Thursday, May 1, 2025
26.8 C
Singapore
type here...
Subscribe
Home Blog Page 5190

What the latest COE move means

The Independent
-
0
What the latest COE move means

By Vignesh Louis Naidu

On Monday, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) called for an urgent meeting with motor traders. Speculation was rife as to what this meeting was about. Many speculated that the government was about to announce further changes to the financing regulations in light of the pending change in COE categorisation. We found out soon enough what the announcement was about. LTA would now announce COE quotas once every quarter as opposed to the current half yearly announcements.

Most of the reactions online have not been about this change in the frequency of quota announcement but rather on the quota announced for this quarter. The COE quota is calculated based on a formula that allows for the replacement of deregistered vehicles and a very slow rate of growth. For the quarter starting in February there will be about 400 fewer COEs available for bidding.

The discussions invariantly point towards the unfair nature of the current COE structure and its inherent biasness towards the wealthy. Yes that is true. The market- based nature of the COE system only accounts for one’s ability to pay and not his needs. There are individuals for whom a car is not simply a want or desire but rather a basic necessity for a comfortable and dignified life.

Instead of further expounding on the social equity aspect of car ownership, I would rather look at what the latest announcements really mean for the average Singaporean. Firstly, by announcing the quota every three months large fluctuations are minimised and this would lead to a flatter curve in quantity and by extension price. Having a more even distribution of COE quotas should lead to reduced speculative behaviour.

Many buyers now rush to make purchases in the last month or two of an existing quota for fear that the next quota would be significantly lower. LTA, when announcing the latest quotas, said that if it had applied the previous bi-annual formula the number of COEs available would have fallen by another 5 per cent.

Congestion argument

Secondly, this announcement shows that the government is standing firm on its view that congestion is bad for the economy and that to prevent congestion vehicular ownership needs to be regulated. It has adopted a market-based system of allocating a limited supply of cars, in the government’s view, a luxury good. No other country in the world makes car ownership as financially onerous as Singapore. If owning a car is unattainable for the masses it is necessary to ensure that the public transport networks are not only good but world class.

The government also has to accept that for many Singaporeans a good public transport network is not limited to comparisons with Tokyo, London, New York etc.; but also anchored to their memory of Singapore’s system back in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s.

Fare announcement

In a few days the Public Transport Council (PTC) will announce its decision on the application for a fare increase by the public transport operators. It seems very likely that the PTC will approve the fare hike but possibly not to the extent requested by the public transport operators. The Transport Minister has also announced on his Facebook page the assistance schemes that the government will roll out to mitigate the possible increase for lower income household and people with disabilities.

When submitting an application for a fare increase the operators generally cite increasing cost as their main argument. This is fair when one considers the increase in the cost of energy, a large part of their operating cost, in the last five years.  Earlier, the Minister also announced a carrot and stick approach in getting the operators to improve their service standards. I do not think it is fair that the operators are rewarded when a bus arrives ahead of schedule. How many of our bosses pay us more for showing up at work early? In the same announcement the new fine structure was also made known. Yes the amounts are large but they have to be seen in perspective.

Instead of imposing a fine when there is a service disruption or breakdown why not ban the errant operators from applying for a fare hike for a specific period of time. For example, an errant operator can be barred from applying for a fare hike for six months. I believe that this would be a much better stick than any fine.

Also, freezing out potential fare increases may lead to more breakdowns and service disruptions as the operators will put aside less money for things like maintenance cost. In such a situation the debate on renationalisation will certainly gain more traction.

 

The case against importing athletes

The Independent
-
0
The case against importing athletes

By Michael Y.P. Ang

The Foreign Sports Talent Scheme has been surrounded by controversy since it started in the nineties. Over the years, proponents of the scheme have been trying to justify it.

“It inspires native-born athletes.”

However, as mentioned in my Dec 24 article “SEA Games surprise wins a wake-up call”, Singapore’s unexpected medallists have shown there is no need to rely on foreigners for inspiration. A genuine passion for their chosen sport and a deep desire to win honours for their homeland were enough to inspire them.

“Foreigners improve our teams’ standards.”

Not always.

Singapore last reached the Thomas Cup (badminton’s world team championship) finals in 1986, years before foreigners were recruited, but have yet to repeat that feat despite having foreign talent; while the Lions, at times playing with five or six imports, still struggle to compete outside the relatively weak Asean region.

The more foreigners we field, the more native-born athletes we deprive of opportunities to gain valuable competitive experience. The lack of competitive experience makes home-grown athletes weaker, making calls for foreigners louder. Is this how the government builds a Singaporean sporting culture?

“Foreigners’ global achievements raise Singapore’s international profile.”

Our China-born female paddlers have certainly improved the national team’s standard, but have their achievements really raised Singapore’s international profile to the extent of boosting tourism or foreign investment?

When they won a silver and two bronze medals at the 2008 and 2012 Olympics respectively, Singapore’s national flag was raised and the country mentioned in front of a global audience. The only problem is: with over 300 Olympic events being contested, what proportion of the audience paid real attention to women’s ping pong?

Pro-immigration political tool?

If foreigners win medals for Singapore, Singaporeans might embrace imported athletes as their own. This would, theoretically, make Singaporeans more likely to embrace increased immigration.

But was there widespread celebration when our table-tennis team won Olympic medals? Were Singaporeans moved by those Olympic feats, or were we more inspired by the relatively humble SEA Games achievements of native-born athletes?

It is very tempting to view the foreign talent scheme as a weak tool for generating support for the government’s immigration policy. If anything, negative views of foreigners could have the effect of creating more-intense rejection of the its pro-immigration desires.

Government agency recognising essential value of being native-born?

The Science Centre Board (the government agency that promotes interest in science and technology) is planning with two local organisations to launch a Singaporean-manned space flight on National Day, 9 Aug 2015.

One key criterion: the chosen Singaporean must be born in Singapore.

What happened to choosing the best candidate regardless of birthplace, a view commonly held by pro-immigration individuals? Perhaps a government agency is now embracing the intrinsic value of being native-born when celebrating nationhood or one’s nationality.

Fifa condemns foreigner recruitment as a farce

Having seen more and more countries deliberately recruiting foreign-born footballers, many of whom are Brazilian, with no familial or ancestral ties to their new country, Fifa president Sepp Blatter told the BBC in 2007:

“If we don’t stop this farce, if we don’t take care about the invaders from Brazil towards Europe, Asia and Africa then, in the 2014 or the 2018 World Cup, out of the 32 teams you will have 16 full of Brazilian players.”

Fifa has since made it more restrictive for naturalised players to represent their country of adoption.

Even if the Singapore government does not share Fifa’s view that the recruitment of foreigners is going against the spirit of competitive sport between nations, it would still be to the government’s own benefit to clarify the rationale behind its controversial sports policy.

If the previous two Olympics are any indication, the 2016 Olympiad will almost certainly provoke further public debate about imported athletes, making an unpopular sports policy fresh in voters’ minds during an election year. Even if the next general election is held in 2015, the SEA Games that year will likely also spark a debate on this issue.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong recently talked about charting a new direction for Singapore through a strategic shift in the PAP’s nation-building approach. If the government cannot provide a justifiable basis for its foreign talent sThecheme, it would benefit the PAP to modify or scrap it.

Such a move will demonstrate to voters that there is indeed a new direction, at least as far as Singapore sport is concerned.

Academic dismisses Forbes commentary, but says….

The Independent
-
0
Academic dismisses Forbes commentary, but says….

A stinging commentary in Forbes about Singapore’s march towards an Iceland-like economic meltdown is making the rounds online. Here, academic Donald Low digs into the article dismissing its main thesis but saying there are some valid points that the government should not ignore.

—

You have dismissed the Forbes piece in your Facebook post. Why so?

It’s far too sweeping and alarmist. If we look at the usual triggers of financial crises, they are mostly non-existent in Singapore. We don’t have a large current account deficit – on the contrary, we have a huge current account surplus. We don’t have a large fiscal deficit – we run structural surpluses. And we don’t have a highly leveraged or indebted household or corporate sector.

On the point about a housing bubble in Singapore fuelled by low interest rates, the Forbes commentary is partially correct – house prices have indeed risen partly because of historically low interest rates. But to claim that we are on the verge of financial collapse on account of that is utter nonsense. Our leverage ratios are still healthy and I suspect a large part of the run-up in housing prices in recent years is inadequate supply – a problem which has now been largely corrected.

Will we see house prices fall this year? Yes, quite possibly. My guess is by 10 per cent but even if house prices were to fall by 20 per cent, I don’t think it will impact the health of our banks or our households. Some households will have negative equity, but as long as they have the cash flow to service their mortgages, it will not precipitate a financial crash.

Are there any points in the Forbes comment you agree with?

There is one argument from the article that is worth highlighting and which I mostly agree with. And that is booms which are led by real estate development and the financial sector are mostly illusory. They create the impression of economic dynamism without creating any real productive capacity in the economy (think back to Bangkok, KL and Jakarta just before the Asian crisis). They also distort and re-direct resources away from productive activities. Real estate and finance are inherently distributive, not creative, activities – they move money and wealth around, but they don’t lead to any productive capacity and technological capabilities for the economy.

I have argued that the Singapore government should look not just at the quantity of growth, but also the quality of growth. I have in mind not just equity and distributional considerations, but also the composition of growth. Is the growth coming from manufacturing and high value-added services, or is it dominated by real estate and finance? If it’s the latter, we have a structural problem.

What is the likely impact of the government policy that depends on housing and rich foreigners to pump up growth?

I’m quite concerned about the efforts to attract high net worth individuals to Singapore, to make Singapore a wealth management hub for the rich, and to bring in more billionaires even if they increase inequality. Such efforts were building up rapidly just before the 2008 crash. In a sense, the crisis couldn’t have occurred at a better time for Singapore because it corrected a lot of our obsession with growing as fast as we could when the conditions were favorable.

The idea that we should grow as much as we can – never mind the source of that growth or the quality of that growth – is quite misguided and myopic. Relying on inflows of foreign monies to finance real estate domestically is often a recipe for financial disaster. I think our regulators in MAS understand this very well, but sometimes the rhetoric of policy makers in other parts of government create the impression that such a boom is desirable.

Financial crises are always preceded by a period in which people generally subscribe to “stories” that “this time it’s different”. During the dot.com bubble, the story was that information technologies have fundamentally transformed the economy and we can expect permanent higher growth rates and asset prices. In the run-up to the US financial crisis, there was a widespread belief that house prices will not fall, that financial innovation has spread risks and reduced the likelihood of financial crises, and that financial liberalisation is an unambiguously good thing. Such stories led to very high levels of leverage, imprudent lending and borrowing, and in some instances, outright fraud and criminality on the part of banks.

So I think the costs to the economy and society of relying on asset price inflation and rich people to raise our growth rates far outweigh their benefits. What productive capacity do property speculators and high net worth individuals who park their monies in Singapore help to create? So yes, we get a wealth management industry that employs a few thousand people and manages several billion dollars. We can do without these benefits.

Meanwhile, their costs in terms of raising property prices, increasing the risks of financial crashes, the competition they create for positional goods, and their ostentatious lifestyles undermine our egalitarian norms and values. They also reduce the trust and mutual regard citizens have for one another, undermining their willingness to contribute to a more equal society. All in, I would say that the efforts to attract rich foreigners (and their monies) to Singapore are quite ill-advised.

COE supply down, prices up

The Independent
-
0
COE supply down, prices up

CAR certificate of entitlement (COE) prices hit an all time low. From February to April, there will be 1,800 car COEs available, 10 per cent down from the current 1,996 COEs on the market.

Total COEs, including commercial vehicles and motorbikes, went down by 12 per cent from 3,471 (August 2012 to January 2013) to 3,043 a month (February 2014 to April 2014).

Less supply, COE prices are likely to rise.

Land Transport Authority (LTA) have recently revised its allocation method from a six-month allocation system to a new three-month system. LTA claims that the previous method would have resulted in even smaller COE supply.

COE supply is determined by the number of deregistered vehicles in the preceding period. Deregistration is projected to rise later this year as more cars are expected to reach their 10-year mark (end of lifespan).

Yet critics argue that the new allocation method is problematic.

Singapore Vehicle Traders Association secretary Raymond Tang said this method allows big players to control the COE supply by either delaying or speeding up the number of cars scrapped.

He adds that people want to see stable COE prices, “they don’t like to see prices going up and down.” The COE bidding exercise held early this year resulted in an increase of COE prices in the open category, big cars and motorcycles (source Channel News Asia).

Needless to say, car prices will remain high according to motor traders, at least until April.

Look at hawker stall rents first

The Independent
-
0
Look at hawker stall rents first

Cheap and good – that is what Singaporeans expect of their hawker food. Rising operation costs are, however, forcing food prices to go up, prompting a re-think of how hawker centres are run. The government has proposed outsourcing the management of four hawker centres to a social enterprise. Will that work?

This social enterprise, operating on a  not-for-profit model, will share operating surpluses among stakeholders, such as  hawkers, managers and the National Environment Agency, as “social benefits”. But  it will still face the same problem of high rentals.

Mr Leong Sze Hian agreed. Writing for The Online Citizen, he argued: “Shouldn’t we be examining what is arguably the biggest cost item for most stalls – rental?”

If hawkers have to pay high rentals, they will be forced to pass on the cost to their customers through higher food prices. Subsidised cooked food stallholders pay monthly subsidised rents of $260 to $320. Monthly subsidised rentals run from $5 to $184. Market rents are much higher.

Singaporeans want cheap and readily available food. But at whatever prices they sell their food, hawkers must be able to cover costs. To keep hawker prices low, management has to set low rents.

Unlike normal business operations, a “non-profit” social enterprise should have more leeway to maintain reasonable rents.

Going beyond rent

Going beyond rent, there are other questions about the not-for-profit model. KF Seetoh, founder of Makansutra, said the media had not gone beyond the facts and official statements. “The  government has been running hawker centres for decades, and now, they suddenly  believe there could be non-profit groups out there that can do a better job. I  mean, where will the groups come from?”

In response to Seetoh’s questions  on Facebook, Richard Tan, head of NEA’s hawker division, said: “At the  end of the day – it is to see who can manage centres more efficiently – the  private sector or NEA.”

The nuts and bolts of the operating model have yet to be worked out. According to Tan, the master tenant (MT)  will receive a management fee for managing the centre. “If the MT is good he  should be able to reduce maintenance cost to arrive at a surplus which will be shared. ”

The Hawker Centres Public Consultation Panel said potential management models should be based on three principles, in  descending order of importance: maximising community benefit, creating employment opportunities for lower-income and less privileged groups and providing platforms for individuals who wish to join the food industry.

Seetoh also wondered what kind of key performance indicators the social enterprise would have to meet. These KPIs are not publicly available.

What assessment criteria that are  available might be gleaned from the panel’s recommendations, above and beyond the principles mentioned above. These include aesthetically pleasing designs,  promoting social graciousness by encouraging a tray return system, energy  efficiency, and healthy food options.

Previous attempts for social  enterprises to run hawker centres have failed, notably the Kampung at  Simpang Bedok. Nevertheless, the government seems intent on tackling the issue  of rising food prices. This is a positive sign, suggesting a move away from pure  profit motive and towards social good.

Tommy and Kishore: What a contrast

The Independent
-
0
Tommy and Kishore: What a contrast

By Augustine Low

Kishore Mahbubani, writing in The Straits Times on Jan 11, says emphatically: “Name me one other society which has developed as comprehensively and as rapidly as Singapore has in its first 50 years after independence.”

He adds that “so far, no one has been able to give me an answer to this question” – although it comes across as more a challenge than a question.

Kishore goes on to produce a chart which shows that Singapore’s GDP has grown much faster relative to that of neighbours Malaysia and Indonesia from 1965 to 2005. He warns, however, that it will get tougher, as our neighbours surge ahead.

Kishore could well be right in that no other country can surpass Singapore’s level of growth in the past 50 years. After all, he bases his argument on purely economic terms. Certainly not taking into account the happiness or graciousness index, the freedom of the press index, or how well a country looks after its poorest, not its wealthiest.

I find it intriguing to compare Kishore’s views with those of his counterpart Tommy Koh. Both are arguably Singapore’s most illustrious diplomats, with Kishore previously succeeding Tommy as Singapore’s Permanent Representative at the United Nations. Both currently serve at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, with Tommy the Special Adviser and Kishore the Dean.

So they have a lot in common, they are products of the same system. But this is where the similarity ends. The two have markedly different approaches and bearings.

Unlike Kishore, Tommy has not been known to dwell on economic success and GDP. He has frequently spoken out against Singapore’s widening income gap between rich and poor, describing it as “socially unconscionable” and calling for the urgent need to “fundamentally alter the wages of the bottom 30 per cent of our people.” He has also argued in favour of minimum wage and inclusive growth to bridge the rich-poor divide.

Kishore, on the other hand, had emphatically declared in 2011: “There are no homeless, destitute or starving people (in Singapore). Poverty has been eradicated.”

I see it as a tribute to the Singapore system that in these two men, one a mentor of the other, we are able to discern such a disparity in the way they articulate their views and express their hopes and misgivings.

Tommy, coming across as less imposing of the two, is one who wears his heart on his sleeve. He appears to be the only person in the Establishment who can get away with periodically contesting the status quo and even contesting the entrenched beliefs of Lee Kuan Yew.

For example, he has said that he disagrees with Lee on a number of issues, including Lee’s views:

  • That Singapore is too small and lacks the critical mass to produce a world champion in manufacturing
  • That Singapore is not ready for a non-Chinese prime minister
  • That inter-racial marriages go against the grain and usually do not work

Perhaps, Tommy is proof that we should not underestimate the wonders and powers of diplomacy. Not just across borders, but within the confines of a country. Tommy is also one influential Singaporean who is unafraid to engage in what could be deemed as needless talk. He has for example shared about his love of trees, in particular a tembusu heritage tree at the Botanic Gardens which he holds exceptionally dear. A man who has such fondness for a tree must be a poet or painter at heart. And in my book, that sort of man has his heart in the right place.

Is Singapore Still Ideal for Expats? (Spoiler: Opposite of Yes)

The Independent
-
0
Is Singapore Still Ideal for Expats? (Spoiler: Opposite of Yes)

Looks like Singapore’s no longer a favourite among expatriates. It’s unfair, considering all the things we’ve done for those people (i.e. gripe about their income, claim they steal jobs, and generally use them as people-shaped battering rams in political battles). Let’s take a look at some of the reasons for our break-up:

By “looking for innovators”, we mean “people who have ways of turning their money into our money”.

What’s Up With Expats and Us?

Singapore has been the number one destination of choice for expats for the past two years. But as reported, HSBC’s recent survey shows we’ve fallen into third place. We’re trailing behind China and Germany now.

Among the key reasons given were:

  • Job Security
  • Rent and Housing
  • Cost of Living

In other words, they’ve learned to complain about the same things we do. Someone get the damn champagne; this might be the only time a Stomp commenter and a foreigner can agree on something.

1. Job Security

The only way job security’s compromised in THIS industry is if you forget the helmet.

More than 50% of survey respondents claimed the lack of job security put them off Singapore. The global average is just 39%, so as usual, we’ve come out top. Go Team Singapore.

The main reason seems to be the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF). Starting from August 2014, employers must offer job vacancies to Singaporeans for 14 days before approaching Employment Pass (EP) holders. The minimum income of EP holders has also gone up, from $3,000 to $3,300 a month.

That’s not an issue to big companies, but smaller ones have less incentive to hire foreigners.

2. Rent and Housing

These days, if an expatriate buys a house, everyone wants to know where he hides the cocaine.

The Additional Buyers Stamp Duty (ABSD) adds a 15% stamp duty to housing prices. And this in one of the most expensive housing markets in the world. Foreigners also can’t buy HDB flats, so that mostly confines them to million dollar private condos / landed property.

Condo pool“For that unit price, you could pay me to drown an enemy developer in it.”

Then of course, there’s rent. At around $3,500 to $4,000 for a decent condo, and around $600 to $800 for a room in a flat, we’re not talking peanuts here. And rent is set to rise: as home loan interest rates go up, landlords will jack up the price to preserve rental income.

If this keeps up, the next batch of expats better bring their own barrels and cardboard boxes.

3. Cost of Living

You know the main issue with living on an island, without natural resources?

Every damn thing has to be imported. Singapore’s the sixth most expensive city in Asia, actually ranking ahead of Hong Kong. Even if you dodge the high grocery bills, eating out is insanely expensive. At an average of $20 (low estimate) per head, cafes and diners can cost up to $700 to $800 a month if you eat out regularly.

(Unless said expats are happy to eat in coffee shops)

Don’t forget public transport: it’s hard to take a cab anywhere for under $15 these days (and cab fares just went up again). And as for buying a car…look, no one’s going to throw down an average of $75,000 for down payment on a mid-range sedan. Even car leasing costs are excessive, running into over $1,000 a month.

Can Expats Survive in Singapore?

Singapore cityYou CAN survive here. There’s fish in there, and sometimes the rainwater’s drinkable.

There are still ways to keep costs down in Singapore. It means making sacrifices; ones that fewer expats are willing to accept.

  • Avoid the expensive private schools, and go for neighbourhood schools. Our educational standards are pretty high across the board, so a quality education’s assured.
  • Take the bus and MRT. It may be slow, the seats may smell like an unwashed hobo’s crotch, but you will save thousands every month.
  • Rent a HDB flat in non-mature estates, if you don’t need fast access to town. It’s about 20% cheaper, for the mild inconveniences. (And if you come from Australia or something, our concept of “far away” is your concept of “within the backyard”)

For more on affordable expat living in Singapore, follow us on Facebook.

Image Credits:
jjcb, futureshape, International Real Estate Listings, Arian Zwegers

Source: http://www.moneysmart.sg/money-talks/is-singapore-still-ideal-for-expats-spoiler-opposite-of-yes/

The 5 Stupidest Ways Singaporeans Deal with Debt

The Independent
-
0
The 5 Stupidest Ways Singaporeans Deal with Debt
Somewhere in Singapore, someone is running a graduate course in advanced bankruptcy. Maybe it’s broadcast on a special wavelength, a sound frequency only morons can hear. I suspect this because there’s too much consistency in Singapore’s bankruptcy cases. Chief example? The Singaporean (soon-to-be) bankrupt’s response to debt. There’s a country wide trend here, and these are the five signs. If you see someone exhibiting the symptoms, I recommend a splash of cold water and a tight slap:

“Because it’s the last thing I have to eat. Give me an advance damn it!”

1. Fix a Loan By Taking a Worse Loan

Taking a loan to pay another loan is bad enough; it’s a gesture of last resort. But some Singaporeans have learned how to take a bad situation, and make it worse.

“Why not pay off my 24% APR credit card,” they wonder, “by using my 24.8% APR card!”

Why would they do this? It’s a face saving gesture. Most Singaporeans are so embarrassed about bankruptcy, they’ll scramble for any credit line that will hide the fact. Even if it means switching a loan with higher interest, or contacting the local loan-shark.

Look, if you’re so deep in depth that printing your bills endangers a small rainforest, maybe it’s time to default. Declaring bankruptcy always sucks; but it’s better to declare it while you owe $10,000, than wait until you owe $20,000. Which is precisely what will happen if you keep deferring to higher interest loans. It’s like trying to stop blood loss by bathing in leeches.

Fixing credit debt with a loan with lower interest does, however, make a bit more sense. In extreme situations, taking out a personal loan may help, and you can get all the help you need with a personal loan over at SmartLoans.sg. Do bear in mind however, that this will affect your Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR) should you choose to try and apply for a housing loan. That being said, if you’re already so deep in debt, chances are paying it off ranks a lot higher on the “importance” scale than getting a housing loan.

“You in the front. Looks like I haven’t borrowed from you yet!”

2. Cash Out Refinancing for the Irresponsible

Cash out refinancing is ordinarily a great thing. This is when you use your home equity for a loan, and get an interest rate pegged to your home loan. It’s cheaper than a credit card, and provides great leverage when used responsibly.

But in the hands of someone with credit card debt, it’s like playing baseball with a live grenade. Because once the loan pays off the cards, they’re available for use again.

I can’t stress that enough: The cards are available for use again. You couldn’t have a worse situation if you hired a morphine addict to manage the hospital pharmacy. Almost invariably, the out-of-control spender will again max out the credit cards. And this time, the credit card loans will be compounded by the refinancing loan.

That said, cash out refinancing is a viable way to control debt. But only if there is an income source (one that can service the loan), and it’s accompanied by the closure of other credit lines.

Me sleeping at my compAt MoneySmart, we have no fear of losing our homes. Because we never go there anyway.

3. Borrow from Relatives and Friends

Finance and personal relationships mix like me and too much Thai food; the end result is a stink that’d kill a skunk.

When you borrow from a relative or friend, there’s no paperwork. That means no receipts or ledgers, and the amounts repaid (or owed) become easily confused. Even if you honestly pay them back (assuming you can), they might forget or miscalculate. It’s not easy to separate emotion from business, and before you know it, you’re the star of this week’s In Cold Blood.

Besides, when you borrow from friends or family, you turn the relationship into a financial transaction. No offence, but if you’re in debt, that’s probably a sign you suck at handling those. It’s hard to maintain a relationship when your relative’s face resembles a reminder bill.

Someone sneaking around“He uh…agreed to lend me money on condition he wasn’t looking. Really.”

4. Resort to Gambling

For anyone with a functioning brain, this may be hard to understand. So here’s the rationale, which I got from a frequent revolver:

Say you have a total debt of $150,000, which requires total monthly repayments of $4,500. Your total salary, without CPF, is $3,000 (Yes, this was a real situation). If you were to put all of your income into repayments, you still wouldn’t cover the bills, and you’d still be living off free samples at Cold Storage.

So instead of paying any bills at all, you may as well blow the $3,000 on the lottery. After all, you might win enough to cover your debt.

Admittedly, there’s a kind of perverse logic to it. The problem is twofold: First, you’re more likely to get killed by a falling asteroid than win Toto. Second, your debts are accumulating at an exponential rate: Winning the lottery takes several draws, and by the time you win (hah, right!) the prize money vs. your debt will be like a spit ball fired at a battle tank.

Line of jackpot machines“We have a very attractive line of investment options…”

5. Repeatedly Ask Your Boss for Advances

Pop quiz: Is it better to be in debt with a stable income, or in debt with no income?

If you repeatedly ask your boss for an advance, you might as well pick the latter. It may not be as blatant as a firing; but some companies would rather give you a severance package and get rid of you.

When you keep asking for advances, it becomes obvious to your boss that you’re in debt. It’s the sort of thing that makes companies nervous: Employees in debt are prone to distraction, unproductive behaviour, and flat out embezzling the petty cash. Your boss assumes (quite rightly) that if you’re down to your last 80 cents, the last thing on your mind is what colour the website should be.

When your debt situation peaks, your job becomes twice as valuable. You need to protect it, and when your company finds out, you need to prove it won’t interfere with your work. Obviously, nagging for an advance does just the opposite.

Rock with "No" spray painted on it“Thanks for that rock you hurled through my window boss. But any news about my advance?”

Image Credits:
Finsec, craigmdennis, prayitno, Marc Falardeau, kalleboo

Have you witnessed any of these debt issues before? Comment and let us know!

Like Mandela, time to forgive

The Independent
-
0
Like Mandela, time to forgive

By Tan Bah Bah

Singapore will celebrate its 50th year of independence next year. In typical Singapore style, the government will pull out all stops – short of dressing up the Istana in red and white neon – to make sure it will be the best ever and most memorable national birthday party in the country’s history.

Such celebrations, however, are meaningless if even one citizen cannot take part. A society does not consist of only people who think, talk and act the same way and agree on everything.

In the struggle for independence – the half century of which we will happily mark in 2015 – different parties, forces and personalities have fought the current ruling party to win the hearts and minds of earlier generations. The People’s Action Party was never the only party which had popular support.

White was not the only colour in the political landscape. Besides the men in white, others came in different shades.

There were the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers Party, the Singapore People’s Alliance, United People’s Party and the Liberal-Socialists, representing various groups of interests and political leanings. Even while the PAP was dominant or monopolistic, the WP under J.B. Jeyaretnam and Chiam See Tong and his Singapore Democratic Party were present in Parliament. Remember also that at any one time, there has always been a central core of 25-30 per cent anti-PAP voters who either had voted against the party or spoilt their votes.

At different times, Singapore has had its share of political exiles and detainees who had problems with the authorities. Some of the more well-known earlier exiles or dissidents included the likes of Chia Thye Poh. The later ones would be Tan Wah Piow, Francis Seow and Tang Liang Hong.

Tan was arrested in 1974 for unlawful assembly and rioting in his University of Singapore days and then accused in 1987 of being the mastermind behind a Marxist conspiracy to overthrow the government.

Chia, a Barisan Sosialis MP, was detained for conduct prejudicial to the stability of Singapore and spent many of his detention years in Sentosa. Francis Seow, a former Solicitor-General, Law Society President and Workers Party candidate, went into exile in the United States after being embroiled in lawsuits brought against him by Lee Kuan Yew. And Tang Liang Hong, who stood for election in Cheng San GRC on a WP ticket, was accused of being anti-Christian and anti-Muslim and was sued for defamation by several PAP MPs. He left for Australia.

All exiles are or have been Singapore citizens (whatever the current status of some of them over the years). Year by year, there is less and less reason to keep these Singaporeans out of their country.

Many young Singaporeans do not know these exiles. In fact, quite a number are really not interested. The effects of depoliticisation had its peak when the PAP was so dominant in the 1980s that the party even toyed with the idea of transforming itself into a national movement. The idea was to allow the party to govern the Republic without the dissipating distraction of contentious politics, a theme which was to reappear in a statement by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (“I’m going to spend all my time thinking what’s the right way to fix them… how can I solve this week’s problem and forget about next year’s challenges?”).

There is no need to “fix” anything.

Singapore should open its doors to its exiles. In a supreme act of forgiveness, the late Nelson Mandela, who spent 27 years years in jail and could not attend the funeral of his mother, prevented untold bloodshed in South Africa. Instead of seeking revenge for the apartheid programme, he sought reconciliation with his erstwhile Afrikaaner colonial masters.

Younger Singaporeans also have to be told the complete unadulterated Singapore story. As it is, local think tanks and tertiary political and history departments operate with large chunks of blank spaces.

Most important of all, it is about making every Singaporean count in next year’s celebrations. US President John Kennedy flew all the way in 1963 to the then West Berlin just to declare “Ich bin ein Berliner” (“I am a Berliner”).

Let Singapore’s sons come back and join the bigger family in celebrating the once impossible dream that one day “We are all Singaporeans”.

Rex cinema incident and the cultural context

The Independent
-
0
Rex cinema incident and the cultural context

An eye-witness has given an account of  what happened at the Rex Cinema in Selegie Road last night which throws into question the role of  the Police in such incidents. Tensions built up when the operator had to cancel the world premiere of a Tamil movie, Veeram, starring superstar Ajith Kumar. Most of the moviegoers were foreign workers, some of  whom claimed they had queued for tickets for more than six hours. The Straits Times reported that 10 police officers were called in when members of the crowd began shouting at cinema staff, but the incident was resolved peacefully.

Blogger and National Solidarity Party member Ravi Philemenon was present at the scene, and wrote an eyewitness account on his Facebook wall. “At no time were the moviegoers rowdy,” he insisted. “They were very reasonable.” Philemenon also called out the behaviour of the police. “The police used words like “dei!, dei! move out! move out!” .” While ‘dei’ is a term of endearment in Tamil if used between friends, it is considered rude if used by strangers.

Mr Philemenon added that the police were “talking loudly” to the moviegoers, including himself, until he identified himself as a Singaporean. Even then, Philemenon said, the officer “still tried to get his point across without wanting to listen to me” until Philemenon offered to explain the situation and interpret for the police. The situation was without further tension.

The cultural context is very crucial when it comes to dealing with foreign workers. Take the Rex Cinema incident, for example. If the police had understood the fact for Indian movie fans, especially those from Tamil Nadu, watching a film of  their favourite star during the first show and on the first day is like an honour. Back home, they hero worshop their favourite stars. They bring some of  these habits here.

With that context in mind, the police could have understood the cinema goers’ anxiety a little more. . And the situation could have been handled better.

1...5,1895,1905,191...5,237Page 5,190 of 5,237

The Independent SG

Singapore News

Dennis Tan: I get feedback on cost of living issues every day

0
SINGAPORE: In a doorstop interview with the media, Workers’...

Cost of living, home affordability, govt accountability are top concerns for GE2025—survey

0
SINGAPORE: A survey from Milieu Insight released shortly before...

Neighbour won’t spay her cat — now their area is full of mess and strays, says resident

0
SINGAPORE: A frustrated resident took to an online forum...

Job seeker asks: ‘Is it really that hard to get hired now, or is it just me?’

0
SINGAPORE: A job seeker who has been applying for...

Business

Trump’s tariff policy does not represent all of America

0
Interview with Seth Moulton during MAVEK Technology Series 2025, hosted...

‘Still no job since graduation’: 22-year-old S’porean diploma holder questions if full-time uni is the better path

0
SINGAPORE: Yet another young Singaporean has taken to social...

‘I’m working 7 days a week at this point’: Overworked intern opens up about toxic boss and senior colleagues

0
SINGAPORE: Despite having worked at the company for only...

Travel platform RateHawk reports 67% global bookings surge in 2024 as travel demand rebounds

0
B2B travel solutions firm RateHawk reported a 67% increase...

Singapore Politics

© The Independent Singapore