Hougang By-Election: PAP’s Scorched Earth

At the end of the road tomorrow, the Hougang voter is left with these choices. The PAP. The PAP ended off their campaigning with their focus on an opportunity for a fresh start in Hougang for residents there. The WP. The WP ended their rally with the message that the PAP used HDB upgrading to penalise Hougang voters for choosing opposition, and even those who voted PAP were penalised as a whole.

The choice is easy for us who are not in Hougang if you see what positive impact the lost of a GRC had on the PAP. The choice is probably easier for those in Hougang. Those in Hougang have pride, resilience and 21 years of opposition steadfastness. WP is a good opposition party and have tried to take the high road, with a balanced and reasonable direction. Naturally they have its problems, but not the supposed leadership problems or the character flaws of its candidates past and current – Yaw Shin Leong or Png Eng Huat, that the media and PAP droned about.

WP’s recent problems seeped from its recent parliament debates. Not because of the quality in the case of Gerald Giam and the salary debate, or that they dared not speak up, but because some of its MPs plagiarised content for speeches, whatever their hasty excuses afterwards that consent was given. That is a rot within WP, unimportant to many perhaps but to me coming from Pritam Singh and Chen Show Mao who are highly educated, it was theft, intellectual theft. Nevertheless, neither of these two are standing for elections in Hougang so it is moot for now.

For tomorrow, those in Hougang are not going to vote for PAP, not going to give a PAP a chance just yet. They are instead made to remember by clever WP that they have been penalised by the PAP, for excercising their democratic right to vote for a party other than the PAP. That to me, someone from outside Hougang, stings and stinks. We can be sure those in Hougang feel even more strongly about PAP. Low Thia Khiang provoked it exceptionally well, where is the “justice and equality” in that “political discrimination”? The swing voters, those who voted for PAP and then WP in the last election would be taunted to maintain their new found loyalty. Those who voted PAP ever since, are encouraged to strike back with an X next to the Hammer as their loyalties were misplaced since the PAP was retributive and not into reconciliation.

When the election commenced, Desmond Choo looked good. A surprise win was even possible in the wake of the Yaw Shing Leong incident and WP’s shaky contributions in parliament, although the chances of a win were small still. At least it was not impossible.

However, as the campaign progressed, the PAP and the media tended to focus on unwarranted character attacks and this rallied public sentiment against them. PAP did not seem to bother selling well what they can do better for Hougang than WP could. Instead, they showed that they were not really that interested in winning Hougang since knew that they would lose anyway, but perversely wanted a scorched earth policy of damaging WP’s reputation and promise of further penalties to Hougang as much as they could, in preparation for 2016. The market Hougang lost would certainly not be rebuilt and upgrading might be delayed somehow. Strategically it is a double-edged sword for the PAP. While resorting to vindictive stabs in the back and cuts in the shadows at WP, the PAP was doing damage to it’s own reputation as well.

From a small chance that PAP could win or at least get 45% of the votes at best, the PAP’s bullying ways would inspire Hougang to resist even more. I think PAP would indeed be fortunate if they can maintain their votes at 35%.

The Marxist Conspiracy Ghost (Busted?)

Those detained under Operation Spectrum in 1987 are haunting the government with a vengeance in the 25th anniversary of the Marxist Conspiracy. Various personal commentaries led by Teo Soh Lung from SDP, some of which better than others, accused the government of abusing the ISA. It took 25 years for the controversy to come full circle and now finally we have the version of some of those arrested.

Operation Spectrum is an odd misnomer for the narratives of the Marxist Conspiracy. We only hear two competing histories, both naturally trying to defend their position in an empyrean debate of who is right (the narrator) and who is wrong (the other). A spectrum of views it is not. I am a cynic by nature and I tend to view government versions of events critically. In the same breath, I am also reluctant to take opposition member Teo Soh Lung’s stories to be totally  factual. She is from the SDP, can her political agenda be any less clear?

The Marxist Conspiracy debate renewed last year during the presidential election debate organised by TOC. Tan Jee Say all eager to win votes and be anti-establishment to the point of behaving unpresidential and crass, said something to the effect that the ISA was used against political opponents. A honest reading of the ISA’s use is that it was used against communists until the 1980s. Tan Jee Say was correct that as the Cold War-inspired communists were political challengers to the PAP, yes the ISA was used against “political opponents” e.g. those arrested in the Cold Store sweep that the British supported. But it is not as the same meaning that the ISA is used against parties in the democratic machinery – was the ISA used against WP, SPP or even SDP? No. The tool to silence peaceful political opponents to the PAP is not the ISA, but defamation laws.

So was the Marxist Conspiracy all myth?  This occurred in the 1980s when the Cold War was still on and the collapse of the Berlin Wall and communism as a hegemomic challenge to Western-styled democracy only happened in 1989. I won’t dismiss that left-leaning thinking and movements in Singapore could have been existing then albeit the nature of the threat by such conspirators, Marxists or not, might have been overestimated. Anyway, I was caught up in remembering and unraveling 1987 and read Teo Soh Lung’s account of her arrest – Beyond the Blue Gate. It was an interesting read and enlightening on how ISD can be very mean and cold in their application of the law e.g. the court ordered her release on a technicality but she was then immediately re-arrested once she stepped out of prison. Also, while her Marxist Conspiracy companions were released, she was defiant and uncooperative by her own account and that might be why she was detained longer than the rest.

What is tragic inside the book is that Teo Soh Lung, the main person championing the rewriting of the history of the Marxist Conspiracy, did not have a closure. Who can blame her and who can be unsympathetic to her plight? Interestingly, some of her companions have remained silent and there are questions we should ask but will probably never know the answers, or at least the real answers. Was Teo Soh Lung wrongly arrested? Were those who remained silent complicit, and even implicated her since they were released earlier in a prisoners’ dilemma game, and thus did not want to dig up old graves?

Speak truth to power? Yes. Also, the truth is rarely pure and never simple.

The Global Tax and Mobile Migrant Game

Their loss, our gain. Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin moved to Singapore and renounced his US citizenship. By that immigration, he saved lots on tax. He halved his tax rate from close to 40% in the US to 20% in Singapore, and Singapore has no capital gains tax, bank account savings tax or estate duty (since 2008).

Singapore is a tax haven, some countries would accuse us so. So what even if it is true. Hong Kong has lower taxes than Singapore e.g. the top bracket (above HKD 120,000) income tax is 17% compared to Singapore’s 20% for the bracket above SGD 320,000, but we don’t hear that accusation hurled at Hong Kong as much. Singapore cannot compete with Hong Kong in that race to the bottom in tax as Hong Kong does not have a military to budget for, simply speaking. Besides, “tax haven” is a politically loaded term used by one envious country on another enterprising country that has lower taxes. From the Western perspective, almost any other country in the world is potentially a tax haven considering the high taxes in the Nordic countries for example.

Billionaires moving to Singapore, all things equal from a tax point of view, is a great pull for Singapore. They are taxed on their income and as usually they would set up a company, are taxed on their corporate profits. They spend money – GST, their buy homes – stamp duty and property tax. They should be welcomed, within reason, as long as they behave.

 

5/20/2012 Forbes
Relinquishing U.S. Citizenship

Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin caused a stir recently by moving to Singapore and renouncing his U.S. citizenship. In so doing he halved the income tax rate on his future income, from 39.6% in the U.S. to 20% in Singapore. He eliminated tax on his future capital gains ─the U.S. taxes capital gains at 15%, but Singapore dropped its capital gains tax effective February 15, 2008. He also will avoid estate tax at his death. The top rate of U.S. estate tax—which would apply to a large estate such as Saverin’s—increases to 55% on January 1, 2013. Singapore has no estate tax.

Saverin will avoid the tenacious U.S. worldwide tax system. The U.S. is unique in imposing its income tax on its citizens’ and its resident aliens’ worldwide income, offering them a credit for foreign tax paid on the income. The U.S. imposes its estate tax on its citizens’ and its resident aliens’ worldwide estates, allowing them a credit for foreign estate tax paid by their estate. To police this regime, the U.S. requires its citizens and its resident aliens to annually file a report, Form TD F 90-22.1 (“FBAR”), disclosing their foreign accounts. A draconian penalty lies for failure to report an account—up to 50% of the account balance.

Beginning for tax returns due in 2012, the Internal Revenue Service requires citizens and resident aliens with foreign financial accounts exceeding threshold amounts to file with their U.S. income tax return Form 8938, Statement of Specified Foreign Assets. A taxpayer who fails to file a required Form 8938 is subject to a $10,000 penalty. The penalty increases by $10,000 for each 30 days which the delinquency continues beyond 90 days, up to a maximum penalty of $50,000.

Many are incensed by Saverin’s conduct, as our country gave him the opportunity to earn his fortune. He did incur a substantial “exit tax” upon expatriating. Internal Revenue Code § 877A(a)(1) provides that a “covered expatriate” shall be treated as selling all of his property at fair market value on the day before the expatriation date. Thus, if Mr. Saverin’s only property consists of Facebook stock valued at $3 billion, and he has no adjusted basis in it, he incurred an exit tax, at the current U.S. capital gain tax rate of 15%, of $450 million.

“Covered expatriate” for purposes of IRC § 877A(a)(1) means an expatriate—

(1) whose average annual net income tax for the five tax years preceding the tax year of loss of U.S. citizenship exceeds $124,000;

(2) whose net worth on the date of loss of U.S. citizenship is at least $2,000,000; or

(3) who fails to certify to the Secretary of the Treasury that he has complied with U.S. tax law for the five tax years preceding the year of loss of U.S. citizenship, or who fails to provide the Secretary evidence of such compliance as the Secretary may require.

Thus, a U.S. citizen who is not a “covered expatriate” can relinquish U.S. citizenship without incurring the exit tax. Those who are not exempt from the exit tax can exclude the first $651,000 of gain on the deemed sale of their property in determining the tax.

“Expatiate” for purposes of IRC § 877A(a)(1) includes a U.S. citizen who has committed one of the following expatriating acts with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon application after having attained the age of 18 years;

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state after having attained the age of 18 years;

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (a) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the U.S., or (b) such person is a commissioned or a noncommissioned officer;

(4) (a) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state after attaining the age of 18 years, if he has or has acquired the nationality of such foreign state, or (b) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state after attaining the age of 18 years for which office, post, of employment and oath, affirmation, of declaration of allegiance is required; or

(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic of consular officer of the U.S. in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.

(1)-(4) above are sometimes called “relinquishing” U.S. citizenship, and (5) “renouncing” it.

A U.S. citizen completes expatriation by filing with the IRS Form 8854, Initial and Annual Expatriation Statement, and explained in Instructions thereto.

There are cases in which relinquishment of U.S. citizenship may not seem such an ungrateful act. Consider, for example, the long-time Canadian resident who happens to have been born in the U.S. He intends to remain in Canada and to die there. Why should he pay U.S. income tax? Why should he report his assets to the U.S. government?

The arguments for relinquishing U.S. citizenship for that of Canada fade, however, when one considers the oath they must swear to do so:

“I swear or affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen of Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian Citizen.”

While I have nothing against Queen Elizabeth II, I could not swear allegiance to the British monarch. Our forefathers fought two wars against the British. Had the Revolution failed, as it nearly did, the founding fathers would have been “attained” for high treason—they would have been executed, and their property seized.

The Patriot militia fought bravely and spilled their blood against the veteran British Army at Bunker Hill.

In the winter of 1776, Washington’s Army did not have enough to eat, and many of them had nothing to wear on their feet. But they remained with Washington, for the cause of their country. My heart is heavy when I think of Washington and what he did for our country. To this day the British call him “rebel.”

On Long Island, as the British were about to cooly hang him, young Captain Nathan Hale’s only regret was that he had but one life to give for his country.

The British held tens of thousands of American prisoners in rancid conditions in the hulls of prison ships. At death the Americans were buried in shallow graves. To this day their bones still wash ashore on Long Island, a reminder of the price paid for liberty long ago.

At my son’s recent graduation from medical school, he was among a dozen members of the class who are active duty U.S. military. They will treat U.S. military, the military that won our country’s freedom 230 years ago, and has protected it ever since. Many of them will serve in harm’s way.

Some of the young doctors will serve on aircraft carriers. What other country has aircraft carriers? One of those aircraft carriers is the USS George Washington.

The United States is the greatest, most powerful country on the face of the earth. When the world has a serious problem, it turns to the United States to solve it. We are governed by the rule of law. Capitalism is what has made our country great. Yes, our taxes are too high, far too high. Yes, there are those who want to turn our country away from capitalism. These are hardly arguments not for relinquishing U.S. citizenship. Americans do not run from challenges. We bear down and solve them.

Whither the Obama Magic

Obama’s election dream is not smooth sailing. Sex scandal hits the US Secret Service with its agents on sex romps overseas, and the analogy of US screwing other countries when they get the chance. Which big country doesn’t anyway in diplomacy, gunboat or otherwise. The interesting bit in the article is also of a former US president saying to the ambassador of a small European country in the 1960s – “fuck your parliament and your constitution”. Might is right, as they say.

Abroad, as at home, Obama coasts on a wave of disappointment

In January 1903 the US signed a treaty with Colombia that would have provided unfettered access to the Panama canal. Unfortunately, the terms were not good enough for the Colombian senate, which refused to ratify it. At the time, Panama had been a region of Colombia for 80 years. Undeterred by the annoying matter of Colombian sovereignty the US encouraged, incited and facilitated Panama’s secession from Colombia.

The newly independent Panama gave its American enablers all it wanted. In the face of considerable criticism, the US president, Theodore Roosevelt, looked to the closest members of his cabinet to help him justify his actions. Unable to articulate a principled defence they simply endorsed them with gallows humour.

“You have shown that you were accused of seduction,” said his secretary of war, Elihu Root. “And you have conclusively proved that you were guilty of rape.”

This was not the last time Colombians would be screwed by the US. Earlier this month several secret service agents and military personnel were embroiled in a scandal with Colombian sex workers. More than 20 have so far been implicated in the scandal after local police intervened in a dispute between an agent and an escort. She said he’d agreed to pay her $800 for the night; he offered her only $30. She eventually left the hotel after being paid $225.

Barack Obama made his anger known. “When we travel to another country,” he said, “I expect us to observe the highest standards.”

The agents had been making preparations for last week’s Summit of Americas. The summit failed to produce a declaration after the US and Canada refused to admit Cuba against the entreaties of even rightwing allies in the region. “I and the American people will welcome a time when the Cuban people have the freedom to live their lives, choose their leaders and fully participate in this global economy and international institutions,” said Obama. “We haven’t gotten there yet.”

There is an area of Cuba where the US has full control and could showcase these values if it so wished. It is called Guantánamo Bay (and was acquired in the same year as Panama’s secession). Instead it remains a global embarrassment. On the stump Obama described the prison there as “a tremendous recruiting tool for al-Qaida”, insisting it had “damaged our national interests”. Shortly before taking office, he said: “As president, I refuse to allow this problem to fester. Our security interests won’t permit it. Our courts won’t allow it. And neither should our conscience.” Yet fester it does. Last year, the president signed an executive order effectively creating a formal system of indefinite detention there.

One can only account for so many isolated incidents before it becomes necessary to start dealing with a pattern. The fact is that when Americans travel abroad to serve their country they have a record of not observing even the most basic human standards. The problem here is not with Americans per se but with military might, global economic pretensions and the skirmishes and occupations that inevitably accompany them. The French, Belgians and British were no more humane or less hypocritical in the administration of their colonies, including in Kenya where Obama’s grandfather was tortured by the British.

Nor is the issue that American foreign policy is designed to serve US interests – that is the nature of every country’s foreign policy. But that it’s policy lies in such sharp contradiction to its rhetoric, and its practice so clearly undermines its national interests.

Take Afghanistan. Five days after revelations about the secret service in Colombia surfaced, the Los Angeles Times published photographs of US marines posing with the mangled corpses of Afghan insurgents. One featured the unofficial platoon patch, “Zombie hunter”, over the remains of someone who had blown themselves up accidentally.

This “most certainly does not represent the character and the professionalism of the great majority of our troops in Afghanistan”, insisted Captain John Kirby, a spokesman for the Pentagon, which pressured the LA Times not to release the photos. This incident, which occurred two years ago, should not be confused with the professionalism of the marines videoed urinating on Afghan corpses or the sergeant who ran amok in two Afghan villages leaving 17 civilians dead.

Nor are these contradictions new. In June 1964, President Lyndon Johnson told the Greek ambassador to Washington: “Fuck your parliament and your constitution … We pay a lot of good American dollars to the Greeks, Mr Ambassador. If your prime minister gives me talk about democracy, parliament and constitution, he, his parliament and his constitution may not last long …” Within three years Greece was under a brutal military junta backed by the US, from which it did not emerge for a decade.

What is different now is that significant hope abroad was invested in Obama to both repair America’s international reputation and reorient its policies – and there has been precious little return.

“The diplomatic historian traces foreign affairs as if domestic affairs were offstage disturbances,” writes Walter Karp in his book The Politics of War. “The historian of domestic politics treats the explosions of war as if they were offstage disturbances. Were that true, we would have to believe that presidents who faced a mounting sea of troubles at home have nonetheless conducted their foreign policy without the slightest regard for those troubles – that individual presidents were divided into watertight compartments, one labelled ‘domestic’ and the other ‘foreign’.”

Abroad as at home, Obama is coasting to the end of his first term on a wave of disappointment. A recent Gallup poll shows US global standing still holding up far better than it ever did under Bush. But it is softening considerably, particularly in Africa and the Americas, as the promise of those early years gives way to his record. On the doorstep, where the presidential race is tightening, as on the international stage, where goodwill is waning, the response is the same: better than the rest is a long way from good enough.

Defending and Denigrating Religious Symbols

Singapore is not Spain, France, Philippines or any Catholic-majority country and yet the Catholics managed to shout down a secular and kinky party held at the former CHIJ chapel. “Former”, so it is no longer consecreated ground. “Former”, so it is no longer a place of religious worship. Naturally Archbishop Chia had to say the right things when asked for his opinion on the Escape Chapel party where the ribald theme was implicitly horny partying nuns.

However, there were evidently enough loud complaints that the organisers had to pull the plug on the event this Saturday, which is just before Easter Sunday and just after Good Friday, a symbolic and significant time for all Christians, Catholics and Protestants alike. The organisers would have probably sneaked the party in successfully if they held it some other time as the religious are always fervently driven by rituals and semiotics, and the timing of the party was too rude for them to be indifferent about it.

I can expect that if a kinky party theme of bald monks and nuns in saffron and grey robes, the Buddhists would also complain just as loudly. No religious group is a pushover. This shows the always present strength of the religious lobby. They push their views by complaints and implied threat to boycott, which is a more effective method in largely capitalist Singapore. I don’t like your image and product, I won’t spend my money on it as well as ask all my friends and family to boycott too.

At the bigger scale, the religious lobbies in Singapore has confined itself so far to casinos loudly and gay rights quietly, and have not ventured en masse into abortion or stem cell research. So the major religions here so far know their place and space, so to speak from a secular perspective. However, should they be allowed to push more especially in multi-religious Singapore? To be fair to religions, they have stood together on issues of terrorism which is a laudable thing and the problem with religions is usually not about its theology, but about its followers.

So back to the “havoc nuns” party that was cancelled at the former CHIJ. Were the organisers insenstive? Were those who complained (probably not all Catholics bothered) hypersensitive? I think it was a bit of both, as it is always the case. If the “havoc nuns” party was held somewhere else the week after, it would not have been a big deal.

Organisers pull plug on party deemed ‘disrespectful’ to Catholics
by Sumita Sreedharan
04:45 AM Apr 04, 2012

SINGAPORE – Organisers have pulled the plug on a party deemed disrespectful to the Catholic community in Singapore, following intervention by the venue’s landlord.

The Escape Chapel Party, which was to be held at Chijmes Hall on Saturday, has been criticised for being insensitive to Catholics after event planner, Creative Insurgence, used controversial images, such as a model dressed in a nun’s habit and party dress, to publicise the party.

It led to Archbishop Nicholas Chia of the Catholic Church in Singapore calling for the event to be cancelled, while some members of the public said it was in bad taste to hold the party at the chapel, historically a place of worship.

In a statement yesterday evening, Creative Insurgence director Aaghir Yadav said they would have to cancel the event “despite our best intentions to move forward” as Perennial (Singapore) Retail Management, the landlord for Chijmes, intervened to immediately stop the party.

Mr Yadav reiterated that organisers “used no religious symbolism in any of our marketing and promotional materials and had no intention to cause any upset”.

He also noted that organisers have apologised for “unintentionally offending the Catholic community” and explained that the event aimed to showcase Escape, a UK nightclub and recording label.

In the statement, Escape Swansea & Escape Recordings chief executive David Griffiths said it was “a pity” to cancel the party as the company was “looking to expand into Singapore”.

“This event was about the music – and it would have been an excellent opportunity to gauge the viability of setting up in Singapore,” he said. Having an Asian leg of the Escape music festival in Singapore “no longer seem(s) feasible”, he added.

A spokesperson for Perennial said yesterday that the management was alerted to the party on Monday evening.

Through legal counsel, they informed the tenant, who rented the space to Creative Insurgence, to “take steps to immediately stop the event planned for Saturday”, said the spokesperson, adding that they would consider legal action to ensure enforcement, if necessary.

Chijmes is “meant to be a venue to bring together people from all walks of life in a harmonious manner”, the spokesperson said.

“We strongly disapprove of the hosting of any events at Chijmes or any of our properties that are illegal and immoral in nature and/or disrespectful of any religion or races.”

Responding to Today, a spokesperson for the Catholic Archdiocese said last night: “The Church is happy to hear that the party has been cancelled.”

“We appreciate the swift action taken by the authorities and Chijmes’ management to prevent an event that is disrespectful to the Catholic faith from taking place,” the spokesperson added.

The police confirmed yesterday that reports have been filed on the event and investigations are ongoing. It is understood that several complaints have been filed with various ministries.

HDB Market Slowing Down

HDB resale prices are still going up, albeit at a slower pace. That is mixed news. Good for sellers still, and buyers might be appeased and confident enough to jump in. Median COVs have dropped between $3,000 and $7,000, but median COV is still in the $25,000 range. Using 2010 monthly median household income figures of about $3,400 for HDB 3 bedroom and about $5,800 for HDB 4 bedrooms, COV is still 4-6 times the household income of 3 and 4 bedroom dwellers. Quite a lot of cash for the heartlander to fork out.

S’pore home prices cool further
By Kenny Chee
my paper Tuesday, Apr 03, 2012

Housing Board (HDB) resale-flat prices have registered the smallest increase in close to six years, based on flash estimates released by the HDB yesterday.

They are predicted to have inched up slightly – 0.6 per cent – in the first quarter of the year, over the previous quarter.

The rise is the lowest since the third quarter of 2006. It is also lower than the 1.7 per cent increase in the fourth quarter last year over the quarter before.

Resale-flat prices had risen 3.8 per cent in the third quarter of last year, over the quarter before.

Meanwhile, private-home prices have declined from the quarter before, said the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) yesterday in a separate statement.

Flash estimates for private residential-property prices in the first quarter of the year fell by 0.1 per cent over the previous quarter.

It is the first fall in private- home prices since the second quarter of 2009, and URA said this follows the trend of “stabilising prices over the past nine consecutive quarters”.

In the fourth quarter last year, private-home prices rose 0.2 per cent over the preceding quarter. URA added that, in the first quarter, the prices of non-landed private residential properties fell by 0.9 per cent in the Core Central Region and 0.7 per cent in the Rest of Central Region.

But prices in Outside Central Region rose by 1.2 per cent. This compares with a 0.6 per cent increase in prices in the previous quarter.

PropNex chief executive Mohamed Ismail said that HDB resale-market prices have reached their peak and are not expected to rise further in the coming quarters.

He said this is because “buyers are becoming reluctant” to pay high cash-over-valuations (COVs), the cash premium paid above a flat’s valuation.

Mr Ismail noted that the first-quarter estimates for resale- flat prices reflect the impact of an increased income ceiling for applicants of Build-To-Order (BTO) flats and a bumper release of 25,000 units under the BTO and Sale of Balance Flats exercises this year.

He added that HDB’s commitment to speed up the “queue process” for first-timers in getting a flat also had an impact on resale prices.

HDB said that in the first quarter, it offered 8,076 flats under BTO exercises and 3,825 flats under a Sale of Balance Flats exercise.

Next month, HDB will offer another 4,640 BTO flats in Choa Chu Kang, Kallang/ Whampoa, Punggol and Sengkang.

PropNex data showed that median COVs are on a declining trend. Overall, median COVs hit $25,000 last month, a $5,000 fall from December last year.

Mr Ismail estimated that the growth in resale prices would be less than 1 per cent, and did not rule out a fall in prices towards the end of the year.

So, with stabilising resale prices and falling COVs, now would be a good time for homebuyers to look for a resale flat, said Mr Ismail.

This is especially so for those who cannot wait for BTO flats or do not meet requirements to purchase such homes.

But he warned that the supply of resale flats may still be limited because resale-flat owners have to observe a Minimum Occupation Period.

Mr Ismail also observed that the first-quarter estimates for changes in private-home prices reflected the impact of an Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty announced in December.

Mr Nicholas Mak, an executive director at SLP International Property Consultants, told Bloomberg that the drop in private-home prices in the last quarter “has been marginal but it will have a psychological impact on people”.

“The rate of decline can increase this quarter but I don’t think it will exceed 1 per cent.”

Rumour Mongers, Pranksters and Crying Wolf

We all know the story. The little shepherd boy was bored and shouted that a wolf was attacking his flock. The villagers dropped whatever they were doing and rushed to the boy’s aid only to find him giggling and bemused that the villagers were gullible. This happened a few times until the villagers had enough. When the real big bad wolf came along, the boy cried “wolf, wolf” and yet nobody came to his aid.

The police have stepped forward and stated that there were no attempted cases of kidnapping despite the online rumours. Two implications, both distressing.

If the kidnap attempts were real, there were irresponsible victims who did not step forward to volunteer information to the police, endangering the lives of other unlucky children and potential victims as a result. If the attempts were part of an Internet meme and hoax of absurdly bad taste, then those responsible for them are truly irresponsibly crying wolf.

I believe that if parents were almost victims of a child kidnap, they would report it to the police as they would share a common anxiety that it should not happen to other families as well. Hence, from what the police stated so far, it all means that it is an irresponsible hoax.

Should the authorities chase down such rumour mongers and put an end to these claims that even fuel xenophobia as some claimed that the supposed kidnappers might be China Chinese? After all, in a not so related case, the police did arrest a youth for posting a hoax that a NSF was fatally shot in a training accident.  Perhaps if unchecked, such hoaxes that causes public alarm might become more common and so the authorities must step in to draw the line in the sand now where irresponsible netizens should not cross on pain of prosecution.

I don’t think there is room for conspiracy theories that the police is covering up these kidnapping cases by pretending they did not exist. In other cases  involving  high profile people maybe, but this is a high profile case of alleged kidnapping of children and the police would sure rush to score brownie points among the public. Like the busting of loanshark runners and online vice rings recently.

Dealing with Online Racism

NYP student Lai Shimun was caught making racist comments about Indians in her Twitter and Facebook accounts. Besides being bashed in the Internet, Ashveen Nair was among those who took a step further and made a police report about the student’s online racism.

Should there be community moderation or is this the right time and place for the police to step in? A few years ago, some racist bloggers were arrested under the Sedition Act. Two did time and one did community service. Both cases were anti-Malay racism. Would the NYP student be dragged to court?If not, would it be double-standards?

After all, the high-handedness of the government then was to show that it is serious in dealing with online racism by brandishing the Sedition Act. However, that revitalised Act and community moderation generally failed as a deterrence to check online behaviour. People in the Internet have forgotten about online racism as a no-no since then and Shimun might become the latest Sedition Act scarecrow about the pitfalls of online racism.

Looks like community moderation has not worked well in silencing hate speech and so government regulation to deal with online racism has to be geared up. We are not alone actually – Liam Stacey, a student in the UK was recently jailed for 56 days for making racist tweets about a footballer.

Hong Kong, Selection and Election Democracy

A person staying in Hong Kong has to make do under One Country Two Systems. Hong Kong’s new Chief Executive is Leung Chun Ying. He led with 689 votes, Henry Tang scored 285 and Albert Ho obtained a paltry 76 votes. It was an exciting 3-cornered fight. Albert never stood a chance compared with the former civil servant Leung  or even wife-cheater Henry Tang who was initially Beijing’s favourite until his scandals broke.  So 1,050 votes thrown into the ring from the 1,200-strong election committee, and this committee made the decision for the Hong Kong people on who their leader should be.

If you have not realised by now, the 1,200 members of this cabal is made up of business leaders and intellectuals, moved into place by Beijing. The election is more of electing a CEO by a board. Critics have called out that the committee is made up of pro-Beijing lackeys. Isn’t what business lobbies are all about? Knowing who the political winners are and siding with them to get business deals for mutual benefit.

That’s capitalism and democracy in the real world. Actually, that the political leader of Hong Kong is called a chief executive, not president or prime minister, is a good hint of how business and politics are run in Hong Kong, and why Hong Kong is economically vibrant all this while. A good innovation of Western-style democracy but actually democracy with a Hong Kong (Beijing) flavour.

Singapore and Hong Kong are so similar politically and economically. From  the similar lack of natural resources, to among the lowest corporate and income tax rates in the world, to democracy, its lack of or innovation depending if you are a critic or a supporter.

Why the Death Penalty is Here to Stay For Some Time

The news reported today that Indian national and shipyard worker Bijukumar Remadevi Nair Gopinathan was sentenced to death for the murder of Filipino prostitute Roselyn Reyes Pascua. He stabbed her 10 times in the torso. Once in the neck. Twice in the genitals. Thirteen stabs altogether. What kind of rage and pervertion is summoned in stabbing another person’s genitals? With this sort of henious murder, the seduction of capital punishment for the murderer, no matter that it cannot bring back the victim from the dead, is hard to resist.

This murder by a foreign worker, of another foreign worker in the vice industry, the anti-death penalty campaigners would likely look away and not take up the cause of Bijukumar Remadevi Nair Gopinathan.  Such groups are against the death penalty, but they are picky on who they want to save from the death penalty. They know this is a lost cause. Murderer is a foreigner. Who cares. Victim is a foreigner. Who cares. Crime is violent and fatal. Until local anti-death penalty groups dare to defend murderers, kidnappers and others sentenced the death penalty, they would never take off in Singapore and be mocked for their hypocrisy.

Justice is retributive, rehabilitative or restorative. Retributive justice is common all over the world and some attempt at rehabilitation is mainly reserved for juvenile crimes as there is belief that youth should be given a second chance, or at least not the gallows. Even then as the youth of today become more precocious, the youth cannot escape the death penalty eventually in some cases.

Although we are a decade into the 21st century, the idea of an eye for an eye and a life for a life is still acceptable in Singapore society. It was not an election issue and that is a good enough indicator that it is not a significant item on our table. The only way to push back those for the death penalty is the practical argument of intractability. However, death penalty campaigners instead attempt to appeal to ideals of rights and decency. What about the rights of the murdered – the anti-death penalty groups cannot ever answer that properly enough.

The anecdotal reality is that Singapore society is still generally uncertain of how humane they want to treat their maids. Leaving aside the vicious cycle argument of malicious maids and mean employers, some maids are overworked, physically abused. If Singaporeans do not even care about the “humane” treatment of maids, why would they care about the lives of those sentenced with the death penalty?