By Michael Y.P. Ang
While Gabriel Quak’s confident finishing within a minute of his competitive debut for Singapore during the Lions’ surprising 2-1 victory over Syria in last month’s Asian Cup qualifier was understandably a memorable moment for the 22-year-old winger, it was certainly a significant, if not priceless, match-winning goal for Singapore.
It gave the Lions their first win in 11 competitive matches (World Cup or Asian Cup qualifiers) against a higher-ranked non-Asean team, ending 45 months of misery for the national team and giving Singapore’s football fraternity a huge confidence-booster.
Before that, the Lions had lost 10 consecutive matches against continental opponents, a losing streak that began in January 2010 under former coach Raddy Avramović.
Besides shoving aside the Lions’ losing habit, the 2-1 win is also significant because it was earned by a team solely comprising native-born players.
Let’s hope coach Bernd Stange can build on last month’s victory to lift the Lions to greater heights.
While the German works on improving the national team, the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) should tackle persistent problems within the sport.
In recent years, I have noticed grave signs creeping into our national game. I see three corrosive characteristics plaguing Singapore football. Farce, apathy, and stagnation have become synonymous with football in the Republic.
FARCE – FAS’ Farcical Governance of Football
The way the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) has been governing its sport since Zainudin Nordin took over the FAS Presidency in April 2009 is, at times, so absurd and disorganised, one cannot help but conclude that Singapore football is full of farce.
1. Lowering preset target to avoid admitting failure to meet goal
In April 2010, the FAS showed its commitment to pursuing football excellence with its comprehensive blueprint for football development. Under the FAS Strategic Plan, the main target is for Singapore to ascend to Asia’s top-10 ranking by 2015.
Another important goal was to reach the 10-team Asian fourth-round World Cup qualifiers that would begin in 2012.
However, after the Lions recorded Singapore’s worst-ever campaign in the group stages of World Cup qualifying, losing all their third-round matches in 2011-12, Zainudin conveniently lowered that target by claiming that Singapore has met its goal of reaching the third round!
2. ‘Disbanding’ the Lions – words only, no action
Perhaps the clearest sign of a disorganised FAS comes from that comical episode involving the Lions’ ‘disbandment’ in January 2011.
Following the Lions’ disastrous ASEAN Championship (Suzuki Cup) campaign the previous month, when Singapore crashed out in the first round for the first time since 2002, Zainudin decided to rebuild the national team by proclaiming that only a few of the Suzuki Cup players would be retained to form the core of a new Lions squad.
Merely four months later, however, then-national coach Raddy Avramović took the opposite route, retaining 14 of the 22 Suzuki Cup players to prepare for the second-round World Cup qualifiers against Malaysia.
Was Zainudin fully in control of the FAS?
3. Hiring a foreigner with lousy business background to run S-League’s business affairs
In January 2012, the FAS hired a Frenchman, who was banned from managing any sole proprietorship in France and whose own companies there had been liquidated, to run the S-League as a business more effectively.
The FAS attributed this misstep to the Frenchman’s “honest mistake” for not fully disclosing his business background.
Does the FAS solely rely on its job applicants to voluntarily reveal pertinent information, without doing adequate background checks?
This raises doubts about the professionalism of the FAS recruitment process.
4. FAS President claims Singapore football on right track – but is it really?
Singapore football enjoyed a little spark in December 2012 when the Lions won a record fourth ASEAN Championship.
During an Istana reception for the Lions the following month to celebrate their historic triumph, Zainudin said: “The evolution of the Lions into champions shows that the development of Singapore football is on the right track.”
Although the Asean Championship is the lowest level of competition the Lions participate in, winning it is nevertheless worth celebrating. In some small measure, it lifts the Singaporean spirit.
However, why did Zainudin put so much weight on such a minor regional title, yet last month called on Singaporeans not to look too much into the Lions’ results on the more-important continental stage?
Prior to Tuesday’s win against Syria, the Lions have scored only four times and conceded a whopping 31 goals in 10 consecutive defeats in competitive matches.
Even if Singapore keeps winning the Asean Championship but continually fails to leave its mark on the continental stage, this cannot be considered as being “on the right track”.
Michael Y.P. Ang is semi-retired. He was a sports administrator at the Singapore Sports Council’s sports excellence division and sports journalist with Channel NewsAsia.
In Part 2 tomorrow, he will cover two other corrosive characteristics plaguing Singapore football – apathy and stagnation.
Finally, a glimmer of hope, but FAS must… (Part 1)
Malik Imtiaz: South-East Asia is notoriously corrupt
By Kumaran Pillai
Malaysia, along with China, is one of the most corrupt nations in the world, according to an Asia-Pacific Fraud Survey Report Series 2013.
Speaking at a Media Law Policy forum in Hong Kong, Malaysian civil rights lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar spoke about the levels of corruption in Malaysia affecting good governance and socio-political stability there.
Imtiaz said that the “the rule of law is generally lacking in South-east Asia” with Singapore being the exception. He said that the judiciary is conservative but functioning in Singapore. Speaking after Singaporean civil rights lawyer M. Ravi, he qualified his statement by saying, “the grass is always greener on the other side.”
In contrast, he said that Malaysian public institutions like the judiciary and AGC are operating under a veneer of legitimacy and are used by politicians to stifle dissent. He called on the Malaysian press to put their judiciary and the judicial processes under scrutiny.
Referring to the widespread corruption in Malaysia, along with other Asian countries, Imtiaz quipped: “Malaysia is truly Asia.”
At the last Malaysian General Elections, 53% of the electorate voted for Pakatan Rakyat but they did not come into power due to political interference in the electoral process. Imtiaz cited this as another example of how the ruling party uses public apparatus to maintain power.
The Malaysian government is known to use the law to stifle dissent: they use criminal defamation and sedition laws to arrest and detain opposition politicians and critics.
It now has new powers to control any activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy. According to Imtiaz, Bersih and other civil rights groups in Malaysia are at risk of being prosecuted under the new law. The law is so broad that anyone who is involved in an “activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy” can be imprisoned for a term that may extend to 20 years while those attempting to do so can be imprisoned up to 15 years.
The amended Section 130A defines what constitutes an offence against parliamentary democracy: any activity carried out by a person, or a group of persons, or a group, designed to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by violent or unconstitutional means.
Sections 124D and 125D of the Act state that anyone who prints, publicises, sells, issues, circulates,reproduces or possesses any document or publication detrimental to parliamentary democracy can be imprisoned for a term that may extend to 15 years.
In a published article, Imtian said: “Architects of autocracies would benefit tremendously from studying the Malaysian model. It stands as a shining example of how, given the right combination of greed, ambition, maladministration and contempt for the rule of law, any democracy can be recast into an autocracy while preserving the veneer of democratic process.”
It makes one wonder what would be his fate if he said such things in Singapore?
A drizzle of inflationary pebbles?
By Mary Lee
A life-long lesson for the ruling People’s Action Party in how-not-to-win-votes has to be the White Paper on Population. Seen in calm hindsight, it was a typical policy paper, published after controlled feedback sessions with – one assumes – unemotional types eager to express an opinion to the government.
Particular mention of nursing and teaching assistants’ salaries rising have been made. So higher medical costs are not far off… Reason? Shortage of workers. Cause? Public outrage at the number of foreigners working in Singapore.
So perhaps Singaporeans shouldn’t be targeting foreign workers. Their angst should be directed elsewhere.
Incidentally, should the PAP town council cleaning contractors claim they can’t get locals to sign up at $1,200 a month, they should pay the market rate for cleaners, instead of being allowed to hire foreigners for the unskilled job of cleaning (although I really like the cheerful young Bangladeshi who cleans my corridor once a month for $700!).
Song and dance over a sampan
By Tan Bah Bah
Times have changed and yet they have really not – at least judging from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s criticism of commentator Koh Buck Song.
PM Lee prefers that we continue to regard the country as an upgraded sampan – sampan 2.0 – rather than a cruise ship. Not so poor, not so defenceless and better off than before. But certainly not a luxury liner on which we can all stop working hard, start to relax and have a holiday.
Koh did not exactly go to the extreme of saying we can switch off entirely. He was trying to make a point that we are not helpless and that we should have built up enough resilience to withstand the waves of global economic competition. To continue to stress that Singapore is a helpless sampan floundering in the ocean promotes small-mindedness and crimps our self-confidence and ambition, he said. Nothing seriously wrong with Koh’s points, nothing that needed the Riot Act to be read out to him.
Why then did PM Lee’s eyes pop out when he read the opinion piece? Obviously, taking Lee’s strong reaction at face value, if everybody cruises and no one wants to work, the country will be in trouble. It will not do to have many Singaporeans sharing this part of Koh’s comments.
Lee’s chastising of Koh was fairly gentle. The man was not sent to the dungeon and, as far I know, life is pretty much the same for him today as it was before the publication of the cruise ship article. And I think the “scolding” will be confined to the PM’s remarks at the Paris press conference on Oct 30. That is as it should be.
Koh was simply airing his views. He did not “attack” the Cabinet or the government and there was no question of any kind of public retraction a la Ngiam Tong Dow.
Compare that to two other quite different examples of the government coming down hard on public comments on national issues.
In 1984, Kannan Chandran, a writer at The Straits Times Life section, wrote a reaction piece on a local TV series on life in our armed forces. The first PM, Lee Kuan Yew, was unhappy with his comments and he highlighted them in Parliament. More or less, Lee Kuan Yew was asking what credentials Chandran had to comment on the goings-on in the military. He even zoomed in on the writer’s education profile and military record, alluding to his relatively lowly ranks and hence ineligibility to talk about the military or NS men.
That was like mounting a fullscale battalion frontal assault on a lonely and unsuspecting adversary on a hillock. Overkill.
Then there was Catherine Lim, who wrote that controversial article, The PAP and the People – The Great Affective Divide, which was published in The Straits Times in 1994. The second PM, Goh Chok Tong, spoke about OB Markers – referring to out of bounds topics which non-politicians, he said, should not get involved in. And Foreign Minister George Yeo later said she was boh tua boh suay (Hokien for “no big, no small”, meaning no respect for rank and seniority).
All three episodes – Koh, Chandran and Lim – represent the People’s Action Party’s use of examples, even people who have no ill intentions, now and then to remind the public of the party’s pre-eminent place at the top of the political totem pole. A flexing of its muscles – but today with the knuckle-dusters out of sight and kept in the locker.
The Koh and Lim affairs also reinforce the PAP leaders’ inherent dislike for certain liberal views.
The forms may have changed. Facebook, Twitter – they are into these just like anyone else who wishes to engage younger Singaporeans. Townhall dialogues in the heartland, supper talks, conversations – the PAP leaders will be there to listen patiently to you. Views you express on social media can be controlled and those at feedback sessions are restricted to a particular audience. But full-scale articles published in the mass media have a wider audience and a longer shelf span and will be challenged.
Having led the country to where it is through discipline, hard work and a supremely hands-on pragmatic approach to solving problems, the party has no patience with what it sees as NATO (no action talk only) liberals or dilettantes. The same way Lee Kuan Yew once dismissed erstwhile PAP colleagues, James Puthucheary and S. Woodhull, as “political dilettantes who enjoyed the cocktail circuit”.
The substance of the PAP philosophy has not changed an iotum. The party is perfectly entitled to sticking to its survivalist posture. But, after a while, the sampan 2.0 analogy is going to sound strange and out of sync. It requires some mental gymnastics to imagine Singaporeans enjoying a Swiss standard of living in a First World sampan.
Why PM wants the status quo
By Augustine Low
Singapore: First World, Cosmopolitan City, Shining Metropolis.
But still a sampan.
How incongruous that Singapore should still see itself as a sampan, after all that the country has achieved, and all the talk about how the country is consistently able to punch above its weight on the global stage.
But PM Lee Hsien Loong’s assertion this week that Singapore is still no more than an upgraded sampan – “Sampan 2.0” as he calls it – may be a well thought-out response after all.
It works for the PAP for three reasons.
Firstly, marketers call it the status quo strategy. Who represents the status quo? The men in white, who have always found it hard to shake off the perception that the Party is unable to transform and reinvent itself.
So, keeping the metaphor of sampan is very much in keeping with the status quo. In essence, it says that you must not rock the boat. Why depart from what has worked well for nearly 70 years, and brought us to where we are today?
Secondly, the sampan metaphor makes Singapore so insignificant that it becomes a wake-up call. It says that even if you have done well, you must behave like an fisherman eager for the next big catch.
This rules out complacency – just because you are on the rise doesn’t mean you can’t decline and fall. Barack Obama has carried out this strategy well – even when polls showed he was winning state after state, he behaved as if he were still struggling to compete.
Thirdly, the sampan metaphor harks back to the idea that Singapore has been transformed from a mud-flat swamp or fishing village. This is among Lee Kuan Yew’s most memorable quotes: “Over 100 years ago, this was a mud-flat swamp. Ten years from now, this will be a metropolis. Never fear.”
If Singapore continues to see itself as a sampan, then memories of the country’s remarkable transformation under the PAP will remain vivid.
So, all things considered, as far as the PAP is concerned, let’s not ditch the sampan.
What about Singaporeans? How do we see ourselves?
This is Steve Jobs’ most iconic quote: “It’s more fun to be a pirate than to join the Navy.”
It represents what Apple is all about: vigorous, irrepressible, courageous, brash. It points to a law of life, with implications far beyond shared metrics and confined boundaries.
Singaporeans as pirates aboard a sampan? Now, that would really be something.
Augustine Low is a communications strategist.
Political see saw. Really?
Former minister Raymond Lim says the next stage of Singapore’s development “is dependent on the young Singaporeans… whether we move from one party dominance to a two-party see-saw”.
As expected, Lim used an out-dated argument to question the need for a two-party system. Does such a system bring about consensus? And does it have the capacity to implement the decisions after consensus is reached.
Again, as expected, he pointed to the current gridlock in the US. He used a Barack Obama quote to make his point: “Is this change that we can believe in”?
We need to move away from arguments like these to come to a clearer understanding of the issues at stake:
One, single party dominance has its weaknesses. The main one is the lack of a responsible and robust check and balance system that sits outside government. However hard you try to manufacture such a system within government it will just not work. See how the recent housing and immigration policies have brought about so much pain for the people.
Two, the deep desire for change among the citizenry is not going to go away. And this desire is not just seen among the young, but also among the senior citizens.
Three, Singaporean are mature enough to sift the good from the bad. There are enough Singaporeans who have the maturity and ability to see which politicians and party are capable. The results of the last general election, presidential election and the two by-elections are clear indicators. It is timely to remember that a number of politicians even lost their deposits.
Forty eight years after independence and it is time to chuck some of the archaic thinking about politics into the dustbin of history.
HDB Flats for Singles: How They Will Affect You
Heaven forbid that we go one week without fighting over something in Singapore. The latest clash of arms is the “flats for singles” issue. Depending on which camp you’re in, this is either (1) a step toward remaking the Garden of Eden, or (2) turning the country into some sort of Stalinist, anti-family regime. We take a peek at both views, and ponder the effects on you:
What’s the Issue With Flats for Singles?
HDB has started selling flats directly to singles. This is under the Joint Singles Scheme, and the Single Singapore Citizen Scheme. We have an article explaining that here.
While singles are cheering, there’s also rising opposition to the idea. The impact can be felt by three main groups of people:
- Families Who Ballot / Will Ballot for BTO Flats
- Property Investors and Landlords
- Singles Who Can’t Get Married
1. Families Who Ballot / Will Ballot for BTO Flats
Around 30% of two-room flats are earmarked for singles. Because of overwhelming demand (each flat has about 58 singles fighting for it), excess flats from bidding exercises will also be allocated to singles. You can read the coverage on that here.
This bothers some families, who feel they may lose their flats. But how likely is that?
In our opinion, it’s improbable. Because take note: excess flats from bidding exercises are being given to singles. Families still have priority. And the fact that there’s an excess shows there’s more than enough flats to go around, at least in the two-room category.
Also, numbers suggest most families aren’t fighting for the same flats as singles. According to Channel NewsAsia:
“In comparison, the application rates of families for two-room flats came in much lower – between 0.8 and 1.1 for first-timers, and 1.9 and 3.2 for second-timers – which led to some property analysts to call on the HDB to increase the allocation of such units for singles.” – More Chances for Singles to Buy Flats (CNA, 21 Oct. 2013)
So long as the families keep getting their flats first, singles won’t be snatching homes from them. For more on how to ballot for flats, ask us on Facebook, or see our infographic guide.
2. Property Investors and Landlords
Treat your HDB flat like an asset? In that case, you’re losing a second group of potential buyers. The resale market already took a hit, when Permanent Residents (PRs) were forced to wait three years to buy.
As more flats become available to singles, it can only weigh down the Cash Over Valuation (COV). Property investor Charlie Sng feels that:
“There is no impact right now, because there are still a lot of singles who cannot get BTO flats. But as the number of flats for them grows, it will siphon off demand for resale flats. I think in future it will put some drag on COV prices…I suspect, a little bit, that this is part of HDB’s intent.”
My property’s near the train station. Perfect to rent, if you don’t want to leave your children any inheritance.
Charlie adds that the news isn’t favourable to landlords, for obvious reasons. Given the rate of property appreciation, almost every single will jump at a chance to buy instead of rent.
3. Singles Who Can’t Get Married
Single sex marriage isn’t permitted, so flats for singles are a godsend to gay couples. They’ll still be down $15,000 (the grant for getting married). But hey, at least they can get a home without buying private property.
Also, we have people who won’t settle down for personal reasons. The new singles schemes at least encourages them to stay on in Singapore.
Image Credits:
Phillipe Put, aenertia, HenryLeongHimWoh
Source: http://www.moneysmart.sg/housing-property/hdb-flats-for-singles-how-they-will-affect-you/
What Singaporeans Need to Know About Home Loan Refinancing in 2013
Back in 2011, I was convinced banks installed revolving doors just for home loan customers. People refinanced more often than we got to change underwear in NS. It was an industry norm; you’d pick the cheapest loan for three years, and then refinance on the fourth. Now from 2013 onward, it might not be that easy…but you can still save money:
What is Refinancing Anyway?
Refinancing is the process of transferring your home loan to another bank. We have an article on it, but here’s the quick summary:
When you get a home loan package, it tends to look something like this (exact numbers may vary):
Year 1: 3 Months SIBOR + 0.85%
Year 2: 3 Months SIBOR + 0.85%
Year 3: 3 Months SIBOR + 0.85%
Year 4 and Thereafter: 3 Months SIBOR + 1.25%! Special loyalty bonus! Now with extra cost!
(Don’t know what 3 months SIBOR means? Timothy Kua can explain that)
When you refinance, you switch the home loan package on that all-important fourth year. This keeps the home loan interest rates low. Refinancing is especially important in Singapore, because bank loans do not have permanent fixed rates.
Quick Note: Refinancing vs. Repricing
Refinancing means switching your home loan to another bank. Repricing also means switching your home loan, but to a package offered by the same bank you’re with.
For example, if you switch from a CIMB home loan package to a DBS home loan package, that’s refinancing. If you switch from CIMB home loan package X to CIMB home loan package Y, that’s repricing.
There is little difference between the two, except that legal and administrative paperwork might be cheaper. Some home loan packages offer one or two free repricings.
Why is Refinancing Different in 2013?
A number of factors makes refinancing different: new cooling measures, changing property market, Ben Bernanke’s mouth, etc. But while refinancing decisions are tougher, that doesn’t mean you can’t save money from it. You just need to look out for these:
- Rising Interest Rates
- Restrictions on Loan Tenure
- The New TDSR Framework
- Legal Subsidies are Restricted
1. Rising Interest Rates
Interest vs. money. It’s like an accountant’s version of extreme sports.
Interest rates are expected to rise, after being at their lowest for a decade. Now before you start ranting about Quantitative Easing, stop: contrary to popular belief, SIBOR hasn’t been shooting up like a heroin junkie.
Rather, the bank’s spread (the amount added to the 3 month SIBOR) has been going up. See, the recent slew of loan curbs has reduced the number of property buyers. That sucks for banks, who generate revenue by charging interest on home loans.
To make up for the falling number of borrowers, many banks are raising the interest they charge. This, more than anything, accounts for the rising rates.
This means home owners who want to refinance should check the “thereafter” rate on the new home loan they are eyeing (see the example above, where we wrote Year 4 and Thereafter). As interest rates rise, it might be wise to consider a good long term home loan package that has decent “thereafter” rates. Don’t be sucked into mistake of focusing only on the first 3 years and assume you can keep refinancing on the 4th year. Who knows, by then, the available home loan packages (4 years from now), might have year 1,2 and 3 rates that are higher than your existing “thereafter” rates. Nothing is 100% certain, but I’m just saying… 
If you need help looking for good long term home loan packages, you can look for one at SmartLoans.sg.
2. Restrictions on Loan Tenure
Under the new home loan curbs, the maximum loan tenure is 30 years for HDB flats and 35 years for private properties. This cannot be stretched by refinancing. An example:
Say I’ve had the same HDB home loan package for 11 years at Bank A. When I refinance into a new one at Bank B, the maximum loan tenure for the new package would be (30 – 11) = 19 years. It doesn’t matter if you got a longer loan tenure before (e.g. 40 year loan tenure). Everything will be re-adjusted to current rules and regulations when you refinance at this point.
Shorter loan tenures mean higher monthly repayments, which in turn mean a higher Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR). Some borrowers may not be able to refinance because of this.
3. The New TDSR Framework
And once my kid’s in Poly, I can stop donating bone marrow to afford lunch.
There is a new TDSR framework for home loans. Here’s the most important thing you need to know:
When you refinance, you are subject to the new TDSR framework.
Refinancing means going through a whole process of credit checks again. Your Mortgage Servicing Ratio needs to be 30% or under, you get a haircut on variable income, etc. In particular, note that the TDSR framework takes into account all unsecured credit facilities, such as credit cards. This was not the case prior to 2013.
So because current loan restrictions are tighter than before, you may find that you no longer qualify for a home loan. Still, there’s no harm in trying to refinance, if your current rate is high.
(At worst, you’re just stuck with your existing loan package. There’s no cost to find out).
4. Legal Subsidies are Restricted
There are some legal costs when you refinance your home loan. You need to entrust somebody with the proceedings, and lawyers are paragons of honesty.
Well, the lawyer costs about $2,000 to $3,000, give or take. A repricing is cheaper, and might cost between $500 to $800 (Both can be paid by CPF).
In the past, the banks almost always subsidised the legal fees. But due to tweaks by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), a lot of banks are no longer allowed to do this. What this means is that if you want to refinance your home loan, you need to ensure your monthly savings are not negated by the legal fees you have to pay upfront. If you’re paying $3,000 in legal fees but saving $500/mth, that’s a worthwhile switch (it will take you 6 months to “break even”). However, if you’re paying $3,000 to save $50/mth, that might not be so worthwhile (it will take you 60 months or 5 years to “break even”).
The minimum loan size to get a legal subsidy (as of October 2013) is around $300,000 to $600,000. Many banks do not even offer legal subsidies. Some examples of banks that do (and their minimum loan size requirements) are:
ANZ – $300,000
Citibank – $400,000
SCB – $300,000
BOC – $600,000
Should You Refinance?
At the very least, you should compare your home loan rates every three to five years. There may be something cheaper on the market, and there’s no harm trying for it (at worst, you just don’t qualify). You can use this nifty calculator to check how much it’d save (or cost) you.
You should also refrain from taking on a personal loan, car loan, etc. if you intend to refinance. The added debt could drive your TDSR past the 60% limit.
Image Credits:
Images_of_Money, Thant Zin Myint, RambergMediaImages, Joe Lanman,
Source: http://www.moneysmart.sg/home-loans/what-singaporeans-need-to-know-about-home-loan-refinancing-in-2013/
What the MCST Does for Your Condo (and How to Spot the Good Ones)
Sure, there are good condo management teams out there. They’re just about as easy to find as UFOs, Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster dancing a cha-cha in a kilt. They’re rare, is what I’m saying. But if you want your property to keep appreciating, and don’t want live in something resembling a Half-Life sewer level, you’d better pick a good one. Not all condo management teams are equal:
What is the MCST?
The Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) refers to the managing body of your condo. It’s formed under the Building Management and Strata Management Act (BMSM), Chapter 30C.
The name of the managing body is always presented as MCST No. XXXX, where the serial number is issued by the Building Control Authority (BCA).
For new condos, the property developer finds a condo management company within two months of the Temporary Occupancy Permit (TOP). After the first Annual General Meeting (AGM), control of the management committee is turned over to the property owners.
From there, property owners are free to:
- Appoint a professional condo management firm
- Form a management council from the existing property owners (if enough of them will volunteer and be accepted)
- Keep the existing condo management
In the event a management council is formed from the property owners, it’s common for them to hire a Managing Agent. A Managing Agent is an employee with experience in property management, and she runs the entire damn co…uh, the day-to-day administration of the condo.
What Exactly is the MCST Meant to Do?
I’d write you a complete list, but I suspect that’s impractical because I expect to die before the age of 110.
Instead, you can e-mail the MCST directly, and ask for a list of that MCST’s specific responsibilities (it may vary based on the property in question). Let’s cover the basic responsibilities most of them have:
- Manage the payroll of the staff (cleaners, pool technicians, administrators, etc. Some higher end condo management firms may also have concierge services)
- Pick the security company
- Basic building maintenance. Keeping walkways clean, maintaining gym equipment, maintaining intercom systems that no one in the history of Earth has found useful
- Community building, through organising flea markets, New Year parties, open bulletin boards, etc.
- Asset enhancement. Upgrading of current facilities, landscaping, or even creation of new facilities (about as common as a midget NBA all-star team)
If the management team lets those responsibilities slip, you’ll see the effects. The pool gets murky, the car park becomes a used furniture dump, and the gym locker rooms invite World Health Organization probes. In short, bad condo management = lower property values.
We can stop wear and tear. Tell the residents not to use the lockers for storage (true story)
Here’s how you can spot a good MCST:
- Attend the AGMs
- Get Tenant Feedback (if You’re a Landlord)
- Look for Asset Enhancement, not Just Maintenance
- Check the Management Corporation’s Other Clients
1. Attend the AGMs
I talked to property investor Charlie Sng, who has flipped (and owns) his fair share of condo units over the years. He believes that…
“You should attend the AGM. I know it’s very troublesome. Sometimes I find those non-professional councils are even quite irritating. But if you can, just try to stay informed. Usually I want to hear from the managing agent.
If you hear that certain things like plumbing or the pool filter are not fixed, and you hear the issue repeated next year, maybe the management cannot afford to replace things.”
Okay, and let’s say they can’t. What then?
“You can try and vote them out, good luck to you…it usually won’t work because they have their own cliques…
…you can factor it into your decision to sell. And you better save up to pay for maintenance issues; get ready to pay your own repairman for everything. When condo management cannot balance the books, any maintenance will take forever. If you rent out the place, it can tick off your tenants.”
If you are thinking of buying, Charlie suggests you ask the residents about their management council.
“Usually they will say ‘don’t know, don’t care’. To me that still means okay. But if they complain, then my eyes will open very big, and my ears will perk up.”
2. Get Tenant Feedback (if You’re a Landlord)
The language barrier isn’t a problem to getting feedback?? How do you manage that?
By “tenant feedback”, I don’t mean tenants yelling on the phone about broken air-conditioning, cracked windows, etc. Trust me, you’ll hear about that whether or not you seek it.
I’m talking about the things tenants don’t usually think to mention. Is the gym well maintained? Are the stores or cafes in the condo (if it has them) worth a damn? Do the cleaners leave dog poop to bake on the walkway for hours? And if they’ve ever complained about the neighbours being loud, how did the condo management respond?
Your tenants are there every day. If it’s clear the condo is going to pieces, they’ll see it long before you. Just don’t expect a situation report; take the initiative and ask.
3. Look for Asset Enhancement, not Just Maintenance
Before, it was just a communal dump. Asset enhancement FTW.
Maintenance is the most basic task of the MCST. But good condo management goes beyond that.
You should look at how the common areas have been enhanced over the years. Some examples would be optimisation of facilities (e.g. using part of the very empty clubhouse for a movie room), improvements to equipment in locker rooms, gyms, etc., or new facilities for resident needs.
“If the management is good, I can see it straight away,” Charlie says, “They will be always changing things, always trying to improve things. Not just sit in one corner quietly, and only show their face when something is broken.”
Asset enhancement can contribute toward capital appreciation. For more on issues affecting property value, follow us on Facebook.
4. Check the Management Corporation’s Other Clients
Before buying, ask the agent who’s managing the condo. Then check up on the management agent, corporation, etc. and see what other places they’ve worked on.
“Usually I don’t ask, if the management has not changed from the first year,” Charlie says, “because most property developers will not pick those lousy ones.
Otherwise, I will take note of other places that the management agent or the firm has worked on. If there were complaints there, there will probably be complaints here. If the place is run by the property owners, then of course you just have to take a risk; no samples to see!”
Had any good/bad experiences with your condo management? We’d like to hear them here!
Image Credits:
ssedro, Balaji Dutt, techgeekteacher, goosmurf, kodomut
Source: http://www.moneysmart.sg/housing-property/what-the-mcst-does-for-your-condo-and-how-to-spot-the-good-ones/
Sampan, cruise ship …no stormy seas, I hope
By Abhijit Nag
I thought I was on an island. Now I am all at sea. Is this a cruise ship I am on, a sampan, a work boat, a luxury liner?
No, this isn’t the Anchor beer speaking. I am still reeling from the news that what I thought was the ground under my feet is being described as a vessel of some sort.
An upgraded sampan, said the Prime Minister, no less. However, he can trim his sails when needed. Witness the raft of changes since the elections.
On the other hand, how sound are the bearings of Koh Buck Song who wrote an article in The Straits Times headlined “Sink the old sampan, Singapore is now a cruise ship”?
If that was supposed to be a Gotcha moment, well , it wasn’t . The sampan didn’t sink like the Belgrano as the Prime Minister himself rushed to its defence. “My eyes popped out,” he said, apparently amazed at the utter absurdity of a sampan being mistaken for a cruise ship.
In reply to questions from reporters, he added with a laugh: “I think we have upgraded our sampan. It’s sampan 2.0.”
Sampan? Cruise ship? Are we talking of my Singapore? Tower blocks overlooking tree-lined avenues is what I see; the sea is nowhere in sight.
But then I am not a poet like Koh – and as for what the Prime Minister said, he was following the course set by his predecessors. Singapore is a sampan, they said, so sampan it is, albeit an upgraded sampan. After all, no one can say Singapore hasn’t changed in the nine years he has been prime minister. And, no, I am not thinking of the population explosion though it is surprising that amid all this talk of cruise ships and sampans, no one has compared Singapore to an overcrowded barracoon.
Quips aside, this is no storm in a tea cup. For the conflicting nautical analogies express different perceptions of Singapore.
Singapore is no longer a sampan; it has become a cruise ship, according to Koh. “The more limited imagery of a sampan has little room for the weak,” he wrote. “But, catering for an inclusive society, a cruise ship has a sick bay and duty medical personnel, and activities for the disabled, seniors and children.”
PM Lee did not argue for or against a more inclusive society. He simply said that though Singapore is no longer poor and defenceless, “we need to keep on working hard”. “Once you think you are in a cruise ship and you are on a holiday and everything must go swimmingly well and will be attended to for you,” he warned, “I think you are in trouble.”
But Koh never said cruise ships were just boatloads of fun. In fact, he mentioned the hard work put in by the operators and the crew to keep the cruise business running.
Still, not everyone can afford to go on a cruise.
There lies the irony. Koh talks of a more inclusive society but draws an analogy with something not everyone can afford.
Unwittingly, it shows how wide the disparity in incomes and experiences has grown that someone calling for a more inclusive society compares it with a ship that is definitely not egalitarian. We are not all on the same boat.
If Singapore is a ship, it is more like the vessels of yore which brought authors like Joseph Conrad and Somerset Maugham to these shores. Ships that carried the rich and the poor alike and hauled cargo too. But those days are long gone and Singapore is nothing if not “cutting edge”, to quote Koh, and “upgraded”, in the Prime Minister’s words.
So let’s not split hairs over Singapore’s nautical class but agree it’s a good ship and wish fair winds and following seas. “Something ‘bout a boat/Gives a man hope,” sang Jimmy Buffett. Give it a listen.
[fvplayer src=”http://youtube.com/watch?v=z0kElTGqm2g”]