It's hot! It's crazy, it's the elections in Singapore!
My Facebook live feed is abuzz with friends sharing the latest political news on which new candidates are fielding which GRC, pulling funds together and even loaning party members just so the incumbents are given a run for their money and more opposition members will be voted into power. There is even a particular candidate from the Reform Party who is auctioning her coach bag online to rise funds for their cause. For the first time in many years, the entire Singapore (with the exception of residents in Tanjong Pajar apparently) will be out in full force to vote.
Many opposition parties are fighting (or so they claim) for the lower/middle income group whom they accuse the PAP of neglecting as soon as the nation acquired first world status.
You are not doing enough! Housing is so expensive! Lower the price of housing for first-timers! Lower the GST to 5%! The Ministers are overpaid! The education system is irrelevant to the demands of our economy in the future! The Education children receive cannot be considered REAL education because our education system merely feeds the needs of our economy! The manufacturing industry approach is not the future for Singapore! We need a minimum wage law! Orchard Road is flooding! Mas Salamat escaped! Too many foreigners! Our infrastructure cannot cope with the increase in the number of foreigners! The IRs are bad! GDP is a bad way to measure the success of our economy, are the people happy? That's why they are not producing enough babies! PAP, you can't just throw money at them you know!
To these voices, the various PAP ministers tirelessly draft rebuttals, explaining why this is 'not right' for Singapore.
I'm not a student of Economics, let alone policy making, so it's hard for me to say who's right and even more difficult for me, a mere layman to decide who to vote for in the coming elections -- should I go with the incumbents who seem to know their stuff a little bit more? But aren't 'alternative voices' essential to any system? After all, without a diversity of voices pit against one another, can there ever be a dialogue in parliament? And without that, can there truly be progress? Yet, the people of Shinar failed to build a "tower with its top in heaven" not because they had self-serving goals but simply because they could not understand one another.
So who's right? And more importantly, how should I vote?
Let me share some of my thoughts on the housing issue and whether it should or should not be made more affordable for first-timers like me.
On Housing
Because Singapore is small, land will always become more expensive and by extension, so will property. While it is true that government policies have allowed G and I to begin to own an apartment (in a good location with great amenities) without forking out a single cent from our monthly salaries (since most of it will be paid off by our CPF accounts which both employees and employers contribute to; now isn't that kinda great?), it is also true that we'll probably have to commit ourselves to a 30 year bank loan.
'Chaining' citizens to a 30 year loan is smart, I think. As a government, one needs to create a mechanism where the citizenry earns its own keep. If you have to pay off a bank loan, then you jolly well work. Is this unfair? Is this too hard on the young? The number of years might seem daunting, but when I think about it a little more, I think they are just about the perfect number to keep the citizenry moving. Firstly, thirty years from now, I would be 55, on the cusp of retirement or way beyond the peak of my career - but I would have a roof over my head. Secondly, if I felt like it, I could take up courses (which the government does heavily subsidize!), and I could work harder to cut my loan down to twenty years or even fifteen years as my parents (who do not have university degrees) did. In complete fairness, this is a system that promotes hard work and meritocracy. Now, is there anything wrong with that?
Furthermore, the value of our houses rise through the years, becoming assets, not everyone in first world countries can say they own a home, can they?
Finally, it is hard to come up with policies that please everyone. Macro polices are hard to formulate as they ultimately have to benefit the nation from a financial perspective.
Can we do away with the fiance-part? Can't we just focus on helping the poor and the lower middle class improve their lives? We have to raise the base level, don't we? What is the point of succeeding when we forget about the less fortunate/the less fortunate do not benefit?
It is unfortunate, but I don't think we can. Singapore is part of the global system of capitalism. And a lot of the policies that have brought us success are mirrored on the nature of capitalism - where the individual is reduced to a cog in a wheel, an operator of a machine who is replaceable but still has to work, and has to be made to feel like they have to work in order to reap more 'rewards' in the future. Even the foreign talent/workers scheme mirrors the so-called 'invisible forces of money' that is capitalism. And on a side note, I think this has made our country a little more interesting!
I'm not good with economics and policy-making, but I think that if macro policies are changed in order to 'make the lives of the lower income better' there would be disasters on a macro-scale too. After all, not to have schemes mirrored on capitalism is to be out of capitalism, yes?
Perhaps if we truly wanted to make the lives of the less fortunately a little better, we should do so through micro policies that tailor specifically to target groups in need.
Also, these politicians who claim to care so much about the less fortunate, should certainly engage in a lot more community work. Does being close to the ground make one a good policy-marker? Definitely not!
Having said all this, I still do not know how I should vote!
My Facebook live feed is abuzz with friends sharing the latest political news on which new candidates are fielding which GRC, pulling funds together and even loaning party members just so the incumbents are given a run for their money and more opposition members will be voted into power. There is even a particular candidate from the Reform Party who is auctioning her coach bag online to rise funds for their cause. For the first time in many years, the entire Singapore (with the exception of residents in Tanjong Pajar apparently) will be out in full force to vote.
Many opposition parties are fighting (or so they claim) for the lower/middle income group whom they accuse the PAP of neglecting as soon as the nation acquired first world status.
You are not doing enough! Housing is so expensive! Lower the price of housing for first-timers! Lower the GST to 5%! The Ministers are overpaid! The education system is irrelevant to the demands of our economy in the future! The Education children receive cannot be considered REAL education because our education system merely feeds the needs of our economy! The manufacturing industry approach is not the future for Singapore! We need a minimum wage law! Orchard Road is flooding! Mas Salamat escaped! Too many foreigners! Our infrastructure cannot cope with the increase in the number of foreigners! The IRs are bad! GDP is a bad way to measure the success of our economy, are the people happy? That's why they are not producing enough babies! PAP, you can't just throw money at them you know!
To these voices, the various PAP ministers tirelessly draft rebuttals, explaining why this is 'not right' for Singapore.
I'm not a student of Economics, let alone policy making, so it's hard for me to say who's right and even more difficult for me, a mere layman to decide who to vote for in the coming elections -- should I go with the incumbents who seem to know their stuff a little bit more? But aren't 'alternative voices' essential to any system? After all, without a diversity of voices pit against one another, can there ever be a dialogue in parliament? And without that, can there truly be progress? Yet, the people of Shinar failed to build a "tower with its top in heaven" not because they had self-serving goals but simply because they could not understand one another.
So who's right? And more importantly, how should I vote?
Let me share some of my thoughts on the housing issue and whether it should or should not be made more affordable for first-timers like me.
On Housing
Because Singapore is small, land will always become more expensive and by extension, so will property. While it is true that government policies have allowed G and I to begin to own an apartment (in a good location with great amenities) without forking out a single cent from our monthly salaries (since most of it will be paid off by our CPF accounts which both employees and employers contribute to; now isn't that kinda great?), it is also true that we'll probably have to commit ourselves to a 30 year bank loan.
'Chaining' citizens to a 30 year loan is smart, I think. As a government, one needs to create a mechanism where the citizenry earns its own keep. If you have to pay off a bank loan, then you jolly well work. Is this unfair? Is this too hard on the young? The number of years might seem daunting, but when I think about it a little more, I think they are just about the perfect number to keep the citizenry moving. Firstly, thirty years from now, I would be 55, on the cusp of retirement or way beyond the peak of my career - but I would have a roof over my head. Secondly, if I felt like it, I could take up courses (which the government does heavily subsidize!), and I could work harder to cut my loan down to twenty years or even fifteen years as my parents (who do not have university degrees) did. In complete fairness, this is a system that promotes hard work and meritocracy. Now, is there anything wrong with that?
Furthermore, the value of our houses rise through the years, becoming assets, not everyone in first world countries can say they own a home, can they?
Finally, it is hard to come up with policies that please everyone. Macro polices are hard to formulate as they ultimately have to benefit the nation from a financial perspective.
Can we do away with the fiance-part? Can't we just focus on helping the poor and the lower middle class improve their lives? We have to raise the base level, don't we? What is the point of succeeding when we forget about the less fortunate/the less fortunate do not benefit?
It is unfortunate, but I don't think we can. Singapore is part of the global system of capitalism. And a lot of the policies that have brought us success are mirrored on the nature of capitalism - where the individual is reduced to a cog in a wheel, an operator of a machine who is replaceable but still has to work, and has to be made to feel like they have to work in order to reap more 'rewards' in the future. Even the foreign talent/workers scheme mirrors the so-called 'invisible forces of money' that is capitalism. And on a side note, I think this has made our country a little more interesting!
I'm not good with economics and policy-making, but I think that if macro policies are changed in order to 'make the lives of the lower income better' there would be disasters on a macro-scale too. After all, not to have schemes mirrored on capitalism is to be out of capitalism, yes?
Perhaps if we truly wanted to make the lives of the less fortunately a little better, we should do so through micro policies that tailor specifically to target groups in need.
Also, these politicians who claim to care so much about the less fortunate, should certainly engage in a lot more community work. Does being close to the ground make one a good policy-marker? Definitely not!
Having said all this, I still do not know how I should vote!
No comments:
Post a Comment