SDP - Mar 2014 - Here's how we can make Singapore less expensive

[Cosmos10]

Here's how we can make Singapore less expensive

Added on: Wednesday, 5 March 2014

by the Singapore Democrats

http://yoursdp.org/news/here_s_how_we_can_make_singapore_less_expensive/2014-03-05-5789

 

[Cosmos10]

Here's how we can make Singapore less expensive


The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) has, perhaps not surprisingly, named Singapore the most expensive city in the world. But rather than just lash out at the PAP Government for this dubious achievement, the SDP will propose constructive measures to lower the cost of living for Singaporeans.

First, housing is extremely expensive in Singapore because of of high HDB prices. Young couples nowadays have to borrow huge amounts of money to pay off their housing loans, usually for 25 to 30 years using their CPF funds. This, of course, deprives us of our retirement income.

High property prices affect not only flat owners. Asset inflation means that workers have to be paid more so that they can make ends meet while at the same time increase commercial property prices, leading to higher office and shop rentals. Business owners also want to take home bigger profits to meet their housing expenses. All these increased costs are passed on to the consumer, jacking up living expenses for the people.

The SDP has proposed the Non-Open Market (NOM) scheme in our housing policy paper in which Singaporeans buy HDB flats at cost (minus the cost of land) which will substantially reduce the costs of flats ($120,000 for a 4-room flat as compared to twice that amount under current prices). In return, owners can only sell the flat back to the Government without profit.

Such a measure not only lets the people retain their CPF savings but will also control asset inflation with the ripple effect lowering rental for retail space. This will, ultimately, lower costs on goods.

 

[Cosmos10]

Second, much of the dramatic rise in living expenses can be traced to the massive influx of foreigners. With more people, the demand for housing and cars (COEs) escalate. At the same time, wages are depressed especially for lower-income workers.

To solve this problem. we propose in our population plan that the number of foreign workers allowed into Singapore be checked. This can be done through the Talent Track Scheme where we rigorously assess the skills and competencies of foreigners wanting to work here, and allow in only those who are genuinely qualified.

Employers can then hire from this pool but only after they demonstrate that they have tried to employ a Singaporean but are unable to find one who has the required skills/qualifications.

In this way, we don't deprive our businesses of genuine foreign talent while ensuring that we keep our population to a manageable and sustainable level. This, as a consequence, lower living expenses.

Read also SDP unveils six-point plan to control population

 

[Cosmos10]

The third item that makes Singapore so expensive for our citizens is healthcare costs. The SDP has proposed in our National Healthcare Plan that the government pays the bulk of the premiums in a national insurance scheme called the National Health Investment Fund (NHIF).

Singaporeans also pay into the pool but at a much reduced rate than we do with the current Medisave scheme. Upon hospitalisation, we pay only 10 percent of the bill up to a maximum of $2,00 per year, the NHIF pays the remaining 90 percent.

Read also The SDP healthcare plan made simple

 

[Cosmos10]

Being the most expensive city in the world is not only a burden for Singaporeans, the financial pressure is also putting a tremendous amount of strain on our social lives and relationships – and ultimately our lives.

The SDP will offer our alternative ideas to Singaporeans at the next elections. Our vision is to make Singapore the most livable city in the world, not the most expensive.

 

[sochi2014]

why must make it less expensive?

why not increase our salaries?

less expensive means poor!

 

[yellowarse]

why must make it less expensive?

why not increase our salaries?

less expensive means poor!

What kind of fucked-up logic is that?

'Less expensive' means you have more disposable income and your money goes a longer way. 'Less expensive' means for a given income you have a higher standard of living. We were promised a 'Swiss standard of living' by GCT but we end up achieving a Swiss cost of living (actually S'pore is now more expensive than Zurich or Geneva), while still lagging far behind the Swiss standard of living.

Having said that, the SDP has also proposed minimum wage legislation, restricting the inflow of foreign workers, and implementing social safety nets, all of which are targeted at raising the wages of the low and lower middle income workers.

Coupled with measures to reduce cost of living and inflation, this will increase the quality of life and standard of living for all Singaporeans.

You can now stop your trolling and misrepresentation and report back to your PAP IB master.

 

[yellowarse]

sdp have many good ideas. just that a lot of older folks still remember chee in his wilder days. i hope the younger generation are more recptive to them.

Chee was idealistic in his younger days and made the mistake of assuming that S'poreans were receptive to civil disobedience as a means of agitating for change. He's older now, probably wiser as well, and while his idealism has not been dampened, it's now tempered with a huge dose of realism. Hence the shift in focus to bread-and-butter issues and policy formulation in a bid to work for change via the electoral route.

Of course many detractors will say that he's betraying his activist roots. But if you examine his statements and policies carefully, his fundamental principles have remained the same: basic freedoms, democratic rights, free and fair elections, social equity. The method has changed: no more civil disobedience, less activism, more ground work, winning the hearts of heartland voters.

It is the mark of a good politician if he can own up to his past mistakes and make a change for the better.

 

[tanwahp]

Chee was idealistic in his younger days and made the mistake of assuming that S'poreans were receptive to civil disobedience as a means of agitating for change. He's older now, probably wiser as well, and while his idealism has not been dampened, it's now tempered with a huge dose of realism. Hence the shift in focus to bread-and-butter issues and policy formulation in a bid to work for change via the electoral route.

Of course many detractors will say that he's betraying his activist roots. But if you examine his statements and policies carefully, his fundamental principles have remained the same: basic freedoms, democratic rights, free and fair elections, social equity. The method has changed: no more civil disobedience, less activism, more ground work, winning the hearts of heartland voters.

It is the mark of a good politician if he can own up to his past mistakes and make a change for the better.

The SDP took a gamble after Chee took over in 1992. It is quite an often thing that dominant regimes tend to turn inept faster than ruling parties hanging onto a bare simple majority. Chee probably thought the day will come sooner than what other opposition parties (WP, NSP, SPP) expected, and drove SDP on a road where only parties under extreme oppression (like Cambodia's CNRP) have driven on.

To add to that, rumours have been floating since 2007 that Chiam and Low would step into a GRC, meaning that a fully-seated PAP would possibly return since 1981. SDP had been trying to prove that the opposition cannot change by the ballot.

As we know, SPP lost all their seats but WP won a GRC and kept Hougang. What was also unexpected was for NCMP seats to increase from 3 to 9. Safe to say, if all that did not happen, SDP would be the foremost major opposition party right now as we speak here, because they were right. Protests would also increase, including illegal ones.

The 2011 GE was about many things, one of which was a silent gamble between WP and SDP in which SDP lost. The uniqueness of politics and the Singapore situation is something no one can predict. The bigger the gamble, the higher the risk and the loser will be left counting more losses. But it is never too late to turn a situation around.

 

[yellowarse]

The SDP took a gamble after Chee took over in 1992. It is quite an often thing that dominant regimes tend to turn inept faster than ruling parties hanging onto a bare simple majority. Chee probably thought the day will come sooner than what other opposition parties (WP, NSP, SPP) expected, and drove SDP on a road where only parties under extreme oppression (like Cambodia's CNRP) have driven on.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Conditions weren't ripe back in the '90s despite 30 years of totalitarian one-party rule mainly because the people weren't desperate enough. We'd just got into the rich league, there was food on the table, full employment, big mortgages to pay off, relatively clean and efficient (if bureaucratic) govt. Life was decent, and looking to be better, even emulating the Swiss. Who gave a damn to freedoms and rights?

Still, something good came out of it – Speakers' Corner.

But the seeds of Singapore's future (read now) undoing were already being sown in the face of an acquiescent, token opposition then. And we're paying the price today.

The 2011 GE was about many things, one of which was a silent gamble between WP and SDP in which SDP lost. The uniqueness of politics and the Singapore situation is something no one can predict. The bigger the gamble, the higher the risk and the loser will be left counting more losses. But it is never too late to turn a situation around.

I believe while WP's historic GRC win was a shot in the arm for opposition proponents of the electoral route, SDP's change in tack was due to more than just that. The many defamation and bankruptcy suits had almost decimated the party. It was a rude reality check for Chee & co. about the need to adopt a different political strategy, to move away from confrontational politics, or perish. (Personally, I feel Chee is cut from the activist cloth, but his willingness to learn and adapt is a credit to his maturing as a politician.)

 

[tanwahp]

But the seeds of Singapore's future (read now) undoing were already being sown in the face of an acquiescent, token opposition then. And we're paying the price today.

Which was my point about SDP refusing to be acquiescent but whether the time was ripe back then. The loss of votes and seats in 2011 showed that Singaporean's pressure valve, while slower to react, was not faulty. We're paying the price, but it isn't too late.

If the opposition was acquiescent, that does not mean they cannot do it differently later. Just like how SDP is now moving away from confrontational politics. While people may not agree with me, I think WP has turned up the heater knob instead. 10 years ago, it would have been unthinkable for WP to claim trial over a $1000 NEA fine and fight a government agency in court. But that was what exact Sylvia Lim did in 2014.

It was a rude reality check for Chee & co. about the need to adopt a different political strategy, to move away from confrontational politics, or perish.

My point was not so much about SDP's moving away from confrontational politics now but why did they begin to do so in the first place. I don't think Chee did not know that his party could face eventual perishment at the hands of his confrontational politics. There were reasons.

 

[yellowarse]

My point was not so much about SDP's moving away from confrontational politics now but why did they begin to do so in the first place. I don't think Chee did not know that his party could face eventual perishment at the hands of his confrontational politics. There were reasons.

He knew the risks, but he thought if he could rouse the people with his martyrdom, then people power and popular opinion will eventually trump over politically motivated lawsuits, kangaroo courts and detentions without trial. He misread the people: they didn't respond to his challenge; they were not ready, not desperate enough, unlike the dispossessed and oppressed millions we see in other 3rd World countries.

 

[tanwahp]

He knew the risks, but he thought if he could rouse the people with his martyrdom, then people power and popular opinion will eventually trump over politically motivated lawsuits, kangaroo courts and detentions without trial. He misread the people: they didn't respond to his challenge; they were not ready, not desperate enough, unlike the dispossessed and oppressed millions we see in other 3rd World countries.

My sentiments exactly. It was a gamble he took and lost.

But politics is like a casino. The SDP can now place a new bet with borrowed funds and may win. The rest are betting their winnings and may lose everything.

 

[3_M]

at least sdp have gain quite a lot of % improvement in the last GE. shows that the public is willing to give them a chance.

This is often the argument SDP supporters used but SDP was the worst performing party for GE06. With such a low baseline of GE 06 and a national swing during GE11, improvement in scoreline should not be misread. It more of a reflection of SDP failure during GE06 than success in GE11. The real test for SDP lies in the next election.

 

[tanwahp]

at least sdp have gain quite a lot of % improvement in the last GE. shows that the public is willing to give them a chance.

They have closed the gap and there is still some way to go.

In 2011, the A team in Holland GRC despite being the best team scored 40%, still 2% below NSP's best results and 1% below WP's worst results.

However, that has improved from 2006 when they were 8% behind SDA and 15% behind WP. James Gomez said the SDP had at least one thing to be proud of and that was being the best improved opposition party in 2011.

 

[3_M]

Chee was idealistic in his younger days and made the mistake of assuming that S'poreans were receptive to civil disobedience as a means of agitating for change. He's older now, probably wiser as well, and while his idealism has not been dampened, it's now tempered with a huge dose of realism. Hence the shift in focus to bread-and-butter issues and policy formulation in a bid to work for change via the electoral route.

Of course many detractors will say that he's betraying his activist roots. But if you examine his statements and policies carefully, his fundamental principles have remained the same: basic freedoms, democratic rights, free and fair elections, social equity. The method has changed: no more civil disobedience, less activism, more ground work, winning the hearts of heartland voters.

It is the mark of a good politician if he can own up to his past mistakes and make a change for the better.

Actually that more of SDP attempt to address the beard and butter issues that is of concerns to heartlands while retaining the support of civil activists. The only way to please both camps is to piggyback those civil right messages along. Reading the SDP website, most articles are on policies and beard and butter issues. At the same time they do not want to get themselves embroil one more time in LGBT controversy with the largely conservative voters which is likely the reason why VW was asked to leave the party.

 

[tanwahp]

Actually that more of SDP attempt to address the beard and butter issues that is of concerns to heartlands while retaining the support of civil activists. The only way to please both camps is to piggyback those civil right messages along. Reading the SDP website, most articles are on policies and beard and butter issues.

You can court both heartlanders and civil activists without losing either one of them. It is not easy at you may still lose part of either one. Strike a fine balance and not go to either extreme is a start.

 

[liongsum]

Second, much of the dramatic rise in living expenses can be traced to the massive influx of foreigners. With more people, the demand for housing and cars (COEs) escalate. At the same time, wages are depressed especially for lower-income workers.

To solve this problem. we propose in our population plan that the number of foreign workers allowed into Singapore be checked. This can be done through the Talent Track Scheme where we rigorously assess the skills and competencies of foreigners wanting to work here, and allow in only those who are genuinely qualified.

Employers can then hire from this pool but only after they demonstrate that they have tried to employ a Singaporean but are unable to find one who has the required skills/qualifications.

In this way, we don't deprive our businesses of genuine foreign talent while ensuring that we keep our population to a manageable and sustainable level. This, as a consequence, lower living expenses.

Read also SDP unveils six-point plan to control population

Really can't understand how Tharman could be so dismissive to brand it as not relevant to our locals. If we only need to take bread and butter items, why do we build the durian, the sports hub, etc. If we do so, our people's lives must be as miserable as bread and butter types.

 

[liongsum]

And yet there is another angle to this. Items might be expensive, but service here is not so. Eg a 150K Nissan probably might cost only 30K in UK, but the maintenance servicing might be 10 times what is here. So if 1K per year here, probably needs 10K there. Total in 10 years is 160K here and 130K there. Not so great a difference. The real difference is our workers here have been terribly exploited. There, if the pay is too low nobody will do the job. If you want your care running, pay. Here if nobody wants the job, we import talent. That's why bread and butter for the heartlands.

 

[liongsum]

U sure if Nissan sunny cost 30k in Uk and maintenance is 10k per year? uk car owners will stupidly serviceability year after year without thinking of getting a new one?

Hey bro, not sure of 30K at all. That's why the big if. The point is a new angle. If we factor in labour and service charges, the difference won't be so great. But the way it's put, the message was heartlanders should restrict their aspirations befitting of poor church mice. Cheese and better products should be left out, quite forgetting that poor people would like better products as much as the rich.

Here is another angle to the attempt to rein in the property market. It is favoring the rich. Hey you rich people out there, a lot of competition have been knocked out for you. Buy now when prices come down. As if afraid that the rich do not get the message, another source reassured that prices will not slide in the long term.