welfare. Like i said, I would like to see a workable alternative being put forth; which also leads me to my 3rd point.

I admit I only skimmed through the manifesto and didn't scrutinise the details. I don't expect you to spoonfeed me. However, I DO expect the writers of an article to put all the necessary information in one place. That's persuasive writing - you get people to follow your chain of thought to see your viewpoint. You don't try to get people to have to link your policies and articles together.

(start of rant)

Have you ever read a Newsweek or Times article where they bash one policy or another? The writers in their article propose, support and self-analyse their stand in -every- article. Sure, with some effort, you can find their beliefs somewhere (their 'manifesto') but in their articles itself, they state their views, show how their views apply, self-analyse them and present their arguments why it's better than the current system. That's what I mean by SHOWING people the alternatives. Try reading Fareed Zakaria - I don't always agree with his stand, but he's a good, persuasive writer. It's a professional standard which is sadly lacking in most opposition critical articles. The PAP, however, DOES follow this standard (or try to, although their job is infinitely easier since they're the government) in supporting their policies.

This benefits the SDP in more than one way. Firstly, it puts its views forth so 'lazy f**ks' like me don't have to look around for the SDP's stance. Secondly, it looks more professional - and image is especially important to a political party. Any appearance of professionalism makes people think you are more capable - and translates into more votes. Thirdly, it allows the opposition to put down the government's policies and propose their own every chance they get - DRUM it into people's minds. And lastly, it shows the leadership's creativity and allows them to tailor their policies ( or 'show how they meet') each particular problem they identify. It isn't really a lot of effort to put it in, and is something they have to do anyway.

Oh, and if you want to bring up the argument of 'why don't YOU think and suggest something better', I'M not running for government. People don't expect ME to give them answers.

So, YES I AM saying that all the opposition APPEARS to do is 'comprain'. AND WHY NOT? The thing is, people nowadays are exposed to editorials in distinguished publications such as Newsweek and Times, and have come to expect the same quality and similar means of showing. Have you considered that people aren't just brushing off the opposition when they say they only complain? Some (like me) just want to be SHOWN WORKABLE ANSWERS IN A MANNER THEY ARE ACCUSTOMED TO. Yes, we may be 'lazy f**ks who can't even be bothered to give our fingers exercise by searching'. So? Does the opposition want the votes or not? The PAP does it, why can't the Opposition? Whatever the opposition counts for NOTHING if the Electorate doesn't hear about it.

(rant over, thankyew).

Read BoredAccountant's explanation in his reply to my post for the 'subsidy/lost profit' thing - he's technically, industry-standard speaking, correct. Keep in mind that industry definitions commonly differ from common definitions or perceptions in other peoples' minds.

I also don't really see anything wrong with the government trying to make a profit. My main complaint is that they make people think that they're *not* making a profit. We probably differ on this viewpoint, though :).

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

@BoredAccountant:

Nice to have a response which doesn't resort to personal attacks. Thanks.

On your point on indirect subsidies - honestly, that's a very technical, industry definition that i don't think the general public will know. When people hear 'subsidy', they usually think only of 'direct' subsidy. And I think the PAP knows this, but they're using a technically correct definition to avoid misrepresentation. Keep in mind that LKY's a lawyer - they're sneaky that way ^.^.

Thanks for clarifying your point on land ownership. Cross-referring to your third point (on socialist social policies): don't you think the PAP stance on this policy is very socialist? They absolutely refuse(d) to give people the right to own property in the constitution (for the purpose of this argument, ignore the fact that the PAP can amend the constitution at will, hence rendering it not-really-distinguishable from an Act of Parliament in terms of modification). In fact, they appear to say that all land belongs to the government in the first place so they shouldn't have to pay a fair market price for it! This is definitely NOT a capitalist/democratic social policy.

Maybe you include it as an economic policy; i dunno. I think it's a bit of both.

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

@Quantum:

I'm curious; how is it feudal, if you don't mind explaining?

And I think our public transport system is comparable to HK's. It could be better, sure, but at least the buses run on time... plus minus 15 minutes if there are no jams :P.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiefdom

The fief (alternatively, fee, feoff, fiefdom), under the system of medieval European feudalism, often consisted of inheritable lands or revenue-producing property granted by a lord, generally to a vassal (who holds seisin), in return for a form of allegiance (usually given by homage and fealty), originally to give him the means to fulfill his military duties when called upon. However, anything of value could be held in fief, such as an office, a right of exploitation (e.g., hunting, fishing) or any other type of revenue, rather than the land it comes from.

((Why don't you tell your papee friends to stop controlling the media, using the ISD, suing the opp, and appointing corrupt judges who don't have backbones. Until then stop blaming the victim, will you?))

I've yet to read responses from any of the PAPees here to the above reality. Through total control of the entire state apparatus the family fiefdom is continuing to crush and demolish the opposition. The electoral process under a PAP dept is a major fraud. And yet these PAPees are ever ready to advise the opposition on how to win the confidence of voters. If the PAP has the confidence of voters, it shouldn't be afraid to free the media and allow for free and fair elections to take place. Only cowards, fearful of being rejected by the people, resort to secrecy and concealment.

So far all that the PAPees rely on are text-book regurgitation of neo-liberal remedies and justifications to the economic quagmire the fiefdom has fallen into.

What is so great about Newsweek, Time and Fareed Zakaria, an apologist of greedy, corrupt and dictatorial LKY?

@seebeng:

I don't think it's a fief, since for a fief to exist, there must be a lord to give the fief. In this case, it's just a lord.

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

@Quantum:

I can sort of see what you're getting at - but i don't really think the government's feudal. Maybe you could explain your reasoning? For one thing Feudalism generally involves serfs working the land and financing nobility, who fight, administer their estates and in turn finance other nobility. In our case, the 'serfs' do the fighting AND support the 'nobility' :D.

Or maybe, as the joke puts it, it's a Trinity - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Goh :D

The family fiefdom, with its lord, the tyrant, has proclaimed: “Who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what people think."

With this kind of autocratic utterances, is there any room for the people, kept in fear, to vote for the opposition or for that matter the opposition to reach out to the "electorate"?

The fact remains that the entire state machinery, including the MSM, is at the beck and call of the family fiefdom. Without changing or overhauling these blatant abuses, it's no use for the PAPees to pontificate here how opposition should appeal to the voters.

When the fundamental principles for free and fair elections are totally missing, why add on further nonsense such as "cooling-off" period, etc. etc., etc.?

Let's cut to the chase, kmt. People like you are Papees. You may disagree with the scumsinwhite a bit here and there (like g'men calling it a subsidy when it is not) but feel that the basics of the system is good (like the g'men making a profit off the people). That Boring guy feels the same way.

And people like you say that a few slip through the net because 'no system is perfect' implying that Papee is doing okay (after all what system is perfect, right?) I've got news for you. There are more than a few who don't have enough retirement savings. As I said MOST Singaporeans don't have enough savings to retire on. Why should these people after having worked all their lives end up with enough savings just to survive on BARE-BONES BASIC? (your words) The rich like you don't expect to live like that when you retire, so why should it be okay for workers?

And why is it that you don't have enough savings? Most of it goes to paying for that HDB flat. Understand? So let me repeat again, unlike you I say its not okay for the g'men to make profits from the people on basic housing.

On other point, first you say that oppo no alternatives, only know how to comprain. Then I say open your eyes. Then you say they didn't put in front of you unlike Time and Newsweek got put in front of you. *shake head*

Even if sdp got put in front of you, you will say they did not make it bold and catch people's eye. You will sure to have something else to say one. You will keep blaming sdp for not doing this or that but you will not blame Papee for humtum the oppo until they have no resources to do anything. You will not admit that you don't see alternatives because the Papee control the media.

You say 'The PAP does it, why can't the Opposition? Whatever the opposition counts for NOTHING if the Electorate doesn't hear about it.' Show me where the Papee write articles and with ideas/solutions in their website? You read Papee's WORKABLE ANSWERS in newspaper, right? I rest my case.

Then you sit there like a big effing shot and say SHOW ME what alternatives you have and I may consider voting for you. You won't lift a finger to help but very tuakee sit there and say SHOW ME. This much I know, Papee supporters like you will not vote for oppo one ah. You are just here to stir sh*t.

O by the way, kmt, where is is the other T?

I agree with asoaso,SDP has come up with many alternative ideas and identify many problems with government policies but have you seen any credit being given to them (i.e. SDP) when the government proposes similar ideas or identify certain policy problem which the SDP has identified years ago? As long as our pathetic MSM remains as they are now, as the PAP government's "running dog", even the best ideas given will not be SEEN by the general public and therefore will not be translated to votes. Eventually,one has to take into account that SDP is a political party and has limited resources, so why is there a need to unreasonable compare it with Newsweek or Times? Shouldnt we instead give credit to SDP for the effort they have taken for having written such alternative articles in the first place and allows a forum for public interaction?

In the first place, why talk about PROFIT on us, the citizens?? Why are they 'doing business' on us?? This land belongs to us together, Singaporean not PAP ITself. We have the right not wanting to do any business with any one as an individual but this government makes ITself as a 'company' that every one of us are forced to obliged with their 'business making'!! *&^%$#@$!!! We are being sabotaged by a political party that most of us (Singaporean) didn't vote for, anyway.

Only Singapore government 'earning' PROFIT. I thought a government should call it REVENUES. What a unique government we have here :P

AnnA

Hello, Ruling Party win again

Successful Old trick
The lured of upgrading lift, balcony and rain shetler

Old trick recycled
The lured of upgrading Pinnacle flats, 50th storey, jogging park and bigger higher flats

Who get these upclass 1st
Those Pro-PAP Constituencies will enjoy the goodies.

Exploiting Kaisu-sim
Make sure you are one of those Pro-PAP Constituencies, do the right things vote PAP

Wastage of Pork Spending
Opposition party had to educated that these that does benefits S'porean.

Do your Math
More commitment with 99yrs flats. 35yrs 45yrs to service those loans haven't S'porean had enough of it. Work and pay work and pay...is it wise things to do in the an uncertain future.

The biggest problem that we, the true-blue-Singaporeans face is that, due to relentless rhetorical propagandas over 5-solid-decades by the state-media, most ignorant main-street-men already been brain-washed to just care for themselves, as long as they are given some sweet-goodies of votes’ buying by the miw before every GE, they will stupidly vote for the miw disregard who is the real beneficiary after the "erection".

One of the possible ways in defeating the miw is to gather support from the international communities but, due to the despicable and infamous strong handedness of the miw, most of the international organizations will ultimately subservient to the ruling party for commercial and financial gains! I would dare to say, most of the developed-nations with strong democracies have certain commercial or business investments or involvement in this little-black-mark. (Since, the miw like to black-list Singaporeans, if you do not belong to their clique, it is more appropriate to label Singapore as little-black-mark than little-red-dot, don’t you think so?)

For example, in Taiwan, it doesn't matter who form the g, the dpp or kmt, it will only make a different to the people in Taiwan, when come to dealing with Singapore, the Taiwan g still has to abide by the international non-interference rule and, for the Taiwanese own benefits, they still have to butter-up to the miw to gain financial and commercial benefits. Vice versa, that also applies to Japan, South Korea, the Australia, Canada, the UK, France, Italy, etc, as well as the United State of America's politicians.

With those type of unstated constrains listed above, what can feeble Singaporeans do to up-root this bunch of ungrateful miw? Does it matter who is in-charge of other country, **obama or bush**, as we are always the born losers and the miw the born winners!!!!!

Anna, you are exactly right. Why should a government elected to serve the people then turn around and make themselves like a private company and make profit from the people? Then you have guys like Boring and KMT justifying for the papee.

Boring: Of course the HDB flats are subsidized.
KMT: I also don't really see anything wrong with the government trying to make a profit.

They cite from econs textbooks and talk about free market principles. Most probably these textbooks are written by westerners referring to their economic systems. But do they have a g'men that also functions as a profit-making body?

a. The papee make laws about property and property prices. b. They are the sole player in this 'market'. c. They make a profit from the people. And these guys come here with they econs knowledge they read from textbooks and try to teach us about free market system and that its okay to make profit. Sometimes textbooks and reality don't match.

But what is even worst, is that Boring says what papee is doing is a necessary evil and kmt says that papee system has flaws but is the best that we've got. If Sporens keep thinking like that we all sure die one. This laziness or coward type of thinking, dun challenge, dun try to think of alternatives, dun thinking of outside the box but just keep saying papee not that good but is the best we've got will surely kill Spore.

But they probably are the rich type and dun want to jeopardise they own well-being but want to actsy borak here and show us how smart they are with their knowledge of textbook econs and long-winded comments. Their most dangerous point is that for all the papee's flaws we must accept it because there are no better alternatives. To them I say...better not, afterwards sdp dun post my comment.

Yes, asoaso, by all means, let us ignore all the textbooks and the authors who spent all those years training major and researching the subject. If asoaso says it's true, then we would be foolish to deny it. Who cares if empirical and theoretical evidence basically proves that efficient allocation of resources require taking into account opportunity cost?

Of course the experts and textbooks can be wrong. Nobody denies that. However, nothing you have said even begins to explain or justify departure from accepted wisdom. Aside from your pompous, self-righteous rant against everyone who disagrees with you, you really aren’t making any kind of cogent or logical argument. Just because you have an opinion about something does not make it a fact. Try substantiating your arguments for once. I know all this thinking is new to you and might give you a headache but people might actually start to take you seriously. BY the way, I did not say the PAP's actions are a necessary evil, I said that they may be a necessary evil. It is not the same thing. But I guess I should not be surprised that you don't get that distinction.

To thekmt: Thank you. I, too enjoy a civil and intelligent debate. You have given me some interesting things to consider. The Singapore government is very diligent about protecting property rights for foreign investors but less so for its citizens.

Actually I think you are being kind to the SDP. I read their manifesto and it is filled with wonderful proposals. But there is no serious discussion on how to pay for their proposals, no serious study on the ramifications on the proposals nor is there a hint of how they can reconcile their agenda with Singapore’s economic reality.

To everyone who thinks the SDP has a credible and detailed platform: Thekmt is correct, the SDP is asking for your vote and trust, they should at least make the effort to present a credible case on how they will govern the country. Just saying that the PAP is incompetent, authoritarian and callous is not enough. Don’t sell your votes that cheaply to the SDP. It may be enough if you are merely ranting as an angry citizen. But anyone with pretensions to higher elected must do more. For example, It is easy to say that a minimum wage can alleviate poverty. But given the highly mobile nature of capital, competition from lower cost countries and low productivity in Singapore, would a minimum wage be advisable? All the SDP does is make a simplistic comparison by saying other countries that have a minimum wage are doing well. That is like saying my rich neighbor has a BMW, so if I went out and bought a BMW, I can get rich too. The SDP’s simplistic argument ignores the fact that many of these countries have resources that Singapore does not. Many of these countries also have a rate of productivity growth higher than Singapore which allows them to sustain a minimum wage. Also, the SDP mentioned some studies that support a minimum wage without telling us the name of those studies and the author. I can cite many other studies that conclude that the minimum wage is harmful to economic growth. Singapore may benefit from a minimum wage. However, you cannot make an educated decision about that based on the meager information given by the SDP.

Hello friends.. please stop comparing the capabilities between PAP and other political parties, can or not?

PAP is holding the treasury, definitely they win hands on. Have you ever try trusting 'them' to other political parties to prove their capability? No? So stop comparing!

Sounds like an idiot. Keep asking SDP to prove the very thing that is not in their power to do so.

To "bored accountant" now, AS A TRUE-BLUE-SINGAPOREAN", I instruct you to just "SHUT-UP" and "KEEP-QUIET", if you want to be a boot-licker, please go ahead and butter-up to the miw but, do not talk like a saint when you are not one! So far, whatever your arguments and theories proclaimed so loudly and vociferously are all have been promulgated by the miw relentlessly, we have enough of all these non-senses for so many years, will you just keep or sweep all those rhetoric under your carpet and just carry-on with your sycophantic life and finally, cease bothering us!!!

How about the miw's comparison to its counterparts in the private sector to demand annual-million-dollar-remuneration-package, isn’t this the same theory as your bmw proclamation?

See everyone, didn't I tell you this Boring guy is a papee? Now he's telling everyone not to support sdp's ideas and don't vote for sdp. At first the joker pretend, pretend to be like neutral but you catch him out, now he come out and say support papee.

He say you cannot just say papee authoritarian but must show how well oppo can govern. How to show? He doesn't say that papee son say buy votes and fix oppo, he never mention ISD, media under the control of papee, sue in court. These papees will say b is w and w is b if it suits them.

And also ah Boring, don't be so stupid can or not? I didn't say that everything econs textbook say is wrong. I was just pointing out your stupidity when you say lost profit = subsidy. I also said that econs theories cannot be just blindly used in the papee system because they have a free economy there whereas ours here, HDB and land anyway, is controlled by papee. I not pompous but who can take your stupidity and say lost profit = subsidy? If you dun want me to scold you like that then next time be careful what you say ok? By the way, you flush down the toilet that econs book on your table already or not?

Mr Boring say, 'BY the way, I did not say the PAP's actions are a necessary evil, I said that they may be a necessary evil.' Ok lah, ok lah. You right, I wrong. You said 'may be' not 'are' a necessary evil. (Wahlau, can you believe this guy? Want to wriggle also can do it more intelligently.) Probably my English not powderful enough but care to explain the big difference between the two?

Now he say sdp never mention how to pay for proposals. We have 200 billion dollars not good enough to spend a little bit on poor. But lose billions in investments no problem. ah ma and ah kong work like f**k cleaning toilet and get paid peanuts ok no problem. But sdp minimum wage cannot. Wait lah, people like this I believe one day will meet their karma. And then he say I pompous and self-righteous. >shake head<

"I can cite many other studies that conclude that the minimum wage is harmful to economic growth. SINGAPORE MAY BENEFIT FROM A MINIMUM WAGE. However, you cannot make an educated decision about that based on the meager information given by the SDP."

I have capitalize the middle sentence of your comment. Even you understand that it is possible. And why is it harmful when the locals obviously will not be exploited by their employers, be it present or future?? Or is it because it will affect your influx of foreign workers into Singapore that PAP will not be able to cover their salaries?

Curious, many of the self-professed democrats on this site can't take a little criticism. Stray from party ideology and their authoritarian streak starts to show. I guess you are all products of the PAP after all. Quite ironic that people who criticize the PAP for stifling dissent is doing the same thing.

To asoaso: If you cannot differentiate between "may be" and "are", then there is not much I can do. But take a quick look at any dictionary: "May" expresses a possibility (for example, asoaso MAY be a small minded person, or he MAY not be) while "are" or "is" is more definitive (for example, asoaso IS a small minded person). If you ever bothered picking up a Economics textbook or academic paper, you will realize that there are many written about economies like Singapore that are controlled by the government. The organization of the Singapore economy really is not that special.

To nobody: Nah, I really do like getting people like you upset. I am no saint. But I do like irritating hypocrites like you who are so blinded by hatred for the PAP, that they act and sound like the PAP when faced with criticisms and opposition. "Shut up" and "Keep quiet". Interesting words. I guess freedom of expression is dead in Singapore.

To everyone else: The SDP does not have to prove that things like the minimum wage is feasible, but at least show that they have made a more educated analysis of the issues; beyond the simplistic arguments in their manisfesto. After all, you can get decent macroeconomic information about Singapore from the UN, World Bank, IMF and a host of other news sources like the Economist, etc.. Finally, while many of you may (here is that word again asoaso) choose to believe otherwise, I am no PAP supporter. I merely think that dislike of the PAP should not automatically mean you embrace any alternative political party out there without first examining the party's platform and ideology.

AnnA,

Let me add more....Just an excuse to say foreign workers are cheaper(Singaporeans all along believe), imagine how much the revenues the govt collected from every employer to pay for foreign workers' levees, renewal of workers' permits, medical check up...etc ....now foreign workers' dormitories. Tax revenues from foreign private properties and yet increase in HDB property tax next year to cover their fat salaries.

People, especially supporters of SDP and any other opposition parties in S'pore.

We can argue till the cows come home. No need long story especially to PAPees supporters.

Come next GE, if we continue to vote for PAP, one thing is for sure, 100% guaranteed, we'll BE SCREWED for another 5 years.

So let's vote wisely (if only our election system is free & fair). No matter what obstacles the PAP puts in place, when there is a chance for all of us to vote (Be it GRC or SMC), let us all send a very strong signal to them. Enough is enough.

Unless those of you who do not get a chance to vote due to 'WALKOVER'.

Blessed Christmas & A Healthy 2010 to One & All.

Eh Mr Boring, what authoritarian streak are you talk about? I never call ISD, never send mata to your house, never sue you and you say I am like your papee. How can? I just point out your stupidity mah. Like that also cannot meh? This is free speech isn't it? But I see sdp continue to post your comments unlike your papee media. Like that still got stifle your dissent? You are in danger of increasing your stupidity level. Like they say, if you can't take the heat in the kitchen, get out lah.

Ok, ok, I admit I not like you read econs textbooks and academic papers. I know you study very cheem. All I'm saying is don't just regurgitate what you read, sometimes theories don't apply, like lost profit = subsidy. lol. Want to engage mouth (or is it mouse), must engage brain first lah.

Of course if you dun like papee you don't have to automatically embrace oppo. Here's the trick, papee know they cannot win over everybody. Those people whom they cannot win over they say no alternative. But every time they will get people like Mr Boring to say things like that but quickly add I not papee supporter.

Heehaheehaheeha....... Hello! My dear bored accountant, are you sure I have been up-set by you, please read my statement carefully, I use the word "INSTRUCT", do I sound up-set when I instruct a nerd to "SHUT-UP and KEEP-QUIET", I am putting myself at a level higher and more senior than you.

I suggest you go back to school to re-learn all your English and re-fresh all those knowledges that you have acquired wrongly, what a waste of your precious time.

Do I abominate pap? The answer is a definitely no, my dear. What I envision for Singapore is a multi-polar society that all power and wealth are more equally distributed to MORE citizens including the "insurgents" than just concentrated in an oligarch group of nerds. Now you understand my great vision!!!

You didn't read my comment carefully, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, what I am trying to impress upon you is that whatever you have debated in your comments are all reproductions of those propagandas relentlessly promulgated by the miw over the years and I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT I KNOW MUCH MORE THAN YOU AND ALSO, I AM MORE QUALIFY THAN YOU IF I WOULD TO CHOOSE TO BE THE PUPPET OR SIMPLY THE MOUTHPIECE OF THE PAP TO PROCLAIM "ITS" PROCLAMATIONS. Mind you, I will be much more persuasive and convincing than you!

You are just liken to those main-street-men whom are so gullible that easily deceive by the miw as you can not even differentiate the difference between being up-set and in a position of authority.

I feel so great that I set-up a “beautiful and wonderful trap” for this bored-accountant to entrapped in without even noticing of it!!! What a shameful nerd!!!!! A real hubris of who needs more learning and training!!!!!

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_467330.html

Dawson BTO flats a hit

The much-anticipated Dawson estate Housing Board (HDB) build-to-order (BTO) flats have drawn an overwhelming response, just two days after they were opened for bookings.

As of 5 pm on Wednesday, most flat types - studio apartment, four-room and five-room flats - were over subscribed, with the exception of the three-room flats and the paired flats under the multi-generation living scheme. The scheme allows a young couple to live close to their elderly parents, with a studio apartment attached to a four-room or five-room flat.

There were 104 applications for the 40 studio apartments, 159 for the 270 three-room units, 1,440 for 1,102 four-room flats, and 507 for 176 five-room units. For the 65 paired flats under the multi-generation living scheme, there were 44 bookings.

Some applicants like Mr Lingeswaran, 29, even took a day off from work to register for the Dawson flats. Currently living at Telok Blangah, he cited the prime location of the flats and its proximity to his daughter's school as the main reasons for his selection.

"This is something new and different that the HDB is offering. It will take longer to build but we think that with its nicer features, it's worth waiting for," he added.

The other two BTO projects in Sembawang and Bukit Panjang also attracted good response, with the four-room flats in both estates already oversubscribed. Applicants said they found the prices more affordable.

Guess what, yesterday I went to Mustafa and bought a digital camera which is at least $80 cheaper than elsewhere..I guess based on some people's linking of opportunity cost theory to subsidy argument, Mustafa has subsidised me..yippee..in fact I have also been subsidising a lot of people and organisation by giving my time and services to them for free.

The use of word such as 'may', 'could', 'possibly' etc, are frequently just cop-outs. Usually the person just wants to cover his ass, in case someone calls him out.

When the first response to criticism is defensive, and argues about semantics, you can tell the true intentions.

By the way, please note I said 'frequently' and 'usually'. This means that this is not always the case :D

The people, being cared for by and dependent on the govt for so long, cannot think for themselves anymore. They have lost their cognitive ability because they have stopped using them.

"But given the highly mobile nature of capital, competition from lower cost countries and low productivity in Singapore, would a minimum wage be advisable"

I find the claim that companies will leave if we implement a minimum wage to be ridiculous.

The minimum wage is intended to allow the work to live comfortably. By "comfortably", I do not mean luxuriously, but rather, being able to live life without having to worry about basic necessities such as food, health, utilities.

Most people SHOULD earn above the minimum wage, and therefore will not cost their employers extra. Only those at the lowest end of the pay scale will get a raise.

If a company's profit is significantly affected by the implementation of a minimum wage, then they can jolly well pack up and go. I do not want such exploitative businesses in my country.

As for competition from low cost countries, let's face it, we will never be able to compete with them, whether we implement a minimum wage or not. That is why developed countries compete based on quality, product differentiation and innovation.

"All the SDP does is make a simplistic comparison by saying other countries that have a minimum wage are doing well."

The example of other countries having a minimum wage, and still doing well, is not meant to suggest that a minimum wage will cure all ills. I don't even see how you can read it that way. It was meant to show that having a minimum wage will not necessarily result in the apocalyptic doomsday predicted by the PAP.

Plus, I have yet to hear of any country blaming their lack of growth on their minimum wage, even for those countries in a recession.

"Many of these countries also have a rate of productivity growth higher than Singapore which allows them to sustain a minimum wage"

As I mentioned above, the minimum wage is just that - a minimum. If you cannot operate your business if a minimum wage is implemented, just close down.

"But there is no serious discussion on how to pay for their proposals, no serious study on the ramifications on the proposals nor is there a hint of how they can reconcile their agenda with Singapore’s economic reality."

Cutting the pay of MPs and Ministers, and removing redundant positions such as MM, SM, president, and Minister's in the PM's office will save a great deal of cash. Abolishing the ISA will probably save money also.

Please explain exactly what you mean by Singapore's economic reality, and in what way the current agenda needs to be reconciled.

foxtrot :
"As for competition from low cost countries, let's face it, we will never be able to compete with them, whether we implement a minimum wage or not. That is why developed countries compete based on quality, product differentiation and innovation."
What a damn good answer! This abundance mentality brings in the best of both capitalism and socialism!
I bet many countries have implemented this minimum wage policy successfully.

To Foxtrot:

"But given the highly mobile nature of capital, competition from lower cost countries and low productivity in Singapore, would a minimum wage be advisable?”

I was merely asking a question on the advisability of the minimum wage in Singapore. My personal opinion is that a minimum wage may not be the best course of action. But the main point I was trying to make was that the SDP did not even bother putting forward a proper theoretical or empirical analysis of the issue. There are many academic papers written on the subject. I would have thought that the SDP would at least attempt to substantiate their position with more empirical and quantitative analysis. I offered up factors like foreign competition, productivity and capital flight as things (or economic realities) that the SDP should have considered or at least indicate that they have considered in formulating their manifesto.

Of course not all companies will leave Singapore. However, the foreign companies that invest in Singapore for its low wages will likely move if the minimum wage is set at a level higher than justified by the productivity of the average worker. Singapore already is under competitive pressure from other lower cost countries as you mentioned in your post. You may be happy to see companies relocate with their low wage jobs, but the low skilled workers in Singapore will be hurt by the loss of these jobs. Also, what other positions or companies do you envision will appear to take the place of the lost jobs in the mean time? Of course, the SIngapore economy will adjust eventually. BUt the economic disruption in the interim will be painful. Better to put in place plans to fix the weaknesses in the economy so that the market will pay a higher wage to all Singaporeans. The PAP is clueless in this regard. Also, lets not forget the small and medium Singapore businesses who cannot relocate. They may be put out of business by a minimum wage especially if they rely on low skilled workers.

Also, did you consider the inflationary impact of a minimum wage? After all, businesses will not absorb all the increased cost.

“As for competition from low cost countries, let's face it, we will never be able to compete with them, whether we implement a minimum wage or not. That is why developed countries compete based on quality, product differentiation and innovation.”

True, no arguments there. But Singapore is not a leader in product innovation and differentiation. Nor are Singaporeans productive. This is why the PAP is concerned. This is also why Singapore has always traditionally competed as a low cost producer. Of course, the PAP should take the blame for Singapore’s relatively weak competitive position. But until Singapore can compete effectively on those factors you mentioned, a minimum wage may hurt the low skilled worker in Singapore.

“The example of other countries having a minimum wage, and still doing well, is not meant to suggest that a minimum wage will cure all ills. I don't even see how you can read it that way. It was meant to show that having a minimum wage will not necessarily result in the apocalyptic doomsday predicted by the PAP.”

Agreed. I never said that the SDP was suggesting that a minimum wage will cure all ills. All I was getting at was that the SDP is doing a poor job at substantiating their claim that a minimum wage will not be more negative than positive. Just giving examples of other countries having the minimum wage and being prosperous is a lousy and lazy argument in support of their position. As I mentioned earlier, those other countries are fundamentally different from Singapore in terms of their natural endowments, productivity, labor mobility, etc.. To make a simple comparison is nonsensical. Also, we have to consider the level of minimum wage. The US has a minimum wage, but the wage is set sufficiently low and is not raised regularly. The productivity of the average worker in the US is at a level that makes it possible to pay them a wage above the minimum wage. What should the minimum wage be in Singapore? The SDP again just throws out a number without any kind of quantitative analysis. I am not saying that their number is wrong. But the SDP does give out enough information and statistics for me to make any kind of educated decision.

"Plus, I have yet to hear of any country blaming their lack of growth on their minimum wage, even for those countries in a recession."
The politicians may not be blaming the minimum wage in public (but in the US there actually are some politicians who do so), but there are ample academic papers and literature that detail the negative effects of a minimum wage on growth and job creation.

“As I mentioned above, the minimum wage is just that - a minimum. If you cannot operate your business if a minimum wage is implemented, just close down.”
I think many workers who rely on these low skilled jobs may disagree with you.

“Cutting the pay of MPs and Ministers, and removing redundant positions such as MM, SM, president, and Minister's in the PM's office will save a great deal of cash. Abolishing the ISA will probably save money also.”

Sounds good. Sign me up. But how much cash will that save? Also, remember, these are savings by the government and not businesses. All that will happen is that the government will have a bigger surplus. But assuming that the cost savings are translated into lower taxes or subsidies for businesses or workers (which may not be the case), Singapore has a GDP of about USD$200 billion. Any savings that you envision will be meager relative to the size of the economy.

>>> Seize lands and then later maybe claim that it is "subsidies"

Chinese man sets himself on fire

A Chinese man is being treated in hospital after setting himself on fire in the capital, Beijing, to protest against the demolition of his home.

The man, named by local media as Xi Xinzhu, set himself alight when a demolition crew arrived to move him out and start tearing down his home.

Analysts say the incident will add to already intense pressure to reform China's rules on forced eviction.

Last month a woman died after setting herself alight in a similar protest.

Growing anger

Xi Xinzhu suffered burns to 10% of his body, officials told the Chinese Communist Party-controlled People's Daily newspaper.

"We tried everything to raise legal questions about this demolition through normal channels, but nobody would do anything, although there are plainly problems," Xi's brother, Xi Xinqiang, told Reuters news agency.

The protest is just one of a series in a country where land is effectively controlled by the state.

The law currently allows local governments to claim land and confiscate homes for urban development projects - a system which critics say is open to abuse.

Residents often complain that the amount of compensation offered is far below the real value of their homes.

Chinese legal experts have called for major changes, and in a sign that the government may be seeking to ease public anger, officials met nine of them on Wednesday to discuss the issue.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/8418315.stm

Published: 2009/12/17 13:27:50 GMT

© BBC MMIX

Mr Boring, can you please sometimes just do a bit of homework? I was curious about what you said and i looked around this website and saw that sdp had put up some proper and valid arguments for min wage. again what toking you?

I read in one of the article that even NTU econs prof did some research and also support intro of min wage in Spore. Still think sdp min wage all hot air?

Papee like you like to criticise oppo for not doing this and that. Produce 'quantitative analysis' and sadistics. He doesn't tell people that PAP rely on civil service to do work for them. What about oppo in other countries? They have resources and are democratic. Spore oppo kenna whack like crazy and Sporens dun dare to help them.

In typically papee style you keep using this to humtum the oppo here. Not once you mention papee dirty tactics. Don't be so blatant can or not, Boring? At least you want to be papee dog like that Ah Tee, also be a bit more subtle lah.

@BoringAccountant

Of course, if minimum wage is raised, and nothing else happens, cost will go up. There are other actions that can be taken to mitigate this. The government can reduce rentals (last I heard rentals are a significant portion of business costs), as well as reducing the costs of utilities such as power (remember we are paying oil rates for natural gas powered electricity). This also addresses the other issue that you brought up, that cutting costs only works for the government and not businesses. If executed correctly, these will counterbalance each other, and workers will keep their jobs and earn more. Of course, the government will earn less, but really, our government earns too much already so it can afford the hit. An additional benefit is that with more disposable income, people will be inclined to spend more, and this is good for domestic demand.

You mention that Singaporeans aren't productive enough to support a minimum wage. Now I would like to you to provide some statistics/explanations to support that. People here regularly work OT, sometimes on weekends, without any form of compensation. That surely chalks up the productivity-to-pay ratio.

You also mention that there isn't enough information presented on the minimum wage. Such information would require much discussions and talks with unions. The problem is 1) unions don't exist, and 2) how are you going to get employers (remember that the govt is a major one!) to get together and provide the information required?

Plus, you mentioned that companies who are here for the low wages will leave. In the first place, places like China are already lower cost than us, so why haven't they left? Clearly, there is something attractive to businesses in Singapore other than wages/cost.

foxtrot:

My admiration for your knowledge and abundance mentality grows each day. You are a heavy-weight, too bad I do not know you personally.

Majulah Singapura!

######

ps: You know there is really one place where there is no minimum wage ie Central Africa. The current plan of turning Singapore into Africa is certainly NOT progress.

Foxtrot:

Look at the US Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod4.nr0.htm

Since 2000, Singapore's output per hour has been dismal. Productivity is better measured by output per hour worked. Ratio of output/wages as you mentioned does not really tell us much about productivity. YOur example of Singaporeans putting in overtime just proves my point. They have to work more hours to produce a given amount of output. For example, if a EU worker takes 8 hrs a day to produce a machine but it takes the Singapore worker 16 hours a day, the Singapore worker should not be making the same real wages as the EU worker since it takes the Singapore worker twice as long. Even if they did make the same wage, the Singapore worker has to put in more hours to accomplish the same thing.

True, the government savings you mentioned can be passed on to businesses. I mentioned that in my prior post. But, the SIngapore government is currently running a deficit. If the government reduces its revenue by adopting the measures you suggested, it must compensate by increasing taxes or find some other means to raise revenue like increasing user fees. Your suggestion of cutting salaries and other government functions will likely not be enough. Singapore can dip into its reserve. BUt how long can that go on?

I am not saying the SDP has to get very accurate numbers. It can at least try to get the numbers available and make a decent analysis. After all, I found the productivity numbers for Singapore. Why can't the SDP?

As for your last point, the companies that remain in Singapore despite China's cost advantage may also be due to other factors other than wages. BUt this equilibrium can be disturbed by a minimum wage. For example, say the cost of producing a widget in Singapore and exporting it is $100 per widget of which $15 is labor cost. In China the, the labor cost per widget is $5 but the inefficiencies, corruption, etc. in the CHinese economy makes the total cost $105. So, obviously, the company would stay in Singapore even when the labor costs are higher. BUt if Singapore puts in a minimum wage without a corresponding increase in productivity or increased efficiencies elsewhere in the production chain and increases the labor cost per widget to $21 and total cost per widget to $106, then the company would likely move to China.