Cabinet Minister and the 50th Birthday Party

[metalmickey]

The debate about communism and democracy is now merely academic and we should leave all the arguements behind in the 80s and 90s. Nowadays nobody gives a shit...whether u in Russia, China, Vietnam...etc. But if u in a dictatorship and oppressing people like Syria or Iran....then u will be treated like a pariah and u should be.

No, not really. This is a very current debate and it's coming up because a lot of people all over the world are getting disillusioned over the way that the free market works. There is not a lot of consciousness about how the free market is underlying all of Singapore's problems, and people have the old notion that the government still controls everything. It's fairly typical that when we start talking about new ideas, they get dismissed as being "academic". "Academic" here usually means it's something you don't really understand.

When I said that other people are having these debates, I meant, like, right now.

Before Kingrant introduced the word "communism" into this discussion, what we were debating about was: what is the role of the government in regulating or controlling private enterprises. My standpoint in the debate is that the senior executives of corporations in Singapore / the rest of the world (including the foreign talents that Singaporeans love so much) are the new tyrants. The government is just the puppet who allow them to screw the common man.

Suppose you were a warlord in Syria (Assad is no longer is a dictator, so let's call him a warlord) and you were to go around killing a lot of people, that is a form of tyranny.

Suppose you were a banker, and you and your fellow elites engineered a system where all members of the younger generation had to live in places that cost a million dollars, and they had to take loans and work like shit to service the loans for the rest of their lives. (ie this is the life of young people in Singapore today). That is also a form of tyranny.

Unfortunately we aren't at the point where the bankers and real estate agents all get treated like pariahs. But probably the day will come soon. And it's really not alright to sit back and say, "relax bro, that is the system, what to do?"

They can reform the system and make it easier on the common people, or maybe they'll all lose their heads in the next revolution? Who knows?

Usually there are two sorts of people who want to overthrow the PAP. First type is the person who doesn't like the way the system produces a great amount of inequality, and they're horrified at how the middle class is losing ground to the elites. Second type is the person who's impatient to profit from such a system, and they want to keep on screwing people more and more, and they're tired that the government is standing in their way. Usually I look at the people on this forum and I try to work out which category they belong to.

 

[enterprise2]

My take is that the system is not fixed....it is forever evolving. How it evolves...nobody knows as there are many many drivers and influencers and nobody decides...not even the gahment how this will pan out. But on the whole, it seems ok, I dont see the tyranny that you speak of...at least they are not widespread. Sure, there are areas that needs addressing...but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater!!.

 

[metalmickey]

What I think is that in the long term, unless it's fixed, it'll get worse and worse. I can't say much more than that: whether it will be fixed, who will fix it, or whether things will get so bad that another communist revolution will take place.

I don't think it's that difficult. Tax the rich a little bit more, transfer a little bit more wealth. The problem can be managed. It doesn't have to be so drastic as the communist revolution 100 years ago.

What I can definitely say is that wealth inequality is one of the biggest issues today, and probably it's safe to predict that many members of the young generation today, when they reach middle age, will fall into financial difficulty.

 

[kingrant]

Here's what being 'academic' means - those who can, do; those who cannot, preaches.

 

[metalmickey]

Here's what being 'academic' means - those who can, do; those who cannot, preaches.

Can I then assume that you're one of the corporate fat cats that I was earlier talking about?

 

[kingrant]

Your descent into a long treatise quoting other people's dubious works and inclining others to a futile debate the subject of which is already moot is off topic.

Can I then assume that you're one of the corporate fat cats that I was earlier talking about?

 

[metalmickey]

Your descent into a long treatise quoting other people's dubious works and inclining others to a futile debate the subject of which is already moot is off topic.

Inclining others! You're the one who didn't have the maturity to let it go, didn't want to have a proper discussion.

So I can assume that you voluntarily participated in a discussion you felt was futile? Like some invisible force was drawing you in? Oh my god!

 

[winnipegjets]

If the groundswell against immigration persists in 2015, the PAP will be sweating big time.

 

[winnipegjets]

Unaffordable housing - caused by property speculators, most of whom are Singaporeans. Banks setting up REITs to dump shit on the younger generation. Government's role in this is that they failed to prevent this, but that is a secondary role.

The main reason is the influx of foreigners who became PR. PR could only buy from the resale market for HDB. That pushed the HDB prices up. And when they linked the price of new HDB flat to the resale market, the PAP government made bundles and caused public housing to become unaffordable.

 

[scroobal]

Very well said.

You cannot speculate in the public housing sector. There is therefore s single contributing factor, demand from PRs and new citizens as the flood gates were opened. The linking was disastrous. It was the single biggest catalyst and it was no surprise that Mah was shown the door and Khaw on entry removed it.

Just as in the early 90s, in a funny way it funded Singaporeans with HDB properties with sufficient tenure to migrate. So we lost locals and brought in more foreigners.

The main reason is the influx of foreigners who became PR. PR could only buy from the resale market for HDB. That pushed the HDB prices up. And when they linked the price of new HDB flat to the resale market, the PAP government made bundles and caused public housing to become unaffordable.

 

[jw5]

Very well said.

You cannot speculate in the public housing sector. There is therefore s single contributing factor, demand from PRs and new citizens as the flood gates were opened. The linking was disastrous. It was the single biggest catalyst and it was no surprise that Mah was shown the door and Khaw on entry removed it.

Just as in the early 90s, in a funny way it funded Singaporeans with HDB properties with sufficient tenure to migrate. So we lost locals and brought in more foreigners.

Scroobal trying to manipulate forummers again.

But you once claimed in this forum that "HDB is not for me". What makes you think you are in any position to comment about public housing, considering the elitist way you detached yourself from it?

If you can't understand or empathize, don't comment. It makes you sound like a bloody fake and a hypocrite. Which of course you are.

 

[metalmickey]

Very well said.

You cannot speculate in the public housing sector. There is therefore s single contributing factor, demand from PRs and new citizens as the flood gates were opened. The linking was disastrous. It was the single biggest catalyst and it was no surprise that Mah was shown the door and Khaw on entry removed it.

There was a lot of demand for housing as a result of the great influx of immigrants (driven - lest we forget - by demand from the private sector). It enabled Singaporeans to buy property and fund the mortgage by renting out their flats. This does not mean that they are not "speculators" or they're not holding on to a second home. Big winners were the banks who made a killing on the mortgages, and the real estate agents, who got a cut of sky high property transactions.

It takes two hands to clap and you've only described one of those hands.

 

[scroobal]

Banks and real estate agents no doubt made their pile. The driver was the influx of FTs and the linking of pricing to resale prices in the private sector. Then we found out that young Singaporean couples could no longer afford housing like previous generations did.

I am sure the Prime Minister would look foolish if he stated publicly that Bank and real estate agent did very well and that HDB homeowners did as well by renting out and upgrading or seeing their assets rise in value, only to realise that their children and young Singaporean couples priced out. These are poor public policy planning.

I am sure you remember old man in response to GMS call to throw MAH out in GE2011 under the Minister Specific campaign told how their home values went out. Yet they did badly in and he was eventually thrown out. And the de-linking with resale price done.

I thought Winnipegjets summed it up well.

There was a lot of demand for housing as a result of the great influx of immigrants (driven - lest we forget - by demand from the private sector). It enabled Singaporeans to buy property and fund the mortgage by renting out their flats. This does not mean that they are not "speculators" or they're not holding on to a second home. Big winners were the banks who made a killing on the mortgages, and the real estate agents, who got a cut of sky high property transactions.

It takes two hands to clap and you've only described one of those hands.

 

[metalmickey]

There was a second driver. That was the financial crisis. Because all assets everywhere turned out to be toxic, all the financial institutions started pumping their money into Singapore property, which became one of the few assets in the world that would deliver good returns.

While it is true that many of them cannot directly buy HDB flats, they can also influence the prices this way.

 

[Simbian]

To be fair, it is easy to see why locals want to get their piece of the pie even by dangerously over-leveraging on their earning power to do so. Buying property is uncomplicated and much less arduous compared to starting a small business and there seems to be very little surface risk involved and not to mention the side effects of over three decades of growth which has seen said prices sky rocket everywhere.

And the banks don't mind since they can always repossess property if the loaners get put into the sink hole by mortage rates should interest rates ever go up again.

We have learnt very little from the financial crisis the instant that public money was used to bail out the big banks and the executives were allowed to get off with zero real consequences.

 

[po2wq]

... Big winners were the banks who made a killing on the mortgages, and the real estate agents, who got a cut of sky high property transactions ...

dun 4get legal coys ... juz anyhow chop, can anyhow collect moni oredi ...