Mr Mah caught massaging statistics by GMS

[aurvandil]

Recently Goh Meng Send has been challenging Mr Mah to a debate. Instead of engaging Goh Meng Seng directly, he instructed HDB to do a press release on their Sample Household Survey 2008 (http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10296p.nsf/PressReleases/C982024B92F84092482576CD0083862D?OpenDocument)

The main points of the press release are:

1)There are very few foreigners living in HDB flats so they cannot be driving up prices

2)HDB flats are affordable because household income has risen substantially over the past 5 years

3)Over 90% of HDB residents are happy with their living environment and proud of their flats

In his latest blog posting, Goh Meng Seng did a detailed analysis of the press release (http://singaporealternatives.blogspot.com/2010/02/call-for-clarity-from-mah-bow-tan-and.html). He shows how Mr Mah had massaged the statistics to come to these misleading conclusions. A summary of the posting is:

1)There is something seriously wrong with the survey frame. The press release states that there are only 2.92 million people living in HDB flats in 20008. Based on the Singapore Department of Statistics, Singapore’s population in 2008 was 4.84 million. If HDB’s numbers are correct, then where are the remaining 1.92 million (39.4%) of the population staying? The condos, landed property and workers dorms cannot possibly house so many people. This was something which I had also previously noticed when I saw the press reports on the survey.

2)The household income in the press release is inflated because Mr Mah cleverly used average rather than median. In a nice bit of analysis that references another paper released by DOS, Goh Meng Seng showed how the inflation can be by as much as 35% to 45%. Also the use of household income is misleading because it is subject to distortion. It does not take into account the number of people staying in the household. We could therefore have a situation of household income rising substantially because young people can no longer afford to buy a HDB flat of their own and are forced to stay with their parents. This is substantiated by statistics released by MOM which shows that while household income has increased substantially, individual income has not.


3)The finding that over 90% of HDB residents are happy with their living environment and proud of their flats sounds too good to be true. For those of us who actually live in the HDB heartland, do you see universal joy and happiness?

 

[scroobal]

http://singaporealternatives.blogspot.com/2010/02/call-for-clarity-from-mah-bow-tan-and.html

A call for Clarity from Mah Bow Tan and HDB

In the upcoming elections, I have made clear my intention to contest in Tampines GRC. The reason for my doing so is because Minister Mah Bow Tan’s policies have caused great hardship for many Singaporeans. Mr Mah apparently believes that the hardship caused by his policies are “acceptable” for the greater good. At a recent community event in Tampines, Mr Mah said

“There’s no question that our policies are designed for the good of the people. While there may be certain parts of the policies that are not favourable, overall, I think these policies are for the well-being of the people and are good for the country.”

I strongly disagree with Mr Mah. In GE 2006, the PAP had published a political manifeso with the catchy title “Staying Together, Moving Ahead”. PM Lee made a promise to the Singapore people that “no one will be left behind”. Mr Mah’s statement seems to indicate that he does not believe in PM Lee’s vision. To Mr Mah, it is perfectly OK to sacrifice and leave some Singaporeans behind.

In the past 2 months, I have asked Mr Mah repeatedly for a policy debate so that Singaporeans can understand the issues and decide for themselves. I have done this through the mainstream media as well as in various blogs and Internet sites. So far, Mr Mah has pointedly ignored me. I do not understand why this is so. If Mr Mah is correct and has all the facts to defend himself, then there is nothing to fear from an honest and open debate on the policy issues. If the debate can be aired on national television, all Singaporeans would benefit by having a better understanding of the issues.

Instead of engaging me in a direct debate, Mr Mah has chosen to engage me indirectly by instructing the HDB to release data and findings from the HDB Sample Household Survey 2008

When I read the press release dated 18 Feb 2010, I noted three glaring problems with the way in which the analysis was done.

The first problem is found in the paragraph 2:

The HDB resident population, comprising Singapore Citizens and Singapore Permanent Residents, increased by 2.7% over 5 years to 2.92 million in 2008. This figure made up 96% of the total population in HDB flats (88% were Singapore Citizens and 8% were SPRs), while the remaining 4% were foreigners.

If the underlying population of the survey is 2.92 million, then it would appear that the survey frame is incorrect. This is because in the Yearbook of Statistics 2009 published by the Singapore Department of Statistics, it is stated that the total population of Singapore is 4.84 million. If only 2.92 million are staying in HDB flats, then where would the remaining 1.92 million be staying? It seems inconceivable that the relatively few condominiums, landed properties and worker dormitories in Singapore can house 1.92 million people (39.6% of the population).

If there was something wrong with the survey frame, then the findings from the survey would be invalid. It would almost be too frightening to imagine if this is an indication that Mr Mah has been using the wrong numbers to make policy.

The second problem is found in paragraph 3

The average household income from work had also risen from $4,238 in 2003 to $5,680 in 2008, reflecting the growing affluence of HDB households.

There are two problems here. Using household income instead of individual income is not a good indication at all. The rise in the household income may be the result of Mr. Mah’s HDB policy that pushes up the prices of new flats which in turn, forces young couples to stay with their parents. This will in turn artificially pushes up household income. This is especially obvious when we notice that there is an unusual artificial surge in both median and average household income in 2007 and 2008. Median household income has increased 9.4% and 13.1% in 2007 and 2008 respectively while average household income has increased 10.1% and 12.6% respectively. This is the clear indication that the rapid growth of HDB flat prices during these two critical years have caused such abnormality because as Singaporeans, we do not experience such a high increase in individual income for these two years.

From another perspective, if we are to take household income too seriously, even for the median household income, it would mean that our income would have increase a whopping 38.5% within that 10 years! As for Average Household Income, it would mean that income could have increase a whopping 44.6%! But we are looking at YOUNG COUPLES who have not worked that long in the job market but looking for flats! Have the starting pay for new entrants into the job market very different between 2009 and 1999? Apparently not. Some people are even complaining that their starting pays have even been lower than the 90s due to the influx of Foreign workers!

In fact, my researcher and I were looking through official statistics on MEDIAN INDIVIDUAL INCOME growth as compared to HDB PRICES GROWTH but such time series statistics only starts from 2005 till now. I am sure the PAP government has such statistics from 1999 onwards but why is it holding back such statistics for the last 5 years? Or they could have even use the statistics from 2005 till 2009 to make their justifications! If the PAP government could put up even more detailed statistics of income of Singaporeans who are 30 years and below, it would give a more accurate picture on how the disparity of income vs HDB price growth for the past 10 years!

The second problem here is with the use of average. As a statistical measure of central tendency, the average or mean is known to give inflated values when you have extreme values. Such extreme values are prevalent in income statistics in Singapore given the large income disparity between the rich and the poor.

Even if we are to accept such distorted representation, the more normal approach is therefore to use median rather than average. An illustration of how average gives inflated income statistics can be found in the paper published by the Singapore Department of Statistics. The paper is titled Key Income Trends, 2009. In Table 1, we have a comparison between median household income and average household income. I have extracted the numbers from the table and present them here:

This table shows that if we use average, the household income is inflated by 35% to 45%. The reason for this is the small number of households who have very high income. To my knowledge, the Singapore Department of Statistics uses median household income in all of their papers and publications. It is unknown why HDB would want to use the inflated average household income in their policy making. If Mr Mah were to use median household income, maybe he will understand why so many Singaporeans are saying HDB flats are not affordable.

Intriguingly, the widening percentage differences between the median and average household income actually reflects a serious problem here….the widening of income inequality! It actually shows that income inequality has widen about 15% or more for the past 10 years in terms of household income!

The final problem is found in paragraph 5.

96.4% of all HDB households surveyed said they were satisfied with their flats, while 95.1% were satisfied with their neighbourhood.

This finding seems to be very strange as it would suggest that almost everyone was happy with their HDB flat. If that is true, then HDB should not be receiving any complaints and we should only be seeing only happy people in their HDB flats. The truth on the ground seems to be very different. The majority of us living in the HDB heartlands, do not seem to be seeing universal joy and happiness. I do not understand this finding and will be writing in to ask HDB for the survey form and the methodology with which they used. I will post what I learn when HDB replies to me.

The electoral battle in Tampines will be a referendum on Mr Mah’s policies. I urge the voters of Tampines to stand with me and send a strong message to the PAP that policy failures like those committed by Mr Mah cannot and will not be tolerated. If we continue to keep quiet, then the policy failures will continue and Singaporeans will continue to suffer.

When reading Tan Kin Lian’s blog, I came across the passage below. It was written by Niemoller, a German who lived during the rise of Nazism. Many Germans were against Nazism but were reluctant to speak up. While we are not living in Nazi Germany, the underlying message tells of what will happen if we continue to keep quiet.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[scroobal]

http://singaporealternatives.blogspot.com/2010/02/call-for-clarity-from-mah-bow-tan-and.html

A call for Clarity from Mah Bow Tan and HDB

In the upcoming elections, I have made clear my intention to contest in Tampines GRC. The reason for my doing so is because Minister Mah Bow Tan’s policies have caused great hardship for many Singaporeans. Mr Mah apparently believes that the hardship caused by his policies are “acceptable” for the greater good. At a recent community event in Tampines, Mr Mah said

“There’s no question that our policies are designed for the good of the people. While there may be certain parts of the policies that are not favourable, overall, I think these policies are for the well-being of the people and are good for the country.”

I strongly disagree with Mr Mah. In GE 2006, the PAP had published a political manifeso with the catchy title “Staying Together, Moving Ahead”. PM Lee made a promise to the Singapore people that “no one will be left behind”. Mr Mah’s statement seems to indicate that he does not believe in PM Lee’s vision. To Mr Mah, it is perfectly OK to sacrifice and leave some Singaporeans behind.

In the past 2 months, I have asked Mr Mah repeatedly for a policy debate so that Singaporeans can understand the issues and decide for themselves. I have done this through the mainstream media as well as in various blogs and Internet sites. So far, Mr Mah has pointedly ignored me. I do not understand why this is so. If Mr Mah is correct and has all the facts to defend himself, then there is nothing to fear from an honest and open debate on the policy issues. If the debate can be aired on national television, all Singaporeans would benefit by having a better understanding of the issues.

Instead of engaging me in a direct debate, Mr Mah has chosen to engage me indirectly by instructing the HDB to release data and findings from the HDB Sample Household Survey 2008

When I read the press release dated 18 Feb 2010, I noted three glaring problems with the way in which the analysis was done.

The first problem is found in the paragraph 2:

The HDB resident population, comprising Singapore Citizens and Singapore Permanent Residents, increased by 2.7% over 5 years to 2.92 million in 2008. This figure made up 96% of the total population in HDB flats (88% were Singapore Citizens and 8% were SPRs), while the remaining 4% were foreigners.

If the underlying population of the survey is 2.92 million, then it would appear that the survey frame is incorrect. This is because in the Yearbook of Statistics 2009 published by the Singapore Department of Statistics, it is stated that the total population of Singapore is 4.84 million. If only 2.92 million are staying in HDB flats, then where would the remaining 1.92 million be staying? It seems inconceivable that the relatively few condominiums, landed properties and worker dormitories in Singapore can house 1.92 million people (39.6% of the population).

If there was something wrong with the survey frame, then the findings from the survey would be invalid. It would almost be too frightening to imagine if this is an indication that Mr Mah has been using the wrong numbers to make policy.

The second problem is found in paragraph 3

The average household income from work had also risen from $4,238 in 2003 to $5,680 in 2008, reflecting the growing affluence of HDB households.

There are two problems here. Using household income instead of individual income is not a good indication at all. The rise in the household income may be the result of Mr. Mah’s HDB policy that pushes up the prices of new flats which in turn, forces young couples to stay with their parents. This will in turn artificially pushes up household income. This is especially obvious when we notice that there is an unusual artificial surge in both median and average household income in 2007 and 2008. Median household income has increased 9.4% and 13.1% in 2007 and 2008 respectively while average household income has increased 10.1% and 12.6% respectively. This is the clear indication that the rapid growth of HDB flat prices during these two critical years have caused such abnormality because as Singaporeans, we do not experience such a high increase in individual income for these two years.

From another perspective, if we are to take household income too seriously, even for the median household income, it would mean that our income would have increase a whopping 38.5% within that 10 years! As for Average Household Income, it would mean that income could have increase a whopping 44.6%! But we are looking at YOUNG COUPLES who have not worked that long in the job market but looking for flats! Have the starting pay for new entrants into the job market very different between 2009 and 1999? Apparently not. Some people are even complaining that their starting pays have even been lower than the 90s due to the influx of Foreign workers!

In fact, my researcher and I were looking through official statistics on MEDIAN INDIVIDUAL INCOME growth as compared to HDB PRICES GROWTH but such time series statistics only starts from 2005 till now. I am sure the PAP government has such statistics from 1999 onwards but why is it holding back such statistics for the last 5 years? Or they could have even use the statistics from 2005 till 2009 to make their justifications! If the PAP government could put up even more detailed statistics of income of Singaporeans who are 30 years and below, it would give a more accurate picture on how the disparity of income vs HDB price growth for the past 10 years!

The second problem here is with the use of average. As a statistical measure of central tendency, the average or mean is known to give inflated values when you have extreme values. Such extreme values are prevalent in income statistics in Singapore given the large income disparity between the rich and the poor.

Even if we are to accept such distorted representation, the more normal approach is therefore to use median rather than average. An illustration of how average gives inflated income statistics can be found in the paper published by the Singapore Department of Statistics. The paper is titled Key Income Trends, 2009. In Table 1, we have a comparison between median household income and average household income. I have extracted the numbers from the table and present them here:

This table shows that if we use average, the household income is inflated by 35% to 45%. The reason for this is the small number of households who have very high income. To my knowledge, the Singapore Department of Statistics uses median household income in all of their papers and publications. It is unknown why HDB would want to use the inflated average household income in their policy making. If Mr Mah were to use median household income, maybe he will understand why so many Singaporeans are saying HDB flats are not affordable.

Intriguingly, the widening percentage differences between the median and average household income actually reflects a serious problem here….the widening of income inequality! It actually shows that income inequality has widen about 15% or more for the past 10 years in terms of household income!

The final problem is found in paragraph 5.

96.4% of all HDB households surveyed said they were satisfied with their flats, while 95.1% were satisfied with their neighbourhood.

This finding seems to be very strange as it would suggest that almost everyone was happy with their HDB flat. If that is true, then HDB should not be receiving any complaints and we should only be seeing only happy people in their HDB flats. The truth on the ground seems to be very different. The majority of us living in the HDB heartlands, do not seem to be seeing universal joy and happiness. I do not understand this finding and will be writing in to ask HDB for the survey form and the methodology with which they used. I will post what I learn when HDB replies to me.

The electoral battle in Tampines will be a referendum on Mr Mah’s policies. I urge the voters of Tampines to stand with me and send a strong message to the PAP that policy failures like those committed by Mr Mah cannot and will not be tolerated. If we continue to keep quiet, then the policy failures will continue and Singaporeans will continue to suffer.

When reading Tan Kin Lian’s blog, I came across the passage below. It was written by Niemoller, a German who lived during the rise of Nazism. Many Germans were against Nazism but were reluctant to speak up. While we are not living in Nazi Germany, the underlying message tells of what will happen if we continue to keep quiet.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[myfoot123]

Can anyone still remember Lee Hsien Loong said he will "fix" the number to make his statistics look better and in line with his policies. When Mah Bow Tan mentioned income of household has increased, why the news reported yesterday said household income has declined? As usual, the contradicting statements made by PAP are always done to confuse at their whims and fancies and according to their mood against Singaporeans and not with fact on the ground. I am so afraid the daft 66% Singaporeans will given PAP another 5 years to screw things up again.

 

[Unrepented]

Last time "old gentlemen" lecturers and those in business research centers inside tertiary institutions buay song, already told us how it was done liao. Thats why I dont care much about statistics:oIo: but how much money actually in and out of my pocket, and the quality of life.

 

[aurvandil]

Leong Sze Hian did an independent study and came basically to the same conclusion.

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02...-their-flats-–-really-or-just-half-the-story/


HDB: 95 per cent happy with their flats – Really, or just half the story?
Leong Sze Hian

I refer to the article “HDB residents happy where they live – over 95% surveyed satisfied with their flats and neighbourhood” (Asiaone, 18 February).

I believe the statistic for the number of foreigners staying in HDB flats has been made available for the first time ever. I surmised this from this statement in the report:

“The survey also showed that the HDB resident population, comprising Singapore citizens and permanent residents, increased by 2.7 per cent over 5 years to 2.92 million in 2008.”

“This figure makes up 96 per cent of the total population in HDB flats, of which 88 per cent were citizens, and 8 per cent were permanent residents. The remaining four per cent were foreigners.”

So, does it mean that we have 121,667 foreigners staying in HDB flats, which makes up 4 per cent of the total HDB population (as calculated by taking 2.92 million to be 96 per cent)?
Given the acute shortage of rental housing for Singaporeans, with a queue of over 4,000 applicants and waiting periods of up to two years, how many foreigners are staying in flats which may be indirectly rented out by the HDB through managing agents like EM Services?

Are there any countries in the world whereby one in eight people in public housing are not citizens, since 12 per cent are non-citizens (8 per cent PRs and 4 per cent foreigners)?

The article also states:

“86 per cent – especially those who live in newer flats (less than 5 years) and older flats (21 years and above) – feel that their HDB flats are worth the money they spent mainly because of the appreciation in flat value, good location, proximity to facilities, and affordability.

“For residents of older flats, the main reasons given were the location of their flats, flat prices that had either already appreciated or were expected to have a good resale value in the future.”

This statement seems to be somewhat odd, as it conveniently ignores the bulk of flat owners who live in flats ranging from six to 20 years old.

As the statement suggests, those who live in older flats of over 21 years surely feel that their flats are worth what they spent because HDB flat prices were very low and affordable more than 20 years ago.

Similarly, the newer flats of less than five years may be those which have not met the 5-year Minimum Occupation Period (MOP). These flats had been offered at much lower prices than resale flats, which have seen huge price spikes in only the last two years or so.

Surely, those who went through the 13-year bear market (1996 to 2009) waiting for the HDB Resale Price Index to recover its price level may not be so happy when asked whether their flats were value for money, had appreciated in value, or were affordable. If we factor in the interest payments on housing loans, flats bought from as long as about 15 years ago may still not be making any money at all.

So, are we perhaps telling only ‘half the story’ about value for money and affordability?

Several media reports said that we should not blame others for rising flat prices, because only five percent of flats are owned by PRs and only 20 per cent of resale flats last year were purchased by PRs. Perhaps what we need are not just the statistics on ownership, but on rental as well. How many flats are also rented to PRs and foreigners? Perhaps there’s another case of telling ‘half the story’ here?

Did the survey cover any of the 60,000 flat dwellers who were given financial counselling by the HDB for difficulty in paying for their flats in 2008, or the 30,770 flat-owners in arrears over three months as of September 2009, or the estimated about 60 flats repossessed by the HDB every month, or the unknown number of HDB bank loans in arrears or foreclosed? Perhaps another case of ‘half the story’ here too?

With regards to the statement:

“The survey also showed that the HDB resident population, comprising Singapore citizens and permanent residents, increased by 2.7 per cent over 5 years to 2.92 million in 2008”.

It omits to mention what was the increase in the foreigner HDB resident population over the five years. It is inconsistent to on the one hand give the break-down of the resident population by citizens, PRs and foreigners, but omit foreigners in the rate of increase over the five years.

What we need is the rate of increase in the five years, broken down into Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners, in order to have the ‘full story’.

The HDB press release said: “The average household income from work had also risen from $4,238 in 2003 to $5,680 in 2008, reflecting the growing affluence of HDB households.”

However, for the purpose of a rough comparison for discussion’s sake, according to the Department of Statistics’ (DOS) Household Expenditure Survey released in December 2009, the average monthly household income for HDB flats’ dwellers grew from $4,202 in 2002/3 to $5,503 in 2007/08.

The DOS data for all households, including private housing, had the average monthly household income of the 41st – 60th quintile at $5,480. For their data, the DOS uses HDB flats’ average income as well as the average income of the median total population – the average income of the segment of households that separates the higher and the lower halves of the total population sample.

The problem with such a comparison is that the HDB uses just the average income. This figure is skewed upwards by the high incomes earned by wealthier households – which is a significant distortion given Singapore’s income inequality (BusinessWeek ranked Singapore the second most unequal country in a list of the 11 most unequal advanced economies in the world – our score was 42.5, with 0 being complete equality and 100 being complete inequality).

So, the question is why can’t the HDB use median income as well? This would be more reflective of the income of the average household, like data provided by the DOS.

This is not the first time that the HDB Survey data seems to be out of sync with the DOS data. In 2003, according to the DOS Household Survey, while the household income of those living in private homes grew, those in public flats fell by 0.4 per cent per annum, from $3,860 in 1998 to $3,790 in 2003.

Since about 85 per cent of the population live in public flats, does this mean that the majority of Singaporeans were worse off?

In contrast, according to the HDB Household Survey of the same year, “average household income of HDB flat dwellers rose from $3,719 to $4,238 a month.”

How is it possible that the DOS Household Survey differs so markedly from the HDB Household Survey for apparently the same period, for such a crucial statistic?

I tried searching the HDB web site and the internet for the HDB Sample Household Survey Report, but could not find it.

Instead of just a press release fill with HDB’s selective findings and conclusions, may I suggest that the full report be made available to the public so that we may try to figure out the whole story?

 

[bhoven]

massaging numbers...ditto for temasek's returns. Compounded annual returns masks the volatility in the returns. Also, data can be made to look stellar by using the right " start and end dates for the periods measured...

 

[aurvandil]

Goh Meng Seng did a following up posting after HDB replied to an email he wrote. The full posting is too long to put up and may be found here:

http://singaporealternatives.blogspot.com/2010/02/no-clarity-yet-but-more-questions-on.html

The following is the email GMS wrote:

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I have read with interest about your recent release on HDB Sample Survery 2008. I would like to have a copy of the survey questionnaire and understand more about the survey methodology applied in this survery.

I am particularly interested on how the 94% of HDB dwellers satisfaction rate was derived from the survey. I would like to know the sample size and the sampling methodology used in this survey.

I would appreciate if you could send me the survey questionnaire and necessary information as soon as possible. Thank you.

The following is HDB's reply.

Dear Mr Goh,

HDB SAMPLE SURVEY 2008

We thank you for your interest in HDB's SHS 2008 and your enquiries on the survey.

2. Close to 8,000 households across the island were sucessfully surveyed, yielding an overall sampling error of +1.2% at 95% confidence level. A set of weight was used to generalise the survey data to the population level, so that the findings reported are representative of all HDB households. A dual-modal data collection method was used, encompassing Internet survey (e-survey) as well as the conventional face-to-face survey at residents' home.

3. Residents' satisfaction was measured on a 4-point scale, ranging from "Very Satisfied", "Satisfied", "Dissatisfied" to "Very Dissatisfied". The proportion of households who were satisfied consists of those who indicated either they were "Very Satisfied" or "Satisfied".

4. We are unable to forward you a copy of the survey questionnaire. However, you can look forward to more details in our monographs, available for purchase at end Mar/early Apr 2010.



Yours sincerely,

GOH LI PING
SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER
RESEARCH & PLANNING DEPARTMENT

GMS then made the following observations:

While polite, the reply unfortunately does not provide any of meaningful answers. It did not answer some fundamental question on the sampling methodology applied when the face to face interviews were carried out. It does raise some doubts technically but I will confirm and comment on my doubts after I get more information and clarity once I get hold of the monographs. On the other hand, the email raises 3 additional questions:

1) The survey was conducted in 2008. It is very surprising to read that the results will not be ready until Mar/Arp 2010. This is very unusual as the normal time to complete a survey of this size is about 3 to 6 month, or at most 1 year. If this data is still not ready, then what data has Mr Mah been using to make policy? The HDB website shows that the most recent data release is 2003. Was Mr Mah using vintage 2003 data to make policy decisions?

2) It is very strange that HDB has refused to release the questionnaire. This is a basic requirement in all research so that those reading the numbers can understand how the numbers were derived. The Singapore Department of Statistics releases all questionnaires from their surveys. Questionnaires cannot be classified as being Confidential or Secret. They belong in the public domain since to use them to gather information, you have to show them to the public. This is especially so when it is claimed that internet survey was carried out.

3) The 4 point scale is a non-standard method to generate a satisfaction score. The more standard scale is to use a 5 point scale or a 10 point scale. It is unknown why HDB chose to use such an unorthodox scale. A known research problem with such a scale is that it tends to give inflated results. This is because respondents who are indifferent (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) are not given a choice. When forced the tendency of such indifferent respondents is to give a 3 rating, inflating the results.

Mar/early April is round the corner. I will wait for the monographs to come out and do a more detailed analysis of the findings.