GMS on his housin policy vs SDP

[aurvandil]

I have always found this high admin cost argument of the PAP silly. The mechanism is already in place. As is, we already have a mechanism to collect the foreign maid's levy for 200,000 + maids. Surely it can be modified to collect rentals. We are not living in the pre-IT revolution 1970s. We are living in 2012 where almost everyone has a smartphone in their pocket.

On being financially prudent, the PAP can spend $800 on Herman Miller chairs and $2200 Brompton bikes. They can spend $40 million a year on the NDP, $5 million to build an enclosure for 2 pandas and $50 million a year to maintain Gardens by the Bay. They can spend $387 million to organize a YOG which nobody wanted and nobody watched. They can even spend $1.2 billion to purchase/house 3 sets of dinosaur bones and a further $1.2 billion to build an artificial river in Bishan.

Yet when it comes to rental housing and other social spending, the PAP will say they need to be financially prudent and that it cannot be done.

Finally like all things, we need to examine the policy costs for implementing the rental flat program (as opposed to current model or SDP's "prepaid flat" model) and its wider impact on the housing market. [Now I sound like the PAP]

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Haha... Good one!

Goh Meng Seng

I have always found this high admin cost argument of the PAP silly. The mechanism is already in place. As is, we already have a mechanism to collect the foreign maid's levy for 200,000 + maids. Surely it can be modified to collect rentals. We are not living in the pre-IT revolution 1970s. We are living in 2012 where almost everyone has a smartphone in their pocket.

On being financially prudent, the PAP can spend $800 on Herman Miller chairs and $2200 Brompton bikes. They can spend $40 million a year on the NDP, $5 million to build an enclosure for 2 pandas and $50 million a year to maintain Gardens by the Bay. They can spend $387 million to organize a YOG which nobody wanted and nobody watched. They can even spend $1.2 billion to purchase n house 3 sets of dinosaur bones and a further $1.2 billion to build an artificial river in Bishan.

Yet when it comes to rental housing and other social spending, the PAP will say they need to be financially prudent and that it cannot be done.

 

[Glaringly]

Eventually the more well-to-do want capital appreciation which can only come about through private ownership. You are certainly not seeing the big picture.

In the big picture as I see, there are 2 calming effect.

1. It takes care of the poor (and those that screw up their life) that have no means for capital appreciation.
2. The young that just want an affordable home to start a family without having to worry too much in the future.

 

[godiva]

Mr. GMS some questions about your proposal

1) Your proposal is to convert some public housing into rental? Or 100% public housing will be rental, no more 'owned'? Or is it mixed and matched, some flats for rental and some are 'owned'?

2) Any means testing or income ceiling to qualify for rental?

3) If it is 100% rental then the burden of maintenance lies with the landlord which is the government. In this scenario most tenant would not be bothered to maintain the interior and electrical/plumbing. No way the flats can last more than 10 years without any major overhaul. Then every 10 years landlord need to build/overhaul rental flats?

 

[mojito]

Capital appreciation is meaningless unless you can benefits from it.

I still maintain, a Home should NOT be investment tool.

Goh Meng Seng

Capital appreciation through buying private property like landed properties or condominiums. It will be necessary to return rental or "prepaid rental" flats to the authorities. Why should you be concerned with what the affluent want to do with their money?

 

[mojito]

You still don't get it. What SDP has proposed, has neither of it and it is the worst of both worlds... you pay in advanced to "buy" something that you don't really owned!

Goh Meng Seng

You get a roof over your head without having to worry whether your landlord will chase you out? Please, I am tired of explaining everything twice.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

You get it all mixed up. What has it got to do with the filthy rich who wants to make money by having landed properties or condominiums to provide affordable rental housing for the masses who may not have any means to afford those condos or landed properties in the first place?

They are two totally different market segments!

Goh Meng Seng

Capital appreciation through buying private property like landed properties or condominiums. It will be necessary to return rental or "prepaid rental" flats to the authorities. Why should you be concerned with what the affluent want to do with their money?

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Put it this way, they are also collecting conservation charges every month what... what's the difference?

Goh Meng Seng

You get a roof over your head without having to worry whether your landlord will chase you out? Please, I am tired of explaining everything twice.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Are you a reporter from ST or a researcher from IPS?

Goh Meng Seng

Mr. GMS some questions about your proposal

1) Your proposal is to convert some public housing into rental? Or 100% public housing will be rental, no more 'owned'? Or is it mixed and matched, some flats for rental and some are 'owned'?

2) Any means testing or income ceiling to qualify for rental?

3) If it is 100% rental then the burden of maintenance lies with the landlord which is the government. In this scenario most tenant would not be bothered to maintain the interior and electrical/plumbing. No way the flats can last more than 10 years without any major overhaul. Then every 10 years landlord need to build/overhaul rental flats?

 

[godiva]

Are you a reporter from ST or a researcher from IPS?

Goh Meng Seng

No. What make you think so?

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

The questions you have put up, are professionally done, just like reporters from SPH or IPS!

Goh Meng Seng

No. What make you think so?

 

[godiva]

The questions you have put up, are professionally done, just like reporters from SPH or IPS!

Goh Meng Seng

My english teacher would have been proud of me:(

Mr. GMS, do you mind going back to the topic.

I am not here to flame you or what. Just want to understand more about your proposal. Anyway you can have the best proposal in the world but PAP is never going to change.:(

By the way what is IPS?

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

IPS is government think tank, Institute of Policy Studies.

I am not ready to put up the whole proposal just yet, though I have to mention bits and pieces here for the sake of discussions and contrast to SDP's proposal. I have actually reserved this one for the debate with MBT which never materialized because PAP chicken out.

I will do a proper proposal when the time is ripe. Your questions have touched on the key points of my proposal that required a comprehensive explanation. I regret that I will not reply to your questions just yet.

Goh Meng Seng

My english teacher would have been proud of me:(

Mr. GMS, do you mind going back to the topic.

I am not here to flame you or what. Just want to understand more about your proposal. Anyway you can have the best proposal in the world but PAP is never going to change.:(

By the way what is IPS?

 

[mojito]

I have always found this high admin cost argument of the PAP silly. The mechanism is already in place. As is, we already have a mechanism to collect the foreign maid's levy for 200,000 + maids. Surely it can be modified to collect rentals. We are not living in the pre-IT revolution 1970s. We are living in 2012 where almost everyone has a smartphone in their pocket.

On being financially prudent, the PAP can spend $800 on Herman Miller chairs and $2200 Brompton bikes. They can spend $40 million a year on the NDP, $5 million to build an enclosure for 2 pandas and $50 million a year to maintain Gardens by the Bay. They can spend $387 million to organize a YOG which nobody wanted and nobody watched. They can even spend $1.2 billion to purchase/house 3 sets of dinosaur bones and a further $1.2 billion to build an artificial river in Bishan.

Yet when it comes to rental housing and other social spending, the PAP will say they need to be financially prudent and that it cannot be done.

Moving in and out of a unit is one such consideration. There are cost relating to matching renters with units available, costs for managing flat inventories, costs for non-market pricing and adjustments of rentals, costs of refurbishing units between tenants, and much more. And these are only operating costs. Impact to the public housing market, impact on private housing, etc remain uncertain. A badly implemented policy could cause unintended consequences to the behaviour of people that may not be foreseeable.

While I agree this government is generally wasteful and frivolous in spending, I think it is crucial that policymakers do not make the same mistakes so that they always stand on higher moral grounds. It is my firm belief that public policies should avoid going deeply into the red, as Medicare has in the US. Small countries simply do not have the luxury of having their currency be used as reserve currency of the world.

 

[mojito]

You get it all mixed up. What has it got to do with the filthy rich who wants to make money by having landed properties or condominiums to provide affordable rental housing for the masses who may not have any means to afford those condos or landed properties in the first place?

They are two totally different market segments!

Goh Meng Seng

The mass affluent, dude. The mass affluent. The rich would never want to be seen near a peasant's hovel.

Put it this way, they are also collecting conservation charges every month what... what's the difference?

Goh Meng Seng

You are being disingenuous here. In less words. So you can follow.

No need to pay rental => (results in) Less pressure on retirement savings.
Conservancy charges < Rentals.
Conservancy charges : Rentals = Bukit Timah : Mount Kilamanjo

Tolong ah. Aiyaa.. I log in again in the evening.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

I put it to you that you are just over-worried about nitty gritty things so much so that you have lost sight of the overall picture.

I do think Singaporeans will not pay rental, at such low rental rates. You are really underestimating Singaporeans or insulting Singaporeans at large with such propositions. Some times, when we see old folks collecting cardboards on the road is because they don't want to apply for welfare and they preserve their dignity by working for their daily doughs. Do you think these people will deliberately go arrays of their rental?

If you can think this way, then you should be worried about Singaporeans not paying their mortgage loans as well. Sick thinking but it is really very negative thoughts you have here.

Goh Meng Seng

The mass affluent, dude. The mass affluent. The rich would never want to be seen near a peasant's hovel.



You are being disingenuous here. In less words. So you can follow.

No need to pay rental => (results in) Less pressure on retirement savings.
Conservancy charges < Rentals.
Conservancy charges : Rentals = Bukit Timah : Mount Kilamanjo

Tolong ah. Aiyaa.. I log in again in the evening.

 

[wMulew]

Hong Kong has MPF but this is not allowed to be used for housing mortgage payment because it is at very low percentage. 5%, if I am not wrong. But MPF doesn't work like CPF. You can choose what to invest according to your own risk adversity. The Government doesn't give you a fixed interest like CPF does. This is specifically for retirement financing and nothing else, not for education, healthcare or housing... whatever.

Don't be a nanny state. You will have to form a public consensus and mindset that everyone should be responsible for their own well being, including retirement financing. The government will only step in when you face problems for whatever reasons.

Goh Meng Seng

Translation. In HK, U die your business. In SG, Govt looks after retirement fund and make sure you don't lose it while giving you a reasonable amount in interest. The amount in SA also higher than the 5% in HK ensuring you do not squander everything in investment and property.

GSM also missed out OA can be used to invest in stocks and bonds

 

[wMulew]

If you think about it, the current PAP system is the one which is truly encouraging Singaporeans to live beyond their means. To buy a HDB from the PAP, young couples have to take up dual income 30 year mortgages. If that is not living beyond your means, what is?

No one is asking stupid young couples to buy houses that they cannot afford. There are 3-5 rm houses to choose from, guess which one they like to choose. As usual stupid young couples will choose something they cannot afford than complain expensive and become opposition supporters.

 

[wMulew]

The worst kind of inflation is actually property. It has been shown that property and stock market have extraordinary inflationary power more than anything else. Commodity or food prices will go according or along pricing mechanism on energy, labour and such. But property and stock market can be "irrational" because it only depends on liquidity of money... or availability of cash, either from the economy itself or foreign inflow of capitals. This is one of the major reasons why property prices are rising faster than income growth in Singapore, due to excess liquidity coming from foreign sources. The key is to keep affordability for the mass, especially the lower income group while not preventing them from capital gains if necessary. But the speculation factor must be kept under control. It is not an easy task but involve public education.

Goh Meng Seng

Singapore have one of the highest home ownership rate in the world. You stupid brain need to be checked if you think our houses are unaffordable

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Your "translation" is not really true.

Making investment decisions to cater for retirement, requires matching different risk portfolios of those investors respectively. Allowing people to choose their own risk portfolios is the "FAIR" way instead of giving a straight return. Using CPF to buy shares incur higher costs than investing share using your own cash. Why should that be so?

In HK, MPF allows them to select their risk portfolio as in trust funds. Some could reap higher returns than Singapore's 4%, depending on your selection. Of course, you could lose money as well. But in the long run, it should be higher than 4%. The problem also lies on higher management charges which they are looking into it as well.

HK MPF may not be perfect but at least, it makes sense for stakeholders to make their own risk portfolio selections. Not a one mould suits all kind of things.


Goh Meng Seng

Translation. In HK, U die your business. In SG, Govt looks after retirement fund and make sure you don't lose it while giving you a reasonable amount in interest. The amount in SA also higher than the 5% in HK ensuring you do not squander everything in investment and property.

GSM also missed out OA can be used to invest in stocks and bonds