Subject: Re: MM Lee calls Singaporeans Stupid..... Is Singaporean really stupid ? or is LKY the stupid one !
On Feb 3, 5:35 pm, Zanzibar
> On Feb 2, 5:42 pm, baldeagle
> > In the next election, let's see if LKY is right...or if Singaporeans
> > would, using their ballot paper... tell LKY loudly that he is the
> > stupid one.
> Seriously, one wonders how much can a ballot paper do to evict those
> specific persons that Singapoerans don't want, if they were to keep on
> having wards formatted in GRC system. This GRc system makes it ever
> harder for Singaporeans to choose and unplug those not good and
> useless to the people.
It is as simple as marking a X (cross) on the ballot paper..
All the GRC, high deposit, changing boundary, ....will
be useless, a waste of time, if all Singaporean do not vote for
PAP in the next election.
Written by Ng E-Jay
28 January 2010
I have never in my life seen a politician call voters STUPID for not accepting his party’s policies, and then ask them not to cast protest votes against his party, all in the same breath.
Yet this was precisely what Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew did at a conference on Wednesday commemorating the Housing Board’s (HDB) 50th anniversary.
According to a Straits Times report “Don’t cast protest vote” (28 Jan 2010), MM Lee said Singaporeans ought to understand that the Government sells them HDB flats at a subsidised price, below market rate, so that they can own an asset that will appreciate in value over the years.
He also said voters must be “daft” if they found fault with the Government’s housing policies, and cautioned Singaporeans not to cast a protest vote against the ruling party over this.
Mr Lee’s remarks were in response to a question by dialogue moderator Tommy Koh, who pulled out a Straits Times report which said that at least three opposition parties are keen to contest Tampines GRC that Mr Mah Bow Tan (National Development Minister) helms, as they want to raise the affordability of public housing as an election issue.
True to his form, Mr Lee sought once again to strike fear in voters’ hearts by saying that their flats would no longer be of any value should Mr Mah lose to the opposition.
A politician who operates in a system of free and fair elections, and who understands that he will retain power only if voters cast their approval at the ballot box will never, in desperation, call the electorate daft if they did not agree with him or his party, nor use illogical statements to instill fear in the minds of voters.
Only a politician who knows the system is rigged, or carefully engineered (in Mr Lee’s own words) to guarantee electoral success for the incumbent, and who regards the electorate not as his masters but as his servants, will do what Mr Lee did.
Even if our housing policies are sound (and they are most assuredly not), no leader from a Government that dares to call itself democratic before an international audience should cast such aspersions at its own constituents who disagree with its policies, as that goes against every grain of the social compact between an elected Government and its people.
Why should Mr Lee be so worried about people casting protest votes against the PAP, if our housing policies truly benefit the people and have kept home prices affordable to most Singaporeans?
The answer is that the Government has allowed asset appreciation to spiral out of control, such that young couples and Singaporeans starting their first home find themselves increasingly priced out of the market.
How can Singaporeans have a decent retirement if they use up all their CPF purchasing an expensive home?
How can our citizens have a decent quality of life if all their savings are tied up in property?
The truth of the matter is that the Government has provided only a market subsidy in which first time home buyers are given a discount to the prevailing market rate, and not a cost subsidy in which first time home buyers can purchase flats at a price pegged to their cost of construction.
When the general prices of property, including private property, rises sharply, that increases the total cost passed on to first time home buyers, and the market subsidy becomes of little assistance.
The HDB has also done a very poor job of forecasting demand, and has not built enough flats to meet new demand. This has caused HDB flat prices to increase even in recessionary times. Ever increasing cash-over-valuation amounts are a symptom of this malaise.
The PAP’s argument that its asset appreciation policy allows Singaporeans to unlock the value of their homes is also flawed.
Early home buyers from the 1970s and 1980s will certainly benefit from this scheme, as the PAP at that time provided truly affordable housing.
But just as the fast economic growth of the early years of independence cannot possibly be repeated again, so there is also a very real limit to the PAP’s asset appreciation scheme that seeks to allow home prices to evolve according to economic growth.
Once home prices have been allowed to rapidly adjust upwards, or “unlocked” (borrowing PAP’s terminology), their full value has been built in, and simple mathematics dictates that further appreciation can only take place at a very slow rate.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that Singapore’s economy can only grow at a very tempered rate from now on, as Singapore has reached developed nation status and has had all the “emerging market growth potential” milked out of the economy in the past two decades.
Therefore, the asset appreciation policy will no longer give future generations of Singaporeans financial security, but will instead saddle them with a lifetime of debt.
When the pocketbooks of Singaporeans have been hurt, they will rise to vote against the PAP, daft or not daft.
If the PAP’s policies don’t change, one day they may wake up to find ballot boxes stuffed full of votes from citizens indicating that they would no longer tolerate having their dignity and quality of life trampled on so brazenly.