Serious The Economics of Poverty and Inequality in Singapore - Yeoh Lam Keong

[frenchbriefs]

This month, the son of former President shearers made over $4 million from sale of his Sentosa
landed house.He bought it in 2005 from developer,Ho Bee, Chua Tian poh..for $2.7 million and sold it for $6.8 million.

Was he the selected and privileged few to be offered this prize catch..??

Or was he just lucky or was it that he is well connected.?

Now , Chua Tian Poh was also lucky to clinch the sentosa cove parcel of land in 2003.
He was the sole tenderer and tendered 22% below value to get it in a very hush and quiet tender exercise.

Wong kan seng said the deal is ok. No problem about it, even the Chief valuer was not consulted.

Was Chua, now a billionaire very lucky or was it that he is well connected.?

Now, our PM LHL was also very lucky to make money from his Nassim Jade condo.
He got more than 10% discount but he returned it as donation after this episode.

We will just have to conclude that he is very lucky and well connected.

So for these few people, they are lucky and well connected and the words POVERTY AND INEQUALITY are not in their vocabulary.

If you fall below the poverty line, you are just unlucky.

isnt chua thian poh the founder of the amazing and critically acclaimed Ho Bee Land?i picked up 1000 shares of it after reading some well written analysis and raving reviews of its balance sheets and business model.hoping to add another thousand or two to my portfolio by the end of this year.

at first i didnt know who chua thian poh is,but when i googled and saw his picture in forbes,his face inspired in me great confidence in the future.it reinforced me that Ho Bee Land was a proven winner.

 

[blissquek]

isnt chua thian poh the founder of the amazing and critically acclaimed Ho Bee Land?i picked up 1000 shares of it after reading some well written analysis and raving reviews of its balance sheets and business model.hoping to add another thousand or two to my portfolio by the end of this year.

at first i didnt know who chua thian poh is,but when i googled and saw his picture in forbes,his face inspired in me great confidence in the future.it reinforced me that Ho Bee Land was a proven winner.

Yes..Ho Bee share is a stunner...will always remember it.

Bought some 80,000 under CPF many many years back after it slide off slightly from its IPO price of 0.48 cts.
Bought some for my wife too then. Was then very impressed with his development at Pasir Ris, The Riverina as i was looking to buy one then.

For more than a decade , the share went under water..hang around 0.20 cts.
Sold off when it reaches break even.

Only my wife is champ..she gets to sell above $1.00..

Oh..on Chua Tian Poh.. now i see him as a fake buddhist.. ( after reading "The Sentosa cove scandal" )just like some of you see the $8 cow as one..

 

[virus]

LKY is rumoured to be a billionaire when he up the lorry. How does an "honest" politician do that:confused

Through honest mistake.

 

[RandomNexus]

Inequality and distribution of wealth?

Yeoh forgot that all Singaporeans are property-owners to some extent. Though we can argue that HDB is not an asset but like LKY used to say, which country in the world helps support every citizen to buy their own property.

The question is whether it is ever possible to regulate the price of land and property in Singapore.

In Singapore, it seems to think it can. I also think land price has gone far too much up in the last decade. As long as average incomes do not keep pace, it does not make sense.

It is the influx of capital of eminent persons in the last decade that is causing the rise in property prices. If we stop that, what other alternatives do we have to encourage future growth? Businesses do not just come here for this small red dot. We are past that phase now.

Then there is a need to have folks that have the ability to contribute to growth here, and of course we have the education system always gearing for that but is that sufficient? Hence here lies the need to have people of real talent to create growth.

As for talent and need to attract talent, Singaporeans are phobic but I think for us, we have no other choice. The issue is not whether we need to attract such talent but the problem is whether there is enough incentives for them to come here at all.

Again we are past the phases of the past to rely on MNCs' investment as we are no longer an attractive place.

The age-old question of arguing that it is more important to distribute bread is no doubt important but Yeoh has to do better - the pertinent question of how to create bread is still by far the greater and most important concern, more urgent than ever for Singapore's next few years as we see every conceivable advantage Singapore has is being eroded away quickly. NOL is clearly a case and it is no longer about Singapore as a hub for the region. Bread distribution is for the political fodder and it looks good for the opposition folks. But generating the capability to create bread is far harder and for Yeoh, you have downgraded yourself to the level of opposition folks. I will you far more credit if you can consider the more difficult question of how to create bread and what I see, it will be treacherous for Singapore.

 

[scroobal]

I don't think Singapore are against bringing in talent. We had open door policy with Malaysians from word go. They were treated as equals and in some cases given perks that Singaporeans did not have such as heavily subsidised rentals for NUS grads. As part of EDB approach in the early years we attracted "genuine" talent.

The issue that Singaporeans have is that policies nowadays leads to replaceing local talent with cheaper labour or talent. Cost has gone up especially land related such as rentals and business are seeking relief. The easiest thing to do is allow cheaper labour and talent. You for instance can bring an accountant at 1/6th the cost from India, Pharmacist, and other para legal and management staff. Citibank's IT centre in Tampines from head to tow is all Indians. While we have IT trained locals with no jobs.

These kind of policies will never occur in OZ, UK or even Kenya. There is no country in the World that has a such a liberal attitude where any foreigner seeking employment is readily admitted.

In the 70s, 80s and early 90s, all govt and govt linked purchases from 1st World countries such as machineries, tools, technology etc must have part of the contract a requirement that 2 Civil servants or Stat Board employee that must be provided training for 3 to 6 months in the country of the provider. If Senoko Power Station bought a turbine from Siemens in Germany, they have to provide training in their factory for 2 of our engineers. Thats how we upskilled by technology transfer. In those years, Singaporeans went to Japan, France, UK, Sweden, Germany and the US.

Now they come here and technology transfer beneficiaries are technicians and engineers from India, Myanmar, China etc.

Yeoh's bread distribution based on forward planning and taking a slice of the reserves as capital to generate returns to handle those who are vulnerable but not to create a welfare system.

Inequality and distribution of wealth?

Yeoh forgot that all Singaporeans are property-owners to some extent. Though we can argue that HDB is not an asset but like LKY used to say, which country in the world helps support every citizen to buy their own property.

The question is whether it is ever possible to regulate the price of land and property in Singapore.

In Singapore, it seems to think it can. I also think land price has gone far too much up in the last decade. As long as average incomes do not keep pace, it does not make sense.

It is the influx of capital of eminent persons in the last decade that is causing the rise in property prices. If we stop that, what other alternatives do we have to encourage future growth? Businesses do not just come here for this small red dot. We are past that phase now.

Then there is a need to have folks that have the ability to contribute to growth here, and of course we have the education system always gearing for that but is that sufficient? Hence here lies the need to have people of real talent to create growth.

As for talent and need to attract talent, Singaporeans are phobic but I think for us, we have no other choice. The issue is not whether we need to attract such talent but the problem is whether there is enough incentives for them to come here at all.

Again we are past the phases of the past to rely on MNCs' investment as we are no longer an attractive place.

The age-old question of arguing that it is more important to distribute bread is no doubt important but Yeoh has to do better - the pertinent question of how to create bread is still by far the greater and most important concern, more urgent than ever for Singapore's next few years as we see every conceivable advantage Singapore has is being eroded away quickly. NOL is clearly a case and it is no longer about Singapore as a hub for the region. Bread distribution is for the political fodder and it looks good for the opposition folks. But generating the capability to create bread is far harder and for Yeoh, you have downgraded yourself to the level of opposition folks. I will you far more credit if you can consider the more difficult question of how to create bread and what I see, it will be treacherous for Singapore.

 

[scroobal]

Sheares' widow was one of those included with the Lee Clan to buy into Nassim Jade at the soft launch. She picked up a unit.

Sentosa Cove never went for tender. It was pointed out by the Auditor General. Chua also sat on SDC Board and was privy to developments plans of the Island. He stepped down shortly before the tender. He is also a CCC Chairman.

Singaporeans have no idea how much they are abused. If the Straits Times does not say it is abuse, conflict of interest or corruption, they will continue to vote a PAP candidate.

This month, the son of former President shearers made over $4 million from sale of his Sentosa
landed house.He bought it in 2005 from developer,Ho Bee, Chua Tian poh..for $2.7 million and sold it for $6.8 million.

Was he the selected and privileged few to be offered this prize catch..??

Or was he just lucky or was it that he is well connected.?

Now , Chua Tian Poh was also lucky to clinch the sentosa cove parcel of land in 2003.
He was the sole tenderer and tendered 22% below value to get it in a very hush and quiet tender exercise.

Wong kan seng said the deal is ok. No problem about it, even the Chief valuer was not consulted.

Was Chua, now a billionaire very lucky or was it that he is well connected.?

Now, our PM LHL was also very lucky to make money from his Nassim Jade condo.
He got more than 10% discount but he returned it as donation after this episode.

We will just have to conclude that he is very lucky and well connected.

So for these few people, they are lucky and well connected and the words POVERTY AND INEQUALITY are not in their vocabulary.

If you fall below the poverty line, you are just unlucky.

 

[Satyr]

I don't think Singapore are against bringing in talent. We had open door policy with Malaysians from word go. They were treated as equals and in some cases given perks that Singaporeans did not have such as heavily subsidised rentals for NUS grads. As part of EDB approach in the early years we attracted "genuine" talent.

The issue that Singaporeans have is that policies nowadays leads to replaceing local talent with cheaper labour or talent. Cost has gone up especially land related such as rentals and business are seeking relief. The easiest thing to do is allow cheaper labour and talent. You for instance can bring an accountant at 1/6th the cost from India, Pharmacist, and other para legal and management staff. Citibank's IT centre in Tampines from head to tow is all Indians. While we have IT trained locals with no jobs.

These kind of policies will never occur in OZ, UK or even Kenya. There is no country in the World that has a such a liberal attitude where any foreigner seeking employment is readily admitted.

In the 70s, 80s and early 90s, all govt and govt linked purchases from 1st World countries such as machineries, tools, technology etc must have part of the contract a requirement that 2 Civil servants or Stat Board employee that must be provided training for 3 to 6 months in the country of the provider. If Senoko Power Station bought a turbine from Siemens in Germany, they have to provide training in their factory for 2 of our engineers. Thats how we upskilled by technology transfer. In those years, Singaporeans went to Japan, France, UK, Sweden, Germany and the US.

Now they come here and technology transfer beneficiaries are technicians and engineers from India, Myanmar, China etc.

Yeoh's bread distribution based on forward planning and taking a slice of the reserves as capital to generate returns to handle those who are vulnerable but not to create a welfare system.

In the past the government cared about the people. Upskilling the people would raise the country. Hence the directive about training Singaporeans in the country of the provider. They not only learnt new skills but they learnt how an advanced company in a well developed country did things. Singaporeans were held in high esteem and many made it into the top ranks of the MNCs here. The current government cares about the money first, or as they call it, the GDP. Hence, the PM's cheerful professed wish he could attract another 6 billionaires here. Apart from the dubious assumption that another billionaire here would do anything for the economy, the worrying thought is that after so many years, we are still looking to outsiders to raise the economy. As for the mass immigration of foreign workers, like high blood pressure, this is a path of no return. The government knows it, that is why they are so big on assimilation.

 

[frenchbriefs]

Inequality and distribution of wealth?

Yeoh forgot that all Singaporeans are property-owners to some extent. Though we can argue that HDB is not an asset but like LKY used to say, which country in the world helps support every citizen to buy their own property.

The question is whether it is ever possible to regulate the price of land and property in Singapore.

In Singapore, it seems to think it can. I also think land price has gone far too much up in the last decade. As long as average incomes do not keep pace, it does not make sense.

It is the influx of capital of eminent persons in the last decade that is causing the rise in property prices. If we stop that, what other alternatives do we have to encourage future growth? Businesses do not just come here for this small red dot. We are past that phase now.

Then there is a need to have folks that have the ability to contribute to growth here, and of course we have the education system always gearing for that but is that sufficient? Hence here lies the need to have people of real talent to create growth.

As for talent and need to attract talent, Singaporeans are phobic but I think for us, we have no other choice. The issue is not whether we need to attract such talent but the problem is whether there is enough incentives for them to come here at all.

Again we are past the phases of the past to rely on MNCs' investment as we are no longer an attractive place.

The age-old question of arguing that it is more important to distribute bread is no doubt important but Yeoh has to do better - the pertinent question of how to create bread is still by far the greater and most important concern, more urgent than ever for Singapore's next few years as we see every conceivable advantage Singapore has is being eroded away quickly. NOL is clearly a case and it is no longer about Singapore as a hub for the region. Bread distribution is for the political fodder and it looks good for the opposition folks. But generating the capability to create bread is far harder and for Yeoh, you have downgraded yourself to the level of opposition folks. I will you far more credit if you can consider the more difficult question of how to create bread and what I see, it will be treacherous for Singapore.

wait so ur solution(and perhaps PAP's) to all of singapore's economic problems is to turn our country into one giant ponzi real estate bubble?in order to

attract more foreign investment dollars,we keep building more and more condos,and shopping malls,and hdb flats and office towers,and squeezing in fifty

thousand more foreigners into this tiny island to drive up property prices and retail and office rents higher and higher?and encourage locals to take up higher

higher levels of household and housing debts in order to fuel and sustain the property prices?singapore's household debt levels are currently one of the

highest in asia.this is perfectly fine in a economy that is thriving and growing in a expansionary and inflationary phase,but what happens when theres a

economic recession or slowdown and the economy goes into deflationary cycle?




u seem to think singapore will sink into the ocean and be doomed if we somehow are unable to generate and sustain high levels of economic activity,

singapore is a extremely small country and our population minuscule,we probably rank in the bottom 100s of the world,it doesnt take alot or much to sustain

our people.however to satisfy the greed of our ministers and government might be nigh impossible.over the past 50 years of our country's history,thru our

people's hard work and toiling and our government's ingenuity and tactics at "making money",our nation have accumulated wealth and reserves of

gargantuan proportions.our combined soverign wealth funds,GIC and temasek and if u are inclined to include CPF are among the top 10 largest in the world.conservative estimates are 700 billion at least.

despite being a daft and stupid country,our ability to gather and accumulate wealth surpasses that even of large countries like Indonesia or Philippines,countries with

populations that Singapore are only a tiny tiny fraction the size of.we have 1.5 percent of the population of Indonesia and Philippines combined and more

wealth than them.very few countries in the world can experience safety and security like us,if carefully managed and properly invested and the proceeds

carefully disbursed,generations of sinkies can enjoy the fruits of our labour for eons and hundreds of years to come.we may even be able to build a paradise

on this earth for sinkies to enjoy.unfortunately at this time i have no idea which sinkies are currently experience paradise on earth,singapore currently

resembles more of a hellhole.




now singapore is a parasitic economy,so we gotta figure out how to play according to our strengths and weaknesses.what can we do as a parasitic country?

obviously banking and finance sector is a big one and perhaps our main breadwinner,we also got to look at the huge amount of trade we are doing with our

neighbour up north,malaysia which is currently one of our three biggest trading partners.importing and exporting i assume will be another major occupation

for sinkies,since we grow nothing,manufacture nothing and produce nothing,singaporeans have to become a nation of traders,merchants,EXIMs,middle men.

we also have to look back to shipping and NOL.giving up on shipping is ludicrous,it should be one of our fortes and ricebowls,we should be shipping tycoons

like the greeks.how can we not be sailors when our geography and economy demands that we do?

as for what u said about HDB being assets and so called "wealth distributors" in ur PAP manifesto thats another bullshit that must be addressed but thats bullshit for another

day.

 

[winnipegjets]

If everyone's effort, diligence and commitment were roughly equal then there would be less inequality in Singapore.

There is a decent baseline standard of living that everyone should enjoy; that doesn't stop others from pursuing wealth.

Sweden is social democratic; it has many billionaires and millionaires. Yet, the majority of the people enjoy a comfortable middle class existence that is made possible by government intervention. That's the kind of society sinkapore should be.

 

[winnipegjets]

The age-old question of arguing that it is more important to distribute bread is no doubt important but Yeoh has to do better - the pertinent question of how to create bread is still by far the greater and most important concern, more urgent than ever for Singapore's next few years as we see every conceivable advantage Singapore has is being eroded away quickly. NOL is clearly a case and it is no longer about Singapore as a hub for the region. Bread distribution is for the political fodder and it looks good for the opposition folks. But generating the capability to create bread is far harder and for Yeoh, you have downgraded yourself to the level of opposition folks. I will you far more credit if you can consider the more difficult question of how to create bread and what I see, it will be treacherous for Singapore.

Learn from the Scandinavian countries lah. If sinkapore is to thrive, we need to tear it down and rebuild. Getting rid of the PAP is a necessity. All the PAP has given us is garbage. Sinkees can't think, can't be creative, kiasi, kiasu, complacent, afraid of government ....how can a country grow when the quality of people is garbage. Garbage government produces garbage people.
Time to start over again.

 

[wuqi256]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to frenchbriefs again.

I salute you for your answers. Makes sense.


"we also have to look back to shipping and NOL.giving up on shipping is ludicrous,it should be one of our fortes and ricebowls,we should be shipping tycoons.
Like the greeks.how can we not be sailors when our geography and economy demands that we do?"

 

[winnipegjets]

The only way to bring more equality is having truly free market and true capitalism where you make it easy for anyone who want to start an honest business. Reward creativity and hard work through free market.

The only role of the gov is to ensure fair play with sound justice system with good law and order and solid sovereign defence.

The only truly free market is the jungle. Is that how you want to live - be an animal and only the fittest survive?

In Scandinavian countries, success is rewarded as well. That's why there are world's class companies there and lots of millionaires and billionaires. Many of the citizens can afford to spent winter holidays in Thailand.

A middle class lifestyle is possible for all with government intervention.

If sinkees don't need to save for health care, education, pension and unemployment help ...how happy they will be. They can then truly live to the fullest.

 

[yahoo55]

Over 95% of Sinkie homeowners own 99yr leasehold HDB flats or private property. When the 99 yrs lease is over, the value of their property is zero and the land is returned to the PAP govt.

Below is a table from SLA showing the depreciation of 99yr leasehold value as a percentage of freehold value. At 60yrs left in the leasehold = 80% of the freehold value, 30 yrs left in the leasehold = 60% of freehold value, 10 yrs left in the leasehold = 30% of freehold value, 1 yr left in leasehold = 3.8% of freehold value before the land is returned back to the PAP govt. So basically most Sinkies are just tenants paying huge sums of their income and CPF to rent land from the PAP govt.

The PAP govt owns 80% of the land and a large chunk of freehold land is owned by the super-rich such as Ng Teng Fong's family and Kwek Leng Beng's family. The greedy Far East Organization behaving like a mini-HDB, using their freehold land to sell as leasehold property, this should've be made illegal.

Just thinking about it, nowadays most younger Sinkies pay a huge portion of their income and CPF throughout their working life to rent exorbitant 99yr leasehold land and 10yr COE to the bloodsucking PAP govt. The PAP becomes super rich, while Sinkie commoners become poorer with many cannot afford to retire.

 

[Leongsam]

A middle class lifestyle is possible for all with government intervention.

Any country that rewards a lazy, useless lout with a middle class lifestyle using someone else's money is not the sort of government I want running my country.

 

[yahoo55]

In the past the government cared about the people. Upskilling the people would raise the country. Hence the directive about training Singaporeans in the country of the provider. They not only learnt new skills but they learnt how an advanced company in a well developed country did things. Singaporeans were held in high esteem and many made it into the top ranks of the MNCs here. The current government cares about the money first, or as they call it, the GDP. Hence, the PM's cheerful professed wish he could attract another 6 billionaires here. Apart from the dubious assumption that another billionaire here would do anything for the economy, the worrying thought is that after so many years, we are still looking to outsiders to raise the economy. As for the mass immigration of foreign workers, like high blood pressure, this is a path of no return. The government knows it, that is why they are so big on assimilation.

According to economists, GDP is a poor measurement of the people's wellbeing.





https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/gdp/

GDP a poor measure of progress, say Davos economists

Published: Saturday 23 January 2016


Three leading economists and academics at Davos agree: GDP is a poor way of assessing the health of our economies and we urgently need to find a new measure.

Speaking in different sessions, IMF head Christine Lagarde, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, and MIT professor Erik Brynjolfsson stressed that as the world changes, so too should the way we measure progress.

A country’s GDP is an estimate of the total value of goods and services they produce. But even when the concept was first developed back in the late 1930s, the man behind it, Simon Kuznets, warned it was not a suitable measure of a country’s economic development: “He understood that GDP is not a welfare measure, it is not a measure of how well we are all doing. It counts the things that we’re buying and selling, but it’s quite possible for GDP to go in the opposite direction of welfare” Brynjolfsson told participants.

Today, with the changes brought on by the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the measure is even less of a reflection of the things that really matter: “We need a new model for growth. Just as we’re reinventing business, we need to reinvent the way we measure the economy,” the MIT professor added.

Speaking in another session, Lagarde made almost exactly the same argument: “We have to go back to GDP, the calculation of productivity, the value of things – in order to assess, and probably change, the way we look at the economy,” she said.

It builds on a point made by Stiglitz earlier in the week: “GDP in the US has gone up every year except 2009, but most Americans are worse off than they were a third of a century ago. The benefits have gone to the very top. At the bottom, real wages adjusted for today are lower than they were 60 years ago. So this is an economic system that is not working for most people,” he said.

Why, some might ask, does this debate even matter to most people? Is it not something for economists and policy-makers to worry about? Not according to Stiglitz: “What we measure informs what we do. And if we’re measuring the wrong thing, we’re going to do the wrong thing.”