PAP needs to give other political parties a chance to groom the next Lee Kuan Yew

[bic_cherry]

Cut and paste my reply at another forum to here too, context of response is about setting floor price for govt land sales prices in Singapore.
PAP needs to give other political parties a chance to groom the next Lee Kuan Yew.

Source thread: 'Property market on market based pricing? If yes, why is there a floor price on land sales?'
Land Sales
UPPER SERANGOON VIEW (PARCELS A & B)
HAVELOCK ROAD
why is there a need for government to set a floor/minimum price to each plot of land sales?
i thought we are adopting market based pricing?
if the land goes for 100 dollar, means thats the market rate wat.
by setting a floor price, the govt is intervening with the market pricing mechanism and pushing the price up.
then govt always blame private sector for pushing property n rental price
when they are the one who is doing it lol

setting floor price is not wrong.
but using it only to ur advantage only. i think its abusive.
SLA already hv regulation in place. theres no need to set floor price
actually, i wonder when will we have market pricing for WP and SP quota.
well, why hv a fixed sum? shld let all the companies outbid each other in a bidding war for the permit right?
or COE with floor price.
why stick to market pricing only? does LTA really wants to kena the $1 COE again?

Hi Jarl, to ask why market priced land has a floor price to is is like asking why in democratic Singapore, GRC election culture mandates that: big party good, small party bad- the system, is afterall built by persons with the incumbent's political interest in mind- (avoiding property price crashes in the former, defending political partisan interest in the second (GRC system of elections enables gerrymandering and causes unnecessary prejudice against independents and smaller political establishments).

About a quota system for work permits, I've always been advocating that all along both to streamline and better transparency/ oversight of the ~S$4billion p.a. revenue worker levy collection system as well as to contribute to an edusave fund which every Singaporean (in this rapidly changing world, especially as a passenger in sampan2.0)- as important as is medisave- everyone should have edusave till they are old (too sick to work).
But unlike car COE which is a smaller issue, I doubt the MOM (on their cushy chairs) have the grumption to implement such far sighted a system (neither have Singaporeans awakened from their slumber to feel need for an adult CPF edusave scheme)

The benefit of labeling the govt land sales programme as a fully market based system is to allow land sales to be priced according to market demand. Unfortunately, as the last MND minister Mah Bow Tan (MBT) decreed: that HDB would be a forever appreciating investment, the PAP govt then has to 'insure' Singaporeans who have taken Mr MBT's words too seriously and borrowed (leveraged) much to invest in property, then a drastic fall in property prices (aka like case of S$1 COE)- this would be extremely disastrous if not destabilizing as the MBT hyper-inflated property bubble suddenly deflates if a property price fall resulted in a greater fall as banks, afraid of unpaid mortgages, either raised interest rates or even fire sold mortgaged properties on the open market.

Guess there are many competing interest/ concerns to be considered- and just like elections in Singapore, there are many other competing concerns that make a totally free system no more than just a pipe dream. What remains important I hope however, is that in every decision, moral concerns are not forgotten.

The bible does after all say ~ Matthew 25:40: "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"- (NIV)- with many other mainstream religions expounding quite the same.

Just as the Singapore govt has the right to decide when to sell a piece of land, the number of COEs to release, the number of PR/ citizenships to release, it too has the right to decide what the minimum price a piece of land should cost (just like any land owner) since any less would be shortchanging the nation's coffers- the concept of market based pricing is in the wider market where there are minimal restrictions on land ownership (unlike say N Korea where there are probably more rules, many premised on one's comnections with the Kim dynasty).

Singapore has come quite far, compared to the economy, political interlectuality and creativity in Singapore is the aspect of life that is today most lacking. The PAP has admitted that it does not have anyone the stature of Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) in cabinet today, the least it should do would be to give other political parties an equal/ fighting chance to groom the next LKY- to me, that would be the professional thing to do- let the fight to be captain of Sampan2.0 be a fair and equal one.

Tks for reading my opinion.

 

[kingrant]

How do the contents of yr post jive with the thread title? You can be infracted for this.

 

[bic_cherry]

How do the contents of yr post jive with the thread title? You can be infracted for this.

Hi King, sorry I missed your response, my review of what Jarlaxae wrote at HWZ now actually reveals it to be a bit self contradictory so perhaps in my enthusiasm, my reply too is abit garbled, I'm sorry for the inconvenience caused.

In short, I was just trying to explain that whilst floor pricing (minimum bid during an auction) was a necessary policy to safeguard short term land prices in Singapore (too many have borrowed to buy property), there shouldn't be silly policies like GRC system of election since the NCMP scheme is far superior for minority representation for that purpose... I.e. any shortfall of minorities per necessary quota can be filled up by minority NCMPs submitted by respective minority community groups- creating a more proportionate representation and more appropriate candidates rather than just minority wall decorations as GRC system might currently entail. More by elections associated with more single seat constituencies would also improve the communication between leaders and electorate since election results will be transparent feedback to all parties- about their respective popularity counts at intervals between general elections (not super important but quite important)- and perhaps more political participation within communities to encourage Singaporeans to think about national governance rather than blindly depend on one (dynastic) political party planning everything out, how better than the next LKY be born- not in a Gulag for sure..

In sense, our still revered LKY himself once began life as an opposition candidate too.

In opposition
Lee won the Tanjong Pagar seat in the 1955 elections. He became the opposition leader against David Saul Marshall's Labour Front-led coalition government. He was also one of PAP's representatives to the two constitutional discussions held in London over the future status of Singapore, the first led by Marshall and the second by Lim Yew Hock, Marshall's hardline successor. It was during this period that Lee had to contend with rivals from both within and outside the PAP.[12]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew

Once again, sorry for the inconvenience caused.
B.C.