Dear PAP supporters
It was to be expected that the GE would be held soonest possible before PAP’s propaganda wears thin.
Although fellow Singaporeans have labeled you stupid, I beg to differ. It is your right to support the party of your choice but if you are truly concerned for our country, I would suggest you start thinking without the aid of PAP-controlled MSM. Why, as thinking human beings, do you not demand answers to issues which impact your lives? Why are you serving the PAP instead of being served by them? Why do you continue to have blind faith in PAP which has been concealing information, information which should be in the public domain, for 5 decades?
I will list some issues below and questions that you should have asked years ago.
CPF 10% cut not restored after 16 years
After the 1997 Asian financial crisis (AFC), the employer CPF rate was reduced from20% to 10% in 1999. 16 years later, only 7% of the employer CPF contribution has been restored. This is effectively a wage cut which affects mostly low wage workers and ordinary citizens earning up to $6,000 per month. (According to MOM’s Labour Force in Singapore, 2014 (pg 117), 78% of the labour force earns monthly wages of $6,000 and below.)
How is it possible that the PAP has not restored the balance 3% CPF while at the same time it had increased ministerial salary by at least $1 million? Point to note is the PM’s annual salary was increased from about $1.6 million in 1997 to $3.76 million in 2008, an increase of $2,160,000. As for an ordinary worker earning $1,500, the unrestored 3% CPF amounts to only $45/month or $585/year. Multiply that by 16 years and employers would have shortchanged each worker of almost $10,000!
Something is not quite right here when a leader increased his salary by more than $2 million while pushing back indefinitely the CPF restoration of $585 for ordinary citizens.
PAP justified its salary increase using economic indicators ie GDP which has tripled from below US$100 billion since 1999. If GDP figures do reflect the real economic performance of our country, why are companies not able to restore the 3% CPF cut despite making record profits? Why is only top management, eg DBS Group CEOrewarded with oversized bonuses?
When you start to think about this, you will understand the PAP has managed to legislate 78% of the labour force to accept a 3% ‘wage cut’ after 16 yearsbecause of its unchecked power in Parliament. Do you want a party which only looks after its own interests at the expense of ordinary citizens’?
With its eyes on making profits, PAP had even forgotten our basic need – housing. It is not unfair to heap blame on PAP because it controls housing demand and supply. Its ‘honest mistake’ has led to housing prices going through the roof and even resale public housing is out of reach for ordinary citizens. Is it right for PAP not to hold anyone accountable?
To make up for ex MND Minister Mah’s blunder, Minister Khaw has ramped up the construction of residential housing by 204,461 units from 2013 to 2016. To put this into perspective, 204,000 units is about 16% of the total residential units of 1.2 million. Is increasing the total stock of residential housing of a country by 16% within 4 years considered long-term planning?
It is a fact that skilled labour in construction is inelastic and more homeowners will fall victim to shoddy workmanship. This fact should have been known to the PAP which is simply taking a chance on the deteriorating quality of our homes. Of the 800 DBSS units at Trivelis in Clementi, 500 buyers have complained about various problems, leading to a visit by Minister Vivien Balakrishnan. A TOC articlehighlighted there were numerous defects in 6 of the nine blocks at Tampines GreenLeaf and shoddy workmanship in Anchorvale Horizon, Sengkang, in 2014. What about the unreported cases?
Chances of contractors cutting corners and paying for monkeys are extremely high. A foreign construction worker could have just gone for a 1-week certification course and employed as a tiler, electrician, plumber, etc. This explains the increasing number of complaints against construction companies. But PAP has never been bothered.
HDB is no longer responsible for defects and shoddy workmanship and its main responsibility is to ensure the government makes a profit. Quality (no) control is the responsibility of HDB’s contractors who will take months for rectification work and buyers could only wait.
PAP intends to maintain our status as the ‘biggest construction site’ in the world even after the completion of 200,000 residential units. This has been confirmed by Khaw Boon Wan who told Parliament that “200,000 flats will be built over the next four years, and beyond that, another 500,000. This is to cater to the demand of PAP’s projected 6.9 million population. Which citizens in another wealthy country live in such an environment?
Without proper long-term planning, one will continue to witness blunder after blunder.
In May 2013, Khaw was reported as having said “he wanted to bring down the prices of new flats in non-mature estates by about 30 per cent”. For a $300,000 flat, it means buyers have been overpaying by $90,000!
In September 2013, Khaw claimed that “..every unit that we sell, we lose money, HDB loses money”. Well, if HDB had already been losing “hundreds of millions of dollars”, won’t the government be losing additional hundreds of millions by reducing the price by 30%, eg $90,000 for a $300,000 flat? A government voted in to lose hundreds of millions in tax dollars, shouldn’t taxpayers vote them out for ‘losing’ our money?
But you should have known that all this talk about PAP ‘losing hundreds of millions of dollars’ is a half truth and PAP has been overly generous with half truths. If money spent on public housing could be defined as losses, then all government spending should be defined likewise, ie LTA, PUB, MOE, etc have lost billion$ in the construction of roads, drainage, educational facilities, etc.
Say for a moment Khaw was able to reduce the price of new HDB flats by 30%, would housing become affordable? The answer is clearly ‘no’. Affordability should not be defined as the ability to buy only a new HDB flat at a location of PAP’s choice.
If the market value of a resale flat is $400,000 and a new flat, after Khaw’s 30% reduction, costs only $250,000, the likelihood of cashing out will be too tempting for many. PAP is unable to implement a policy to prevent abuse because its objective is to micromanage and project the image of having done a lot for the people. By throwing in housing grants and selling new flats directly from the government at affordable prices, PAP hopes to be remembered at the polls. Perhaps some may fall for it but it’s an insult to most taxpayers.
Reducing the prices of new HDB flats has little/no effect on the prices of resale flats because they are determined by market forces. The sole contributing factor is PAP’s lax immigration policy – high prices of resale flats are underpinned by strong rental demand. (locals seldom rent) An example would be foreigners renting a 3-room HDB at $2,000 and above. At current prices of about $350,000, the gross yield works out to be about 7%. (Annual rental $24,000 divide by price of $350,000 = gross yield of 7%)
PAP has no intention of resolving the issue of housing affordability because it relies on high prices of real estate to generate revenue. Lowering housing prices by even 10% to make them more affordable will lead to billion$ in lost revenue, a much-lower GDP and therefore no justification to maintain high ministerial salaries.
Grants and subsidies
It’s about time you start to question PAP’s offer of higher grants and subsidies. An economy on steroids should mean more people are making more money. Why then is the PAP required to increase the amount of grants given to an increasing number of recipients?
The fact is PAP has been the sole cause of domestic inflation by increasing the prices of public housing, healthcare, education and transportation. PAP’s MO is simple – first, it unilaterally increases costs to market value or even above that. Since costs have become unaffordable for the masses, in steps the PAP and the more citizens it is able to help, the better chances of winning at the polls. Or so it continues to think this will work.
One example which I have already given is the cost of a polyclinic consultation. If a private GP charges about $22 for a short consultation, one would expect a polyclinic to charge less than half the amount. Say if the polyclinic consultation costs $10, a patient paying $7 would effectively be getting a subsidy of $3 dollars/30 per cent.
But no. The PAP decided the consultation is worth a flat rate of $38.97, almost double that of a private GP! Email to Minister Gan
Using the ‘full amount’ of $38.97, the same unsuspecting patient will think the PAP has given him a $31 subsidy amounting to an unbelievable 82% ‘discount’. Over time, PAP has convinced many to continue to vote PAP without knowing it is at their expense. Don’t believe? Go take a look at your polyclinic bills and try questioning your MP. Even Minister Gan has not been able to reply my queries.
Pitting civil servants and grassroots against citizens
PAP has incentivised grassroots to serve the party to the extent that real issues are swept under the carpet. Grassroots organisations such as RCs do not serve residents – municipal issues are a testament to our blind RCs.
PAP has also allowed RCs to be penetrated by foreigners/new citizens who display the same sycophantic trait as Singaporean RC members. Membership serves to further the interests of nationals from their own country.
Civil servants focus on serving the PAP at the expense of citizens. In return for generating economic ‘growth’ through flawed policies, they are rewarded and protected by PAP. For all the epic screw ups in housing, transportation, and healthcare, all the perm secs should have been sacked. Instead, they continue to be rewarded in PAP’s game of musical chairs.
Most of you have accepted MSM propaganda as the gospel truth. You are unlikely to have thought about the issues mentioned and therefore not aware that PAP policies are detrimental to Singaporeans. GE 2015 is around the corner and it’s still not too late to scrutinise them.
A fellow Singaporean