Singapore Democrats

Just vote the Pap out. Thats the only way they will listen to the people.

Did market forces prevail *before* Sheng Siong took over?

Again, I applaud the SDP for trying to do something. PAP MPs are there usually just for show. However, I see a problem with the SDP way of questioning. With that line of questioning, the SDP is going to lose the argument.

What MP Teo is saying is that the government should not interfere with private arrangements. This is essentially correct, the government should not interfere. Think about it, if your boss wants to give you a raise, should the government interfere? Similarly if your boss cuts your pay, should the government prevent you from quitting?

What the SDP should be asking is the reason behind the 30% increase. Is inflation the biggest factor causing the increase? I think it is. That is, the value of the dollar fell due to bad monetary policy such that when the government was previously operating the wet market, it was partially subsidizing it. Now that it has sold it to Sheng Shiong, that subsidy has been removed. Its kind of like the removal of rent control. If Sheng Shiong can increase the rents by 30% and there are still takers, then the increase is just inflation, nothing else. Ultimately, it would be the CONSUMER that will bear the burden of the inflation, ie prices for the goods and services in the wet market will increase because of this, not the stall owners.

The SDP can take other approaches to question MP Teo, instead of asking him to sign a petition FORCING Sheng Shiong to not increase the rent. In a democratic free market economy, no one should force anyone to do anything. The SDP can ask about the proceeds of the sale of the wet market, what is it being used for and how it is used for the benefit of people. Hidden within the proceeds of the sale is the subsidy that was previously used for lowering the rent for stall owners when the government was running the wet market.

Teo answers was so simple that he sounded like a kindergarten boy trying to explain about an 'apple'. To him, Singaporean are so simple minded that we only see an apple the way he does, the color of it's skin, it's size and weight and oh... it's price. The core of an apple has no value to him. While others might make it as an art and the seeds may reproduce, he is treating it as rubbish??!

Aisey... without the core where got apple? And in fact, he keeps repeating some answers as if he is spewing the same seeds on the floor....

SDP went to him to talk about the 'core' and he keeps answering about it's 'skin'!!! He is overly confident. Taking his position for granted... complacent MP... KNN!!!

Buwakasha - The government should not interfere
based on your argument and why is it the government is interfering in our Utilities. Our power stations are sold.

Buwakasha - remember the government control 80% of the wet markets and can upgrade the ones like Tiong Bahru why the need to 'sell' the wet markets, to me is shedding responsibilites to the citizens.

Actually, all Teo was doing was to fall back on a standard mantra - "let market forces prevail" which is American in origin - because he cannot find a rational explanantion for this.

It sounds like conventional wisdom that cannot be challenged.

Is the HBD under the government or is it not?

Why can't there be any government intervention if it is?

Who else besides Sheng Siong tendered their bid for this market that "market forces" did indeed prevail?

How typical of the PAP or rather FAP - (Foreigners Action Party) - a term more and more bloggers are beginning to use now.

When mistakes are incurred, the term "market forces" is use for them to shrug their shoulders and wash their hands clean on the matter.

You can see this during the Temasek financial misinvestments, HBD prices policies, companies prefering to hire foreigners 'cos no NS liability and now this Sheng Siong case. Even ministers salaries are deem to be according to private sector's "market forces"

'Market forces" - it's more like get lost! none of your busniess!

The entire machinery, from GDP, reserves, GIC, Temasek, banks, SES, town councils, JTC, HDB to industries and commercial entities is run on commercial model.

So, Teo is basically correct that it is 'market forces' cos the government itself is market forces of people opinion, perception and feeling.

Hence, election is also market forces. The force of people's choice.

I reckon SDP is seeking for publicity. Anyone would have read the so-called joint statement and watched the video clip will agree that the MP could not sign it.

After watching the video numerous times, I am sure that SDP did not show the video clip which started the whole conversation with the incumbent and it did not show how the conversation was ended. Obviously this video clip was well censored by SDP.

The MP is from the ruling party whereas SDP is from the opposition camp. It was speculated that SDP may challenge the incumbent during the next election and thus, how would it be possible signing a joint statement in this instance? Was this article another infamous “typo error” or was this the usual “seeking publicity” approach by SDP? Why SDP armed with video camera and camera when they looked for the MP if SDP was not seeking for publicity?

I reckon SDP had ran out of ideas on local fronts and decided to approach the MP during his Meet-the-People session. SDP knew the MP is not able to sign any joint statement with an opposite party and yet they chose to confront the MP when he was spending his time and effort to help residents.

SDP again chose to ignore the fact that the MP was the one who fought for a wet market in his constituency and a private operator was operating it since then. The MP had correctly pointed out that there are always UPs and DOWNs in the economic and operator must ensure high service standard and prices are to be competitive or else residents will shun the market. There were many supermarkets, dry-markets, shops in the constituency. Residents have many options and business operators are fully aware of the market forces. The MP has ensured that there is at least a wet market to serve the residents and the rest are left to market forces – that is why the MP is always there to help residents.

This is another political gimmick since SDP explicitly indicated it will challenge the MP if Bukit Panjang SMC remains as a SMC in the next election. SDP’s Chairman has proven they are incompetent and will only help and concerned about Bukit Panjang residents if it is not part of a GRC.

The SDP gives him a chance to look good on camera, and he spurns it?

They were not even asking him to force Seng Shiong to reduce the rent, merely request. If he signed it and they refused, at least the "blood" wouldn't be on his hands. He could also have suggested improvements to the letter instead, which would've made him look even better.

Apparently these MPs really think they're invincible.

Oh, let the market forces decide...
Then why is the public transport monopolized by SMRT and Delgro? Where are the small private bus companies?
Why is the newspapers monopolized by SPH? Why no other news papers ?
Why not let market forces decide about NS also? See who voluntarily want to serve army given that kind of peanuts allowance?

"Market forces" is a term used only when convenient, to escape responsibilities while being highly paid by taxpayers. This is still a highly central command-and-control economy.

"The MP has ensured that there is at least a wet market to serve the residents and the rest are left to market forces – that is why the MP is always there to help residents."

....that is why the MP is always there to help residents....???

Hmmm... when residents need help, they should go meet the MP? Why do we have to act in this manner? Almost all problems that are face by residents around Singapore were originated and created by this government.

Having MP session is just wayang to show how 'effective' they can be. Our government is playing merry-go-round with us, citizens. Manipulating f*** brains!

While any department can actually weigh whatever matters they are in charge with, you are still required to go to point B (meeting MP) to come back to point A.

RIDICULOUS!! Ain't it?

"Buwakasha - The government should not interfere
based on your argument and why is it the government is interfering in our Utilities. Our power stations are sold."

"Buwakasha - remember the government control 80% of the wet markets and can upgrade the ones like Tiong Bahru why the need to 'sell' the wet markets, to me is shedding responsibilites to the citizens."

Cheers, you must understand that our government owns a lot of infrastructure in the country, some of them are income producing while others are liabilities. The government recently made a lot of losses in foreign investments while keeping their salaries high. In order for them to continue to have high salaries, they need ways to increase or at least stop the decrease of revenue that they would otherwise normally collect. One way is for them to get rid of liabilities. The way I see it, the wet markets are liabilities to the government which is why they are now starting to sell them away.

Think about it this way, if say you own a house and you rent it out to a relative at 30% below market rate (the prices others would pay for renting the property). This property is now making a "loss" even though you are still collecting rent from your relative. One day you decide to sell the house to another person. Now, this person doesn't care about your relative, so he ups the rent by 30% to market rate. Now, your relative is suffering from the rent increase, should he/she blame you for selling the house? Should the government come in and force you not to sell the house? Should the government come in and force the new owner not to increase the rent?

Buwakasha - can you say the same thing with reference to our utilities charges.

The 3 power stations were sold. Why are they still controlling the billing of our utilities?
They have not only make good profit and continue to collect GST and water borne fees and toilet bowl fees, if the 3 power stations were sold to different buyer is like shell, mobil and caltex, surely you cannot tell these people that I will charge them one rate. Where is the market force?

"Buwakasha - can you say the same thing with reference to our utilities charges."

Of course, in a free market you can't. But sometimes government invoke various measures like price ceiling and price floors for various political reasons. These policies distort the market and causes undesirable consequences.

However, the bottom line is are utilities charges un-affordable? They are still tolerable. Its like public transport, run by private company but the price is fixed by the government.

How do you define affordability. If it is affordable the government should not be introducing the pay as you use, it goes to show they are citizens who cannot afford, unlike foreign workers who can accumulate thousands of dollars of unpaid utilities bill and return home without paying.

Buwakasha - you have not answer the part about government not interfering once the transaction is done. Sheng Siong bought over 5 markets.
How about the 3 companies who bought over the 3 power stations.

I am not talking about affordability. Is about interfering since you said government cannot interfere

***"""Think about it this way, if say you own a house and you rent it out to a relative at 30% below market rate (the prices others would pay for renting the property). This property is now making a "loss" even though you are still collecting rent from your relative. One day you decide to sell the house to another person. Now, this person doesn't care about your relative, so he ups the rent by 30% to market rate. Now, your relative is suffering from the rent increase, should he/she blame you for selling the house? Should the government come in and force you not to sell the house? Should the government come in and force the new owner not to increase the rent?"""***

Ultra simplistic way in comparing the task of being mandated to govern a country and as oppose to being a landlord.

The PAP is mandated by the people of S'pore to serve and improve the livelihood and well being of the people. That is all segments of the population, the rich and especially the poor. The people don't expect the govt to govern the country like a corporation which is to maximise profit. And yes, sometimes you have to charge certain segment of the population (i.e. the lowest income quartile) for Govt goods and services at below market or even to give subsidy to let them live a life with decency and dignity.

Giving smiles to those who can pay while showing an "elite uncaring face" to the "lesser mortals" is not what, I believe, a huge majority (that is with the exception of PAP & its supporters) of this nation wants.

All the land and resources of this nation BELONGS to the people. Similarly, the HDB is tasks to hold these HDB assets to serve the people of all walks of life, rich and poor. Even if HDB is collecting rent 30% below market, it is still getting revenue.

If the argument is that expenses are increasing and barely covering cost, then HDB jolly well have to improve their productivity and cut their expenses, starting with the salaries of highly paid govt appointed PAP officials and ex-SAF officers in it. Better still if it could trim down the top heavy management - multitasking or ship out. These people will just have to work "cheaper, better, faster".

In response to the analogy, if I am renting a house to a relative who is honest, upright and hardworking and is working together with the spouse, but just making just enough to bring up 2 school going children. I will continue to rent to them even if it is below market rate. Life is not just dollars and cents.

It's much more than that. Way way above and beyond that.

His bloody pay is market force or not? Compare to others in the world.

SDP Chairman seeks PAP MP Teo Ho Pin's help!
This clearly reflects SDP's poor ability!

Interesting Swee Kim. If SDP has gone ahead and wrote alone to Sheng Siong, people like yourself would cry foul asking why is SDP writing on behalf of the residents though Teo is the MP for Bukit Panjang.

When it decides to cooperate with Teo for the sake of the residents, people like yourself will say it "reflects SDP's poor ability".

This reminds me of the saying that its easier to wake up someone who is sleeping than someone who is pretending to be asleep.

You seem to conveniently ignore that the letter is one of cooperation, and it will be sent to Sheng Siong anyway, whether or not the PAP MP wants to as well.

"How do you define affordability."

It means you are still willing to pay for it.

"If it is affordable the government should not be introducing the pay as you use, it goes to show they are citizens who cannot afford, unlike foreign workers who can accumulate thousands of dollars of unpaid utilities bill and return home without paying."

I don't know if that is true. Are you saying the cause of our problems is due to foreign workers not paying their utility bills? So the solution is to force them to pay? Or pay upfront before giving them utilities? I think this is off topic.

"Buwakasha - you have not answer the part about government not interfering once the transaction is done. Sheng Siong bought over 5 markets.
How about the 3 companies who bought over the 3 power stations.

I am not talking about affordability. Is about interfering since you said government cannot interfere"

I don't know where you get the idea that I said government cannot interfere. All I suggested was that government SHOULD NOT interfere. You must understand our government does not operate like a government of the people. Our government operates like a corporation that have governmental powers. Its shareholders are members of the PAP, some members have more "shares" while others have less "shares". We ordinary citizens are employees and customers alike. Given this scenario, our government will make decisions based on profit and loss. As I see it, operating the wet-market to them is a loss, so they decide to sell it.

"Ultra simplistic way in comparing the task of being mandated to govern a country and as oppose to being a landlord."

It is simple because that's the PAP mindset of governance. I don't think you disagree that our PAP government governs this way.

"The PAP is mandated by the people of S'pore to serve and improve the livelihood and well being of the people."

I don't get where that mandate comes from. All elections every time is a walk-over. Government get "re-elected" by default. How is that a mandate?

"The people don't expect the govt to govern the country like a corporation which is to maximise profit."

Of course not. I don't too.

"In response to the analogy, if I am renting a house to a relative who is honest, upright and hardworking and is working together with the spouse, but just making just enough to bring up 2 school going children. I will continue to rent to them even if it is below market rate. Life is not just dollars and cents."

Yes, that's you. You should be free to continue renting to them. What about others? If some other family don't do so, should you use the power of government to force them to continue renting? What I'm encouraging here is freedom, the freedom to make decisions for you and your family without government interference.

My whole point about what I'm saying is that I agree that our government shouldn't be just a corporation and operate solely on a profit and loss model. However, the SDP way in handling this situation is a no-win model because all you are arguing about is price and trying to use government powers to force the rental price down. Why not argue to cut the size of government? We don't need so many ministries, so many civil servants, so many million dollar ministers and surely not 4 presidents (PM,SM,MM + president). If we can cut these off the budget, we can lower GST back to say 3%. That would benefit EVERYBODY, and not just a few stall owners in one wet-market.

"All the land and resources of this nation BELONGS to the people. Similarly, the HDB is tasks to hold these HDB assets to serve the people of all walks of life, rich and poor. Even if HDB is collecting rent 30% below market, it is still getting revenue."

This nation BELONGS to ALL its citizens, not just citizens or non-citizens living in HDB flats. HDB should collect rent at market and use the extra profit to cut taxes in a revenue neutral model.

“Bukit Panjang MP Dr Teo Ho Pin has rejected the SDP's invitation to jointly help residents and stallholders....”

Firstly, I wonder whether the key word in the opening sentence to SDP’s article should be “jointly” or “help”.

If it is “jointly, and THP is refusing to JOINTLY take action with SDP, then I can’t see why we should be shocked or surprised. Why would the MP want to share his effort (if any) with people out to displace him?

But knowing CSJ’s cunning writing style and artful way with words, SDP is probably trying to stress on the word “help”. CSJ is trying to infer that THP is refusing to HELP the residents and stallholders here.

Anyway, my assessment of this piece of thespian art by SDP is this: SDP planned this segment of void-deck melodrama knowing fully well that THP will refuse to sign the joint statement.

With cameras ready hopefully to capture THP confronted (argghh... that word again!) by a group of Opposition members with a well-scripted and rehearsed performance to catch the poor (and rather unlikeable, in my opinion) MP ill-prepared.

You just have to read Ambalam’s series questions to see through the publicity stunt. If some of the SDP members give up on politics one day, we know where they can find successful second careers – the theatrical stages.

Mind you, I am NOT saying that what the SDP members did anything wrong. I just want to remind people that it is just another piece of blatant politicking and in this case, something honed to a fine art by SDP.

Mr Ambalam’s statements give us a peek of the REAL underlying purpose of the showdown: “If the Bukit Panjang ward remains a single-member constituency in the coming general elections, you can definitely expect a contest from SDP. The PAP is not the party of the people and it only cares for the rich”.

Let me be fair to SDP and say that I am also not aware of what THP has done to help the residents and stallholders. But that could be because I am not a resident of Bt Panjang (and fortunately, or unfortunately, so.)

Haha, PAP must be really getting scared and desperate and we have a number of people from IB or same person posing as different people commenting on this post. Look at the number of comments from the other posts. This issue must have gotten the PAP's interest & that is the reason for their presence. Good job SDP!

To Buwakasha,

First off, I am a believer in free markets and capitalism. I also disagree with many of the comments posted on this topic. But your economic analysis is puerile and views on political science and governance perverse and offensive.

You have a strange definition of affordability ("It means you are still willing to pay for it."). Just because you are still willing to pay for it does not mean that you are able. For example, you can always increase your debt to fund current consumption or defer or forgo other purchases which may or may not be important. In the case of utilities or transportation, many people simply have little choice but to put up with the high prices. Does not mean that they are affordable. As an analogy, just ask the many home owners in the US, UK, Ireland and many other countries who bought over-priced homes by taking out large loans that they have trouble paying off. These people, by any objective financial measure, should not be taking out such large mortgages because they cannot afford it. But they still did it and many are losing their homes. They were willing to pay for expensive homes but many could not afford it.

Also, governments can and do interfere with the free market out of necessity. Every student of basic economics will know that certain industries are not suited for free market competition. There is such a thing as market failure (just look at the past and recent financial crisis). In such cases, governments restrict the number of participants and/or regulate the prices. The important question that you ignored or failed to address is whether there is a valid reason for regulating wet markets. Also, don't be so quick to dismiss government intervention for the sake of some public good. For example, many in Canada gladly live with the market distortions and higher taxes that come with free health care and a social security network. Thus, while I agree that the government should let free market function whenever possible, a free market is not the be all and end all. The welfare of the citizens should be the ultimate goal of any government. Otherwise, why have any government at all. Why should the people surrender certain freedoms and organize a governing body?

You argue that the PAP has no mandate to work in the best interest of the people because not all seats were contested. But why does the PAP need a mandate to do something it should be doing? Does the PAP need a mandate to enforce law and order? Did the PAP get a mandate to run Singapore like a corporation? BY your reasoning, the PAP has no mandate to do anything. By the way, a corporation is often still accountable to the shareholders and owners. Where is the accountability of the PAP? You said it yourself that the government made some poor investments and lost money. Any normal corporation would have tossed out the management a long time ago.

[[[[your take:....""""It is simple because that's the PAP mindset of governance. I don't think you disagree that our PAP government governs this way....""""}]]]


I am saying it's too simplistic 'cos of the way you use an analogy in trying to relate how a govt should govern and decide matters with renting house to a relative.

And Yes, I agree the PAP is trying to govern the people this way but it doesn't necessary mean that I or many many people in S'pore agree with it.



[[[{"The PAP is mandated by the people of S'pore to serve and improve the livelihood and well being of the people."

your take:....I don't get where that mandate comes from. All elections every time is a walk-over. Government get "re-elected" by default. How is that a mandate?....}]]]


Me too. I don't like walk-overs as well. I want to vote too.
Unfortunately, that's is the way PAP plays the election game, through not so fair means I may add.

However, when there's only one candidate in that area that lone candidate wins. Sadly, the right to govern(if you don't like the word mandate) was given to PAP comes from those area that were contested.

Yes I agree that PAP don't have convincing mandate but then 66.6% gave theirs and the rest are screwed!




[[[["In response to the analogy, if I am renting a house to a relative who is honest, upright and hardworking and is working together with the spouse, but just making just enough to bring up 2 school going children. I will continue to rent to them even if it is below market rate. Life is not just dollars and cents."

your response :....""""Yes, that's you. You should be free to continue renting to them. What about others? If some other family don't do so, should you use the power of government to force them to continue renting? What I'm encouraging here is freedom, the freedom to make decisions for you and your family without government interference.....""""]]]]


Actually, I was responsing to your analog 'cos you use the word "you" to all reading your comments and I quote :
""""if say you own a house and you rent it..."""

Since you are addressing readers with "you", I was just giving my take to your analogy.

While we are at it. What is your take on your analogy? What would YOU do if your honest and hardworking relative(with wife and kids) renting your house(flat) is a stallholder in a wet market and simply cannot even afford half of the 30% hike? Do you excercise your rights/freedom and kick them out?



Basically, the whole point of this matter is about PAP's accountability, responsibility and transparency on this matter. What were the rationale behind the decision to sell the wet markets to Sheng Siong - inspite of warnings from many people, in particular from SDP, that stallholders will lose their livelihood if that were to happen. The customers(mainly living in HDB flats) will then be subjected to price increases for goods thereby adding an already heavy burden for families.



Approaching MP Teo (PAP's rep) is not just as you say,
....""is a no-win model because all you are arguing about is price and trying to use government powers to force the rental price down""....and it's definately way above fighting for "just a few stall owners in one wet-market."

IT's way more than that. It's about getting PAP to admit their mistake, be accountable and responsible for their mistake, be transparent on the whole issue i.e. what are the reasons for the sale of these wet market. It's about bringing to public attention that, not all is fine and dandy with PAP decisions. Over the years, many livelihoods and careers are badly disrupted by their decisions. It's also about PAP's arrogance, their refusal to listen to the ground.

If PAP is willing to do so. If PAP is willing to listen to the what the people are telling its leaders, then EVERYONE will benefit...whether it maybe concerning GST, CPF, ERP, foreign workers etc.

BUT they are not doing so.

Then the ground must be set, to inform the people, to educate people that they, the people, can force or punish the PAP for their arrogance through their votes in the next election. That is what opposition party is doing here.

All of this can be summed up in two words: predatory capitalism.

And predatory capitalism is being strongly encouraged in the PAP's Singapore for one reason: to feed elite entitlement.

Elite entitlement entails, among many other things:

1. blind trust, respect and obedience to those who appoint themselves to be the elite and pronounce themselves to be The Authority;

2. an inordinately high, and unhealthy, degree of reverentiality towards them; normal levels of civility towards an “elite” would be interpreted as confrontational. (I happen to believe that this is a barrier to effecticve communication, and anathema to free speech.)

3. their astronomically high incomes; and,

4. the right to exploit those weaker than them economically.

I'm sure this list can get longer.

Funny, isn't it? When it is these same elite people who charge disadvantaged groups with an "entitlement mentality" when their members asked to be given their rightful dues?

""""This nation BELONGS to ALL its citizens, not just citizens or non-citizens living in HDB flats.""""

Did I say this nation only belongs to people living in HDB. Please read carefully. If still not sure, read it again, and again......

""""HDB should collect rent at market and use the extra profit to cut taxes in a revenue neutral model""""

Then why the need for HDB then? Let private firms takeover.
What?! Top management there trying to act like some big shot private sector property tycoon? Aiming for Forbes top 20 tycoons in the world?!

From the onset, HDB started with public funds to provide housing and facilities with public funded subsidies to the lower income group of our society. Everyone agree and accept these stated goals. Why change? No more low income group and poor people in over society? Don't bluff lah!

PAP will really cut taxes just 'cos they collected rent at mkt rate from stallholders of wet markets? C'mon lah, we are not born yesterday. Think we are stupid? You are an idiot to even think so.

BoredAccountant's comment is good.

"But your economic analysis is puerile and views on political science and governance perverse and offensive."

I don't care what you think about my economic analysis. My believe is that government should stay out of the market place and keep if free. If you believe that such freedom is puerile, perverse and offensive, you are certainly entitled to it. And I'm certainly not saying that our PAP government is practicing that.

"You have a strange definition of affordability ("It means you are still willing to pay for it.")."

Its not strange, it is the definition. Just look it up in the dictionary. When I say willing, it means to things. (1) You are able to and (2) You want to. Only if conditions (1) and (2) are fulfilled would it be considered as 'willing'. People going into debt to pay for something doesn't mean its affordable. It shows that they are unable to pay for it, therefore condition (1) is not upheld, its not affordable. Next, affordability differs from people to people. It is not a macro-economic value. If something is affordable to me does not mean its affordable to you. So, if you show that something is not affordable to someone, that does not mean that thing is unaffordable, it just mean its unaffordable to that particular individual. Since we were talking about utilities, the majority of Singaporeans still consider them affordable.

"In the case of utilities or transportation, many people simply have little choice but to put up with the high prices."

Yes, in many cases in other countries. Not in Singapore. Are people generally going into debt to afford transportation? No. Are people generally going into debt to afford utilities? No. Yes, we all put up with high prices, tell me when none of us put up with high prices. We as Singaporeans still buy cars don't we? Putting up with high prices does not mean that its unaffordable. I wish that my plate of chicken rice was $2.50 instead of $4. I put up with the high price, but its still affordable.

"These people, by any objective financial measure, should not be taking out such large mortgages because they cannot afford it. But they still did it and many are losing their homes. They were willing to pay for expensive homes but many could not afford it."

Again, if you have to go into debt to pay for something that you know you can't pay back, then its not affordable. However, this was cause not by homes being unaffordable but by a lack of lending standards due to ultra low interests rates caused by many of these central banks. Many of these people took out loans to buy new houses, bigger houses, more expensive houses that they know they can't pay back. The idea is to buy them anyway and once the adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) reset, they were planning to sell the house.

"Also, governments can and do interfere with the free market out of necessity."

Yes, many of them do, but not out of necessity.

"Every student of basic economics will know that certain industries are not suited for free market competition. There is such a thing as market failure (just look at the past and recent financial crisis)."

Yes there are such things as market failure but the recent financial crisis was caused by government failure, not market failure. The example you quote is not accurate, but yes, there are such things as market failures.

"In such cases, governments restrict the number of participants and/or regulate the prices. The important question that you ignored or failed to address is whether there is a valid reason for regulating wet markets."

Yes, there might be a case where government might need to regulate, particularly to prevent fraud or unintended consequences, e.g. pollution, social problems, etc. In this case, the government HAS chosen to privatize the wet-market. If the SDP wants to argue, it has to argue against that privatization ONLY. However, when the SDP writes a letter to FORCE Sheng Shiong to not raise rates, then its going against free market principles and the PAP guy can just use free markets and capitalism as his defense which the SDP will ultimately lose.

"Also, don't be so quick to dismiss government intervention for the sake of some public good."

Having said that, I still assert that most government intervention while you think its good, actually leads to the opposite of what you try to achieve.

"For example, many in Canada gladly live with the market distortions and higher taxes that come with free health care and a social security network."

Of course, I would be glad if someone else paid for my health care. Why wouldn't I be? If I were to pass a law that say you "BoredAccountant" have to pay for the healthcare of ALL Singaporeans, most Singaporeans will be happy. Just because most Singaporeans benefit from this does it mean that its right to do so?

"Thus, while I agree that the government should let free market function whenever possible, a free market is not the be all and end all. The welfare of the citizens should be the ultimate goal of any government."

No, I disagree. The welfare of the citizens should be the ultimate goal for the people, not of the government. People have responsibility, not the government. The role of government should be that of a judge, like a referee in a football game. It should play no favorites. Neither to big giant corporations, nor to special interest groups. The government exists to protect our freedoms, not to dictate what we should or should not do, not to tell us how to behave nor tell us how to think. From what you said, it seems to me you are very in line with the social engineering performed by the PAP government. You just disagree on how they are doing it. If you were to be in charge, you will continue their tough handed policies.

"Otherwise, why have any government at all. Why should the people surrender certain freedoms and organize a governing body?"

I say again, we need government. Government is there to protect us, to protect our freedoms. Its not there to provide welfare, nor to enrich corporations.


"You argue that the PAP has no mandate to work in the best interest of the people because not all seats were contested. But why does the PAP need a mandate to do something it should be doing?"

It does not. I'm just refuting the argument that the PAP should do this and that because it has the mandate of the people.

"Does the PAP need a mandate to enforce law and order?"

It does not. PAP is king.

"Did the PAP get a mandate to run Singapore like a corporation?"

No, it runs this way because LKY believes that it is in the best interest of Singapore and for the general welfare of the citizens. You and LKY aren't very different.

"BY your reasoning, the PAP has no mandate to do anything."

PAP does not need a mandate to do anything. It might have a mandate for somethings, but we never know, since there wasn't a real test for it (no free and fair elections).

"By the way, a corporation is often still accountable to the shareholders and owners. Where is the accountability of the PAP?"

Yes, but who are the shareholders? You think the citizens are the shareholders? No. The shareholders are the parents of "white-horses" that serve NS.

"You said it yourself that the government made some poor investments and lost money. Any normal corporation would have tossed out the management a long time ago."

Not necessary. It depends on the management board.

"Did I say this nation only belongs to people living in HDB. Please read carefully. If still not sure, read it again, and again......"

But you want PAP to subsidize people who buy HDB flats. This means people who don't own or buy HDB flats do not get that subsidy. However, we all pay taxes, why only subsidize a certain sector of people?

If you agree that Singapore belongs to ALL the people, then the government has to be fair to ALL the people, not just HDB flat owners.

"Then why the need for HDB then? Let private firms takeover. What?! Top management there trying to act like some big shot private sector property tycoon? Aiming for Forbes top 20 tycoons in the world?!"

If private firms were to really take over, I believe prices will drop for HDB flats. In reality, HDB flats are not subsidies, you actually pay more for what it is worth if you buy a HDB flat. If HDB were really a liability for our PAP government, trust me, they would have sold it long time ago, just like the wet markets.

"PAP will really cut taxes just 'cos they collected rent at mkt rate from stallholders of wet markets? C'mon lah, we are not born yesterday. Think we are stupid? You are an idiot to even think so."

Of course I don't think so. I'm talking about the philosophy of it, ie government SHOULD NOT do social engineering by providing subsidies to certain groups of people. Our PAP government loves social engineering.

"predatory capitalism"

Also known as fascism, crony capitalism, cronyism

Its very different from capitalism. The only way predatory capitalism can work is by partnering with the government. Get the government out of making such decisions and predatory capitalism will stop.

"While we are at it. What is your take on your analogy? What would YOU do if your honest and hardworking relative(with wife and kids) renting your house(flat) is a stallholder in a wet market and simply cannot even afford half of the 30% hike? Do you excercise your rights/freedom and kick them out?"

It depends on my situation too. If I'm pretty well-off and the person its my relative who I care dearly about and the relative is no way exploiting me, then sure, I would continue renting. I'll do even more, I would try to get my relative opportunities to improve his life so that he and his family would not need to be dependent on me anymore.

On the other hand, if my relative in the extreme case takes this help for-granted, drinks everyday, gamble, sleeps, lazy, etc, then yes, I might not be able to take it and might kick him out. Also, maybe my relative is indeed hardworking, but I am screwed because of a bad break and have no choice but to sell the house. The point is, that decision should be up to me to make, not the government.

..."""But you want PAP to subsidize people who buy HDB flats. This means people who don't own or buy HDB flats do not get that subsidy...."""

There you go again putting words in my ........never mind.

Are you a new immigrant? There are criterias to be met for people who want to buy a HDB flat. Don't you know? You new in S'pore, aren't you?

Why was HDB form? Do you know the stated goals of HDB? For 40 years did anyone disagree with these stated goals?

Going by your argument, must HDB also provide housing to well off and millionaires makes it more equitable to you?
Since these well off and millionaires don't get to buy a HDB flat, therefore it is unfair to them? Since the well off and millionaires don't get to buy a HDB flat then nobody should get to buy a HDB flat? And that makes it equitable?!

A huge majority of the population lives in HDB housing. That's not "certain sector" of the people.

You want to live in S'pore please find out more about S'pore.

""How do you define affordability."

It means you are still willing to pay for it."

"Its not strange, it is the definition. Just look it up in the dictionary. When I say willing, it means to things. (1) You are able to and (2) You want to. Only if conditions (1) and (2) are fulfilled would it be considered as 'willing'."

BUwakasha: You are either missing the point or chose to run off on some unrelated tangent. I am not arguing over the definition of "willing". I am disagreeing with your original definition of affordability which you seem to define as "still willing to pay for it". Look up any dictionary and tell me if any one of them defines affordability as willingness to pay. Your explanation and definition only serves to support my argument that willingness to pay for something is not the same as being able to afford something. The rest of your explanation is rather pointless and trivial since no one would disagree with you that affordability varies from person to person. Of course affordability is a relative concept. Again you miss the main point: A government should be concerned about the poor who cannot afford certain goods and services just as much as those wealthier citizens who can. In other words, if a wealthier segment of the population can afford an essential service while the poorer segment cannot, don't you think that there might be an affordability problem with regards to the poorer segment especially if that service is related to health care, utilities or food? You argue that if the wealthier segment of society is the majority and finds transportation affordable, then there is no affordability problem and transportation is affordable overall. That may be true, but again you miss the point. A government should be concerned about all citizens and devise ways to help the poorer citizens pay for essential services. I am not arguing that price controls or subsidies are the best and most efficient way. The important debate and discussion should be on the best way to help the poorer citizens.

As for your discussion on market failures and government intervention: I can point you to several economists who will argue that the subprime mess in the US is a direct result of market failure and the failure to regulate. Of course, there are other economists who argue otherwise. I am not a Phd in economics so I will speak no further on this subject other than to point out that you may be the one who is incorrect in claiming that the recent financial crisis is due to governmental failure.

Where is it written that the SDP can only argue against privatization? In a democracy the SDP should be able to argue whatever it wants. Besides arguing over the privatization of the markets, the SDP should be free to talk about price controls. As I said before, it is perfectly legitimate to argue against free market principles. I am not saying that the SDP is correct. I just laid out the case that the SDP may have some valid arguments. Just saying "its the free market" or "the free market rules" is simplistic and dogmatic. I welcome arguments on why price controls are not the best course of action with respect to the wet markets. Personally, I think price controls are not the most efficient manner of addressing the problems but I am also open to counter-arguments.

"Of course, I would be glad if someone else paid for my health care. Why wouldn't I be? If I were to pass a law that say you "BoredAccountant" have to pay for the healthcare of ALL Singaporeans, most Singaporeans will be happy. Just because most Singaporeans benefit from this does it mean that its right to do so?"

Another simplistic argument. In the case of countries like Canada, a great majority of citizens pay for healthcare one way or another via direct or indirect taxes. Also the vast majority of the citizens are willing to put up with higher taxes and other inefficiencies to obtain desired social outcome. Of course you can argue that there will be freeloaders who don't pay taxes but still benefit. I agree. But no system is perfect and the Canadians seem to accept that the benefits of the current system outweighs the costs.

Role of government argument: You misunderstand, I use welfare in the broad economic sense, i.e. government is there for the good of the people. I agree that government is there to protect our freedoms and not dictate what we should think. Still, you do realize that many people and countries believe that freedom encompass both civil and political rights and economic and social rights. Call it social engineering if you wish, but it would be a very callous and grim society where the government does not at least try to help the poor. I am not saying help the poor by giving handouts and unjustified interventions in the free market. There are many ways to do so besides giving handouts. If supporting a free market lifts all boats and is the best way to benefit all citizens, then the free market should be left alone. However, as I said before, the free market is not perfect.

To Buwakasha:

On the privatization issue, based on the articles on this site, the SDP has always been concerned about the consequences of privatization one of which is increased rents. So, of course the SDP should talk about rent levels. Again, I don't why you insist that the SDP only focus on privatization.

Based on your responses, I assume that you received some education. Education is subsidized in many countries, Singapore included. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that education is consumed at a higher rate and level than under free market conditions. Being a beneficiary of such government intervention and largess, I wondered if you protested this fact throughout your years in the school system and insisted on paying the full costs of your education?

"Call it social engineering if you wish, but it would be a very callous and grim society where the government does not at least try to help the poor."

Government is no angel. People have to help the poor, not government. They first come from your immediate family, then your relatives, your friends, your extended family, charity organizations, etc. When the government tries to do it, it adds bureaucracy on top of it, its wasteful, inefficient and it makes people less charitable.

No, it would not be a callous and grim society. It will be a more gracious and charitable society.

"However, as I said before, the free market is not perfect."

Sure, but you assuming that government is the perfect alternative? Government is not perfect too. Government is not a perfect alternative to a market failure.

"Why was HDB form? Do you know the stated goals of HDB? For 40 years did anyone disagree with these stated goals?"

You really believe the stated goals of HDB do you? I see HDB as a good way to make money off Singaporeans.

"Going by your argument, must HDB also provide housing to well off and millionaires makes it more equitable to you?"

Millionaires wouldn't buy HDB, there's no value for money. As I said, in reality, buying HDB is NOT a subsidy.

"A huge majority of the population lives in HDB housing. That's not "certain sector" of the people."

No, huge majority share HDB housing with parents. Again, HDB is a bad example because in reality, you pay more, not less. Its not a subsidy. The cost to build a HDB flat is not as high as the amount that they sell it to you for.

"You want to live in S'pore please find out more about S'pore."

Haha, funniest thing you said so far.

"Again, I don't why you insist that the SDP only focus on privatization."

Because its the only reason/argument that is valid. SDP is of course free to talk about forcing Sheng Shiong to not increase rent, I just think that it is a bad strategy. That is why the PAP can invoke the 'free market' defense.

"Education is subsidized in many countries, Singapore included."

One of the primary reason why education gets more expensive each year. You hear of NUS tuition rates going down? No, they go up each year. Ever wonder why? With new technology, improvement, lowering of cost, why is education getting more expensive, at least government funded tuition? Private tuition for specialize courses on the other hand have not increase but instead decreased.

"Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that education is consumed at a higher rate and level than under free market conditions."

Sure, that is a market distortion and it drives up cost.

"The important debate and discussion should be on the best way to help the poorer citizens."

Sure. I assert that, Government is the worst way to do that. Some societies tolerate that, but it is not optimal. Government is not an angel, neither is it God. It can't give birth to wealth to help the poor. In order for government to help someone, it has to take from someone else first, then give it to the needy. This process is wasteful and it cost a lot of money. A simple example would be if a person needs help you can either willingly give him $100, or have the government take $200 from you, the government pockets $100 and gives the remaining $100 to that person.

As I said, the government is there to protect us. Prevent people from robbing you, stealing from you, cheating you, etc. Its like a referee. Other than that, it should stay out of our business.

"One of the primary reason why education gets more expensive each year. You hear of NUS tuition rates going down? No, they go up each year."

Even if tuition goes up at NUS, I suspect that the true cost of a University education at NUS is still a lot higher than the tuition. I could be wrong but I don't think so. Besides, I also include primary, secondary schools, JC, polytechnics, etc. as part of subsidized education of which you have no doubt benefitted from. Anyway, as an ardent supporter of the free market, you should support all government efforts to raise the cost of tuition and remove all market distorting subsidies.

Why is privatization the only valid argument? As I said before, you miss the forest for the trees. The SDP had been decrying privatization as it may lead to higher rents (all true). The markets have already been privatized. Do you want the SDP to call on the government to re-nationalize the markets? If the SDP did call for that, I am sure the PAP and you would again throw up the free market argument about how the government should be in the business of governing and not owning markets, etc......

On the issue of helping the poor: There are social and economic costs to having an entrenched underclass that cannot afford basic necessities. E.g. crime, increased medical costs when the poor don't seek preventive treatment, etc.. Private charity can only go so far. If it were sufficient, poverty would not be such a problem in so many countries. Of course there is an inevitable redistribution of wealth when government gets involved. And I admit that governments don't always do a good job. But what is the alternative? You talk about private charity, until private charity steps up, should the government not try to mitigate the suffering of the poor in the best possible way?

..."""This means people who don't own or buy HDB flats do not get that subsidy. However, we all pay taxes, why only subsidize a certain sector of people?"""...

Why do you INSIST that the less fortunate and low income sector of our population to have no home? To live in the open in tents, sleep in void decks, live in paper boxes in alleyways.

Or couples who are married but can't buy 'cos no subsidy, market price only HDB housing. So have to live with parents and siblings, 7 people or more in 3 room flat.

Makes your day? To witness hardship.

"""You really believe the stated goals of HDB do you? I see HDB as a good way to make money off Singaporeans"""

I have asked you before and I still asking you again now. Were you around when HDB was formed? The first 25 years or so? ARE YOU A NEW IMMIGRANT? That's what they it then -- low cost subsidised housing for the less fortunate and lower income group.


YOU TRY TO MAKE IT SEEMS YOU ARE AGAINST HDB NOT GIVING REAL SUBSIDY:

..."I see HDB as a good way to make money off Singaporeans"...

..."As I said, in reality, buying HDB is NOT a subsidy"...

..."Its not a subsidy. The cost to build a HDB flat is not as high as the amount that they sell it to you for"...

BUT THEN YOU MADE THESE STATEMENTS DISAREEING THAT HOUSING SUBSIDY SHD BE GIVEN FOR THE LOWER INCOME AND LESS FORTUNATE TO OWN A HOME:

....""""This means people who don't own or buy HDB flats do not get that subsidy. However, we all pay taxes, why only subsidize a certain sector of people?....""""

..."""If you agree that Singapore belongs to ALL the people, then the government has to be fair to ALL the people, not just HDB flat owners..."""

AND

..."""government SHOULD NOT do social engineering by providing subsidies to certain groups of people..."""

Dude. You have been exposed!!

Really typical of a 'certain people' of a 'certain' party --- to confuse and attack strategy. My my very clever you.

Not only to confuse, you are also trying to give impression HDB NEVER EVER gave sudsidy for people to own homes since inception. Therefore shd be the same from now and future. Brainwashing tactics. Repeat a thousand times and it becomes real.

Good try!

You reasoning that Govt giving housing subsidy public housing is unfair 'cos those people who bought or want to buy condos and landed properties didn't get any from PAP or HDB?!?! Ha Ha. VERY FUNNY. Your best moment.

No? See above or quote one more time? Let me know.



Overall you hope to divert people from the real issue again and again when I have already said that we are not only talking about Sheng Siong here. I said and I quote:

"""IT's way more than that. It's about getting PAP to admit their mistake, be accountable and responsible for their mistake, be transparent on the whole issue i.e. what are the reasons for the sale of these wet market. It's about bringing to public attention that, not all is fine and dandy with PAP decisions. Over the years, many livelihoods and careers are badly disrupted by their decisions. It's also about PAP's arrogance, their refusal to listen to the ground"""

"Why do you INSIST that the less fortunate and low income sector of our population to have no home? To live in the open in tents, sleep in void decks, live in paper boxes in alleyways."

Hey, I never said that. When did I insists that low income sector of our population to have no home? But there ARE people who live in the open in tents, sleep in void decks, live in paper boxes in alleyways. Are you saying that these people don't exists? That HDB flats are so affordable?

My point is, without HDB, without HDB loans, a prices for a cubicle in a 25-30 story HDB flat would not be over-inflated.

"BUT THEN YOU MADE THESE STATEMENTS DISAREEING THAT HOUSING SUBSIDY SHD BE GIVEN FOR THE LOWER INCOME AND LESS FORTUNATE TO OWN A HOME:"

I'm using it as an example to describe the wet market scenario, not to claim that HDB is a subsidy. I didn't bring up HDB, it was you who did. Let's change the story, forget about HDB or houses. Suppose you own a wet market and you rent it out to your relative at 30% below market rate, then you sell the wet market to another owner and the owner increase the rent. Should the government force the new owner not to increase the rent?

"Not only to confuse, you are also trying to give impression HDB NEVER EVER gave sudsidy for people to own homes since inception."

I'm sorry if you got confused. The claim I'm making is HDB is over charging for houses since inception. My grandfather once own a house in Hougang (a whole bungalow), the government took it away and gave him a HDB 5 room. At that time, one might think its a fair exchange, but in reality it downright robbery. And there was no choice in the matter, you can't choose not to exchange.

"IT's way more than that. It's about getting PAP to admit their mistake, be accountable and responsible for their mistake, be transparent on the whole issue i.e. what are the reasons for the sale of these wet market. It's about bringing to public attention that, not all is fine and dandy with PAP decisions. Over the years, many livelihoods and careers are badly disrupted by their decisions. It's also about PAP's arrogance, their refusal to listen to the ground"

I've never refuted anything in this statement. My only argument is against sending a letter to force Sheng Shiong to not raise the rent. I'm in total agreement with getting PAP to admit their mistake, be accountable and responsible for their mistake, be transparent on the whole issue i.e. what are the reasons for the sale of these wet market. It's about bringing to public attention that, not all is fine and dandy with PAP decisions.

"Do you want the SDP to call on the government to re-nationalize the markets?"

No, absolutely not. Privatization is not a bad thing.

"The SDP had been decrying privatization as it may lead to higher rents (all true)."

Sure, but not all the time. Privatization can lead to lower rents too. Prices increase because of inflation due to poor monetary policies, that is the root of the problem, not privatization. Prices might also increase due to removal of subsidies that were previously there but were taken away due to the privatization.

Let me give an example. Our public libraries are run by the government. You can borrow books for free. Suppose the government sold the libraries to a private company and the company starts charging people for borrowing books. Now, you might point a finger at the government and say "DON'T PRIVATIZE!". Then you point the finger at the private company and say "DON'T CHARGE FOR BORROWING!"

However, if you sit back and look at it, the government doesn't run the library for free. It has to pay for utilities, staff, maintenance and opportunity cost. Where does it get that money from? From taxes of course. Who pay these taxes? Everybody, including people who never step into a library before. So essentially, people who don't borrow books are paying for people who do borrow books. What happens? People would be encouraged to go to the library and borrow as many books as they can, even if they don't need to. That means, there is an over-utilization which effectively raise the cost on everybody. This is also what I consider as social engineering. Its not a bad thing to encourage people to read, but it shouldn't be done this way. Of course, we don't feel the effect of this subsidy because its tiny compared to the relative wealth of everybody in the country, ie we tolerate it. (Btw, I'm not in anyway advocating that the government stop the public library program!)

The same can be said with the wet market scenario. In this case, the government actually did sell the property. So, the government actually made money from this sale. Moreover, the subsidy ended with the sale of the wet market therefore, there is a net gain in revenue from the government. Of course, it would be ideal if the government returned the subsidy to the people in the form of lower taxes. We know that's not the case.

"But what is the alternative? You talk about private charity, until private charity steps up, should the government not try to mitigate the suffering of the poor in the best possible way?"

No, when the government tries to do it, it will destroy private charity from stepping up. You are assuming that people are in general selfish and evil and they only care about themselves and will try to fleece their neighbour if given the chance and we need a strong government, big brother, mafia organization, nanny, whatever you want to call it to take care of us from cradle to grave.

That's a myth. In reality, people are generous and they do care for their fellow man. How many times you see a poor auntie selling tissue on the street or going through garbage? The government is doing a good job in mitigating their suffering? No, its the people who help them by buying their tissues, but donating their used bottles, etc. How many times do you think an average man walks past these poor individuals and think to themselves, "I'm paying taxes. Its the government's responsibility to help these people." The moment you give the idea that its the role of government to take care of the unfortunate, you immediately make people less charitable and less caring.

My own hopes for the future of the Singapore economy, and these are just the broad underpinnings for it, rest on these foundations.

1. The capitalist system must remain for the majority who are able to operate within it and they will be allowed to so under conditions made favourable for self-actualization, balanced with considerations for not killing the spirit of enterprise;

I believe that this consideration for the majority not only makes economic sense, but political sense as well. However,

2. the excesses of capitalism - the predatory capitalism that the PAP has allowed to run amuck - must be curbed and on the basis of the "harm principle" - no one should be intentionally harmed in one's profit- and income-maximizing pursuits. (Even the temple of capitalism that the US is, aspires to this and has even instituted much of this.)

3. But, in any society, there will always be the minority comprising many vulnerable groups, who will need additional help which in more affluent countries comes from the state. (I am speaking about income security and help in employment for the many in these groups who can work but with some additional help.) Not only does society have an abligation to see to it that people from these groups have the social safety net, it makes economic sense as well. As pointed out several times by the SDP, they become consumers who have incomes and can spend then on businesses to help the economy chug along. (Their spending tends to be skewed heavily on basic necessities, making the businesses that provide for theirs - and others' - viable.)

Burdening their families with the task of supporting them financially takes away from the disposable income of their family members; there is less being spent on the economy.

The information in last two paragraphs become especially important - though not the end-all, of course - during economic downturns.

johntoh, I'm going through the messages to examine why there's a confusion. Here's my summary.

I said,

"if say you own a house and you rent it out to a relative at 30% below market rate (the prices others would pay for renting the property). This property is now making a "loss" even though you are still collecting rent from your relative. One day you decide to sell the house to another person. Now, this person doesn't care about your relative, so he ups the rent by 30% to market rate. Now, your relative is suffering from the rent increase, should he/she blame you for selling the house? Should the government come in and force you not to sell the house? Should the government come in and force the new owner not to increase the rent?"

I did not mention HDB. I was just giving an example. Its not a true story.

You said,

"All the land and resources of this nation BELONGS to the people. Similarly, the HDB is tasks to hold these HDB assets to serve the people of all walks of life, rich and poor. Even if HDB is collecting rent 30% below market, it is still getting revenue."

Here's the confusion. You made the house I was talking about earlier is a HDB flat. Then you assumed that HDB is collecting rent at 30% below market. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, i.e. assuming that this assumption is correct, I said,

"This means people who don't own or buy HDB flats do not get that subsidy. However, we all pay taxes, why only subsidize a certain sector of people?...."

A few assumptions were made when I said that. (1) HDB is subsidized, (2) Not all Singaporeans own HDB. (2) is partly true, but (1) is not true. But assuming (1) is true, I think its wrong to make a certain sector (HDB owners) of people pay for another sector of people (non-HDB owners). However in reality, I agree that most Singaporeans own HDB, so (2) can be argued to not be true too. So the transfer of wealth between the 2 groups would not be a major problem. However, I know that (1) is not true, so what's really going on is a transfer of wealth from the majority of Singaporeans, to the government, ie a hidden tax that we don't see and don't know about. Which is why I then said,

"As I said, in reality, buying HDB is NOT a subsidy"

So, let us forget about HDB, just stick to the wet market scenario. Once again, sorry for the confusion.

the whole issue didnt just start with the letter to the MP. it started months ago when SDP highlighted that the sales of the wet markets to sheng siong would defitnitely cause a rental hike and the outcome right.

HDB intervene not over the concern of COST but over Sheng shiong intentions to convert the wet market to a supermarket. and HDB only approved the sale if only sheng siong still keeps the premises as it is.

seems to me costing concerns wasnt part of HDB agenda when they approved the sale to sheng shiong.

I made a mistake: What I meant to say was that the SDP always warned that privatizing the markets would lead to higher rents. You are correct that privatization can lead to lower prices.

AS for your analogy with the public libraries: If a private corporation can provide the necessary service then I dont care if libraries are privatized. Again, lets not forget that libraries arguably serve a public good by giving citizens a chance to be more educated and informed. There is a cost to any government action. In the case of the libraries, can you say that the costs outweigh the benefits? Also, I don't hear you complaining about the government's investment in education and even law and order. Take law and order for example. The government is using all taxpayer's money for the police and jails, etc. But not all citizens are equally concerned about their own safety. For example, some citizens may be stronger or competent in martial arts or are able to afford private security. Thus they need less protection from the government. So won't these people feel aggrieved that their tax dollars are spent to protect others or that others benefit more from their tax dollars? Would you say that whoever benefits most from the libraries or police presence pay more for these services? How would you go about implementing such a system? You object to many government services and activities, but I do not hear many feasible alternatives to the current system coming from you.

On to the issue about private charity: Its a chicken and egg argument but I think you are incorrect. There was poverty in Singapore even before any government (PAP or the British) implemented any meaningful social assistance program. Was private charity back then any greater or more effective in reducing or mitigating the effects of poverty? If private charity was so effective, why would the government institute social programs in the first place? If there is no need for anti-poverty programs, I am sure the government or any government can find other ways to spend the money.

What if you are wrong? Are you willing to let the poor suffer? You make very big assumptions on the mindset of the average person with regards to charity and helping the poor. Say we get the government to remove all public aid to the poor and wait for private charity to take over and meet the needs of the poor. What if private charity never fulfill its role? Even if private charity does step up, how long would that take? 5 years? In the meantime, are we going to let the poor starve? It is all well and nice to say that government deters private charity. But where is your proof? The implications of you being wrong is far greater for the poor.

Finally I do not assume people are inherently selfish. People can be very generous. BUt that does not mean that is enough to meet the needs of the poor. You seem to forget that people have their own expenses and may not be able to contribute enough funds to fully take care of the poor. Also not all people are generous. Again, evidence in history and other societies all suggest that you are incorrect. I am no left winger (I like my taxes low and my liberties left alone), but it distresses me to hear such dogmatic and ill-conceived notions about the free market and social assistance for the poor.

"Take law and order for example."

I've already said that government is there to protect us, that's include maintaining law and order. I'm not an anarchist.

"But not all citizens are equally concerned about their own safety."

Does not matter. The government is responsible for our defence. That includes military spending, police, judges, etc. That's the role of government.

"Also, I don't hear you complaining about the government's investment in education"

I remember complaining about ever increasing tuition cost of our national universities. That is the result of government. But again, since Singapore is a small country, the burden of public education is tolerable, which means it is not an issue for me.

"I do not hear many feasible alternatives"

There is no feasible alternatives, that's my point. Thomas Jefferson said in a quote that

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one."

in other words, it means

"That government is best which governs least."

"Are you willing to let the poor suffer?"

The question should be are you willing to make more poor people to alleviate the suffering of existing poor people? I think you are making a big mistake here, you seem to think there is no cost to government. I have said many times that government is not God, it can only use the power of force to take wealth away from the people, it can't create wealth out of nothing. How are you going to help the poor without first taking wealth away from others? In a rich society, charities would step in. In a poor society, like when Singapore was first founded, there is NO WAY that government can help anybody. All it can do it take wealth away from already poor people to give it to even poorer people. The net result is more poor people even if some poor people becomes less poor.

"What if private charity never fulfill its role? Even if private charity does step up, how long would that take? 5 years? In the meantime, are we going to let the poor starve?"

5 years? No, it would be immediate. Btw, private charities would be the last thing unfortunate people would turn to for aid. First would be your family, then your friends, then your relatives, then your co-workers, then your neighbourhood community, etc. Charity would be the last place one would turn to.

"The implications of you being wrong is far greater for the poor."

Why don't you ask the poor whether they want handouts from government or not. Go ask an auntie selling tissue paper for a living. Tell her that there is such thing as community chess, why don't she apply for handout.

"You seem to forget that people have their own expenses and may not be able to contribute enough funds to fully take care of the poor."

As I go through your piece again, I see that you mentioned the above sentence. Again, I think it proves my point, that in the event that what you say above is true, then neither can government come in and help because government essentially has nothing, all it can do is to take money away from people, then give it out to other people while bleeding some of the wealth away. If people already have no money, then how do you expect them to take care of the "poor"? All you can do is to create more poor people by taking away their wealth in the pretense of redistributing it to poorer people. The net effect would be the entire society becomes poorer.

There are times when indeed society is poor, like after the war in 1945. Homes were destroyed, families ruined, infrastructure lost. Indeed, as you said, people are not able to contribute enough funds to fully take care of the poor. In this case, how would government step in to help? How could they tax an already devastated economy to help the poor within the same economy?

I think you are missing the point. Your point is how is it best to help poor people. My point on the other hand is how to prevent people from becoming poor and how the more the government tax, the more poor people there will be. If the government has to tax more to help poor people, it will be an endless spiral where you will get more and more poor people until everybody is poor, the government becomes tyrannical and people start to leave. The ideology that government has to help poor people comes from communist ideology which results in the creation of the Soviet Union, East Germany, North Korea, Cuba, North Vietnam, etc. As the saying goes, the road to serfdom is paved with good intentions.

"it distresses me to hear such dogmatic and ill-conceived notions about the free market and social assistance for the poor."

I think the dogma is the other way round. The real dogma is the myth that the government is an angel and the free market is inherently evil. You follow much of the writings of Karl Marx and communism, while I subscribe to the writings of Adam Smith.

"But not all citizens are equally concerned about their own safety. For example, some citizens may be stronger or competent in martial arts or are able to afford private security."

I doubt the government, at least not our government is involved in security. We have to hire our own security guards. Only politicians get government provided security. Police, judges, jails on the other hand are for law enforcement, not security. That's why the government has the power to tax. As I said, the government is like a referee, it enforces the rules that we all have to live by. No stealing, no murdering, no kidnapping, etc. These rules are meant for our protection as well as our well being. The government should play no favorites, ie everybody is equal under the law. That is the primary function of government.