I refer to the Straits Times report “Mah: Make meaningful comparisons” dated 2 Oct 2009.
Mr Mah reportedly said that it is “not meaningful” to compare prices of flats today with those 20 years ago because that would mean going back 20 years.
But MM Lee said in a speech on 12 Sept 1965: “Over 100 years ago, this was a m&d flat, swamp. Today, this is a modern city”. Is Mr Mah going to tell MM Lee that his comparison is “not meaningful” and that he is trying to bring Singapore back 100 years?
In his 2006 National Day message, PM Lee said that “many years ago, Singapore was just a fishing village …” Is Mr Mah going to tell PM Lee that his comparison is “not meaningful” and that he is trying to bring Singapore back to a fishing village?
In the Straits Times report “How much is a burger worth” dated 26 Sept 2009, MP Seah Kian Peng was reported to have said that the key consideration in deciding how affordable or less affordable goods have become in Singapore is to see if life is better now compared to that in the past. Is Mr Mah going to tell MP Seah that his comparison is “not meaningful” and that he is trying to bring Singapore back to life in the past?
So Mr Mah is not being very meaningful when he says that it is “not meaningful” to compare with the past. Because everyone compares with the past, even our leaders do so. While our leaders readily compare with the past to show progress and achievement, comparisons that show price increases or deteriorating levels of affordability is deemed “not meaningful”.
Mr Mah brushes off “all sorts of arguments” about prices being too high today, not with sound counter arguments, but by simply saying that this is part and parcel of our system. In that case, he and the HDB might as well not give any explanations to the public. They can just answer any query from citizens with the phrase “this is part of our system”. No further explanations needed. Wouldn’t that be eaiser?
Mr Mah says that our HDB can be monetised by selling it or leasing it back to the HDB for retirement funds. But what is the point of paying for an HDB all our lives only to give it up at the end of the day?
Mr Mah says that our HDB remains affordable because it does not exceed the 30% international benchmark. But he and the HDB always insist on saying that our HDB is heavily subsidised. How can the HDB flat be simultaneously heavily subsidised and priced according to the international benchmark? That would mean that everywhere in the world that adopts the international benchmark enjoys heavily subsidised housing.
Mr Mah reportedly said that it is “not meaningful” to compare prices of flats today with those 20 years ago because that would mean going back 20 years.
But MM Lee said in a speech on 12 Sept 1965: “Over 100 years ago, this was a m&d flat, swamp. Today, this is a modern city”. Is Mr Mah going to tell MM Lee that his comparison is “not meaningful” and that he is trying to bring Singapore back 100 years?
In his 2006 National Day message, PM Lee said that “many years ago, Singapore was just a fishing village …” Is Mr Mah going to tell PM Lee that his comparison is “not meaningful” and that he is trying to bring Singapore back to a fishing village?
In the Straits Times report “How much is a burger worth” dated 26 Sept 2009, MP Seah Kian Peng was reported to have said that the key consideration in deciding how affordable or less affordable goods have become in Singapore is to see if life is better now compared to that in the past. Is Mr Mah going to tell MP Seah that his comparison is “not meaningful” and that he is trying to bring Singapore back to life in the past?
So Mr Mah is not being very meaningful when he says that it is “not meaningful” to compare with the past. Because everyone compares with the past, even our leaders do so. While our leaders readily compare with the past to show progress and achievement, comparisons that show price increases or deteriorating levels of affordability is deemed “not meaningful”.
Mr Mah brushes off “all sorts of arguments” about prices being too high today, not with sound counter arguments, but by simply saying that this is part and parcel of our system. In that case, he and the HDB might as well not give any explanations to the public. They can just answer any query from citizens with the phrase “this is part of our system”. No further explanations needed. Wouldn’t that be eaiser?
Mr Mah says that our HDB can be monetised by selling it or leasing it back to the HDB for retirement funds. But what is the point of paying for an HDB all our lives only to give it up at the end of the day?
Mr Mah says that our HDB remains affordable because it does not exceed the 30% international benchmark. But he and the HDB always insist on saying that our HDB is heavily subsidised. How can the HDB flat be simultaneously heavily subsidised and priced according to the international benchmark? That would mean that everywhere in the world that adopts the international benchmark enjoys heavily subsidised housing.
