Is it good to change the labour chief?

I asked this question in The Wisdom of the Crowd - Is it good to change the labour chief to Ng Chee Meng?

48% of the people who voted said that the labor movement should be allowed to choose its leader from the grassroots.

35% said that Chan Chun Sing is doing a bad job as labor chief and should be replaced.

The remaining 17% are supportive of this change.

See the breakdown of the votes in
http://www.wisdomofthecrowd.sg/chart.aspx?ID=557

Who will form the next government in Malaysia?

I asked this question in The Wisdom of the Crowd - Who will form the next government in Malaysia?

41% of the people who voted said that Barisan National will win through gerrymandering.

33% said that Barisan National will win under PM Najib and UMNO.

13% said that Pakatan Harapan will win.

13% said that Pakatan Harapan will fail due to incompatible parties.

A total of 87% expect Barisan National to win the next general election.

See the breakdown of the votes in
http://www.wisdomofthecrowd.sg/chart.aspx?ID=558

A better way to implement democracy

Is there a better way to implement democracy around the world?

In many countries, the existing government "cheated" by redrawing the electorial boundaries to ensure that they have a better chance of winning the next general election. It is called "gerrymandering".

In some cases, they give money or goodies to the poor people to buy their votes. The poor people are usually illiterate or politically naive.

In some cases, they stuff the ballot boxes with fake votes in their favor. Or they simply replace the actual ballot boxes with the fake ones containing fake voting slips in their favor.

Even in a country that is regarded as the "bastion of democracy", their system is influenced by large sums of money that is spent on advertising to influence the voters using untruths. The candidates with the most campaign funds usually win. Their elections are "bought" with money.

What is the purpose of this "democratic process" which can be abused in many countries to perpetuate a regime for several decades?

When is the purpose of allowing each person to have a vote when that person is not educated or mature to exercise the vote correctly?

Is there a better way to exercise democracy?

I want to make a statement that will surprise many people. A good example of effective democracy is ...... China.

Why do I say so?

In China, the leaders are elected through voting by members of the communist party. These members or cadres are educated on the principles that govern their party, which are also the same principles enshrined in their constitution. All countries have a constitution that lay down the principles for which their country should be governed. China is also following the same approach.

The main difference is that the principles enshrined in the constitution in China are different in some respects from the principles enshrined in the constitution of America. But it does not make the consitution of China worse than America. In fact, the development of China showed that their approach is more effective in uplifting the well being of their people.

I am not saying that the system in China will continue to be better over the long term. But we can see that it is better for the past few decades.

I will now deal with the argument that their leaders are voted only by the members or cadres of the communist party. In my view, this is a better system.

To earn the right to vote, the voter must be educated in the constitution of the country. This is a requirement for all members of the party. They have to be educated in these matters. Being educated, they can make better decisions.

The communist party has more than 100 million members. This is more than the voting population in most "free countries" where every citizen (including the uneducated ones) is allowed to vote.

The leaders of the communist party are elected through a democratic system that is exercised at different layers - the villages, counties, provinces and at the national level. The leaders elected at each level become the voters at the next higher level. This system is quite democratic.

I am not saying that the system in China is free of corruption. On the contrary, it has been riddled with corrupt practices in past years. This disease is now being addressed by the current leaders.

I hope that they will succeed, and that there is a clean process of electing the right leaders for the country and, after being elected, they will use their powers with honesty and integrity and make the right decisions for their countries.

Even the principles of the community party and the constitution of the country can be changed to allow the country to move forward. If you recall, there was a seismic change when the communist party decided to adopt "free market economics" in a socialist system. It turned out to be the best strategy for China.

There is a risk that the people elected under the communist system can become dictators. This has happened in past years under many communist countries. But there are also many dictators who are elected under the non-communist system aslo. Dictatorship is not a monopoly of the communist system.

I hope that people will realize that the system that is now adopted in China is more democratic and better than the systems of "free elections" adopted by most non-communist countries.

Tan Kin Lian

Where will Chan Chun Sing go after leaving NTUC?

I asked this question in the Wisdom of the Crowd - Where will Chan Chun Sing go after leaving NTUC?

44% of the people who voted said he would be deputy prime minister and coordinating minister.

41% voted that he will head another ministry.

15% said he will leave the government or become an ambassador.

See the breakdown of the votes in
http://www.wisdomofthecrowd.sg/chart.aspx?ID=556

Should the government reserve public sector jobs only for locals?

I asked this question in the Wisdom of the Crowd - Should the government reserve public sector jobs only for locals?

75% of those who voted said it will provide better employment opportunity for locals.

13% said locals can provide better service in these jobs.

9% said it is better to have open competition for these jobs.

3% said it will help to raise wages.

See the breakdown of the votes in
http://www.wisdomofthecrowd.sg/chart.aspx?ID=554

Should the government give a wage subsidy to private sector employers to employ locals?

I asked this question in the Wisdom of the Crowd - Should the government give a wage subsidy to private sector employers to employ locals?

45% of those who voted said it is better to reduce the cost of doing business in Singapore.

34% said it will help to equalise the cost of employing locals and foreigners.

14% said it is better to allow the employer to choose the most suitable worker.

7% said it will be too costly for the country.

See the breakdown of the votes in
http://www.wisdomofthecrowd.sg/chart.aspx?ID=555

Will PM Lee's efforts as chair of ASEAN benefit Singapore?

I asked this question in the Wisdom of the Crowd - Will PM Lee's efforts as chair of ASEAN benefit Singapore?

50% of those who voted said that PM Lee should focus on the problems in Singapore.

35% said that Singapore has little to gain on this international effort.

The remaining 15% find the effort to be useful for Singapore.

See the breakdown of the votes in
http://www.wisdomofthecrowd.sg/chart.aspx?ID=550

Can patients trust their doctors to be ethical and avoid over servicing?

I asked this question in the Wisdom of the Crowd - Can patients trust their doctors to be ethical and avoid over servicing?

39% of those who voted said it is difficult for patients to know what is necessary and what is over servicing.

36% said that the Singapore Medical Council should set up a system to deal with complaints on over servicing.

21% said that the doctors are under commercial pressure to raise their revenues to meet the high rental and operating expenses.

See the breakdown of the votes in
http://www.wisdomofthecrowd.sg/chart.aspx?ID=551

How will China respond to strong tariffs imposed by President Trump?

I asked this question in The Wisdom of the Crowd - How will China respond to strong tariffs imposed by President Trump?

36% of those who voted said China will sell more products to other countries.

32% said that China will sell its holdings of US Treasuries.

16% said that China will buy more product from USA.

8% said that China will complain to the World Trade Organisation.

The last 8% said that China will accept that they will export less to USA

See the breakdown of the votes in
http://www.wisdomofthecrowd.sg/chart.aspx?ID=552

What will happen to the US Dollar when China sells a large holding of US Treasuries?

I asked this question in the Wisdom of the Crowd - What will happen to the US Dollar when China sells a large holding of US Treasuries?

58% of those who voted said that the US Dollar will fall sharply.

25% said that the price of Treasuries will fall and interest rate will jump sharply.

13% said that it will have a small impact as other countries will buy the US Trasuries.

See the breakdown of the votes in
http://www.wisdomofthecrowd.sg/chart.aspx?ID=553

CPF is our hard earned money

Dear Mr Tan

1) You probably will agree that many Singaporeans are asset rich and cash poor. I believe many of them are trapped in a situation when buy a resale flat or their BTO are ready but they do not have the cash available for renovation. Do you agree that the government should allow Singaporeans to use their CPF for house renovation? Afterall, renovation is considered a capital expenditure as opposed to an expense in accounting terms and will add value to the house.

Interestingly, the Optional Component Scheme (OCS) under BTO allows a home buyer to add such renovation cost of the optional components to the selling price of the flat. But the scope and options available under OCS is very limited and many home buyers ended up having to engage private contractors to renovate their house. I feel that since the government recognizes the importance of including renovation as part of the house price, then shouldn't the government also allow Singaporeans to tap into their hard earned CPF for their house renovation?

2) The other issue I would like to address is regarding refinancing of HDB flats. Suppose you buy a private property at 1 million and took a 800k loan (80% LTV). When your property value doubled its value over the years and you refinance your loan at 80% The new loan of 1.6 million will be used to settle the previous 800k loan and the remaining 800k will be released to you as your "capital gain proceeds".

However if you buy a HDB flat instead and your house value has doubled and you refinance your HDB flat, a different rule applies. Instead of cashing out your "capital gain proceeds", the proceeds are locked in the property and can never be cash out. In this case, many retirees are unable to unlock the capital gains in their HDB flats and use it for their retirement. Instead, they are either forced to sell their flat or sell part of the lease back to HDB under the Lease Buyback Scheme just to unlock some CPF when in actual fact they shouldn't have to.

Based on the above two issues, it appears that Singaporeans has been working hard and keep part of their retirement nestegg in their CPF but the government seems to have biased regulations that deter Singaporeans access to their own CPF for their proper use. Is this not improper hoarding of our CPF by the government?

With your vast financial knowledge background, I would like to hear your personal views on these issues.

Dear X
Let me think about how to answer your question.
The correct person to answer is the minister for national development, lawrence wong.
He earns a million dollar salary.
Still I will try to answer it without getting any salary.

ONE HOUR LATER:

Dear X
I am now able to give my reply to your two questions:

1) I agree that the the CPF member should be allowed to take out some of the CPF savings for renovation. Perhaps it should be 10% of the purchase price.
Why?
The property could have been "renovated" by the developer and the cost would have been included in the sale price. If the developer sell a partly "renovated" property, the buyer should be allowed to get financing for the renovation.

2) I do not like the concept of "refinancing a loan" based on the appreciated value of the property. My objection applies both to the private property and to HDB. The refinancing locks in the appreciation, but that appreciation could be temporary or not sustainable. I like to see government regulation to stop this kind of refinancing of all property.

Make decisions based on facts, not on labels

Someone remarked that TKL prefers socialism, but he prefers capitalism.

We should not make decisions based on labels. Instead, we should look at the issues based on facts.

I prefer an approach that produces a better outcome. In some cases, a socialist approach achieves a better outcome; in other cases, a capitalist approach is better.

What is the socialist approach? Basically, this approach involves state ownership of the means of production.

Let us look at what happened in the UK. When Margaret Tatcher was the prime minister, she privatised many industries previously run by the state - for example, the railway, water and electricity.

Did the private ownership produce better results? Did they reduce the cost to consumers and achieve better quality?

Apparently they did not. The private owners cut down on the maintenance and quality. They wanted to increase their profts. Consumers paid more and get a poorer quality of service. I am not sure if I have described the situation correctly.

I read that the Labor Party had promised to re-nationalised the railway, water and energy when they become the next government. Apparently, this is well supported by the public.

I was recently in New South Wales, Australia. I took the train from the airport to Sydney, a distance of 10 km and paid a fare of $18. It was operated by a private company. I took a train from Sydney to Gosford, Central Coast. The distance was 78 km and the fare was $13. It was operated by the state.

The state government realised that it was a mistake to allow the private operator to build and operate the airport link. They wanted to buy back the line, but the private owner wanted to extract a high price.

In Singapore, we saw what happened with our SMRT. When it was under private ownership, it cut down on the maintenance of the lines to reduce cost. This caused the frequent breakdown of the MRT service. The government had to de-privatise the SMRT.

There are many situtations where private ownership leads to bad outcomes. They are caused by the profit motive. In these cases, state ownership produces a better outcome.

But there will be other situations where private ownership produces a better outcome.

We have to keep an open mind. We have to make decisions based on facts, rather than on labels.

Tan Kin Lian

Singapore is doomed

Singapore is doomed when we have people like Lee HL and his ministers running the government and citizens who are scared to voice their views. See this exchange.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Tan
I read your article to the Straits Times on 12 March 2018 re "Keep SingPass option for business users of e-government services".
I did not see a reply from the government to your published article. If you have received a reply, I would appreciate if you could forward it to me.
I agree with your article. I am also facing the same problem like you. It is better that we stick to using SingPass for both personal and business matter.

-----------------------------

My reply:
I did not receive any reply to my letter on SingPass. I suggest that you write a follow up letter to the St Times.

-----------------------------

Dear Mr. Tan
You are an influential person, well known to many people and respected, and your voice carries weight.
I strongly feel that you should write a follow-up letter to the S Times since you have not received a reply to the article you wrote. Many people feel the same what you feel.
I do not want to be involved with the government nor STimes people, please please please don't even quote or involve me on this, appreciate and many thanks for your cooperation as this CORPASS topic we share is between you and me only. Thanks also for your kind understanding.

Why we have to abolish GST totally

I gave a speech at Hong Lim Park on 3 March. 2018. My key point was that GST should be abolished to reduce the cost of living by up to 10%.

Some people commented that there is no need to abolish GST totally. We only need to abolish GST on the essential items, like food and medicine.

Many countries, such as UK and Malaysia, exclude GST on essential items. I agree that it is possible to take a step to abolish GST on essential items.

However, I still hold the view that GST should be abolished totally. Here are my reasons:

a) We can afford to abolish GST totally. It reduces the government revenue by $11 billion a year. But the real surplus is $20 to $30 billion a year, including government land sale. If GST is abolished totally, we will still have a budget surplus.

b) If we abolish GST only for essential items, we still have to identify what are essential and what are not essential items. The cost of administering GST will continue to be high. We will not achieve any significant reduction in the cost of living.

We need to be bold. We have to abolish GST totally to achieve a significant reduction in the cost of living.

The problem with our high cost of living and the high cost of doing business, and the insecurity of jobs for locals, are really serious. We cannot afford to take half measures.

Watch my video in full to understand the key points that I put forward.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vCRavQFYHw&t=1616s

Attractive prizes when you vote

You can win these attractive prizes when you vote on the issues in the Wisdom of the Crowd. It is easy, right?

http://www.wisdomofthecrowd.sg/page/115

Does the Marina Barrage help to reduce flooding in Singapore?

I posted this question in The Wisdom of the Crowd - Does the Marina Barrage help to reduce flooding in Singapore?

65% of the votes indicate that Marina Barrage is responsible for the serious flooding in recent years.

26% said that the low lying areas have been flooded even before Marina Barrage was built.

9% said that Marina Barrage helped to reduce flooding.

See the breakdown of the votes in
http://www.wisdomofthecrowd.sg/chart.aspx?ID=546

Is the Singapore economy in good shape?

I asked this question in the Wisdom of the Crowd - Is the Singapore economy in good shape?

52% of the votes indicate that the economy is already in serious trouble.

44% said that the economy will be impacted by the slowdown in global trade.

4% said that the economy is doing well.

See the breakdown of the votes in
http://www.wisdomofthecrowd.sg/chart.aspx?ID=547

Should the deductible under basic Medishield be removed?

I asked this question in The Wisdom of the Crowd - Should the deductible under basic Medishield be removed?

48% voted for it to be offered as an option under Medishield Life.

29% voted that the rider should be offered by a private insurance company.

23% said that the rider should be banned.

See the breakdown of the votes in
http://www.wisdomofthecrowd.sg/chart.aspx?ID=548

Be respectful when giving an alternative view

It is all right for a person to disagree with another person's view, but he or she should do it respectively.

He should not give the impression that the other person's view is wrong and his view is right. This arrogance can be detected in the manner in which the comment is expressed.

A worse form of arrogance is to state that the other person's view is wrong, without stating the alternative view.

I have seen many instances of rude comments. It reflects poorly on the maturity of the person who gives the comments.

Equalisation wage between locals and foreigners.

In my video, Jobs for Singaporeans, I introduced the concept of equalisation wage between locals and foreigners. This should apply to all levels, including PMET jobs. If employers have to meet the same cost, they are more likely to employ locals, instead of foreigners.

This equalisation is achieved by introducing a levy for jobs taken by foreigners and giving a subsidy for jobs taken by locals. It will address the gap between the wage that a foreigner is willing to accept (because they feed their family in a low cost country) and the wage that a local is willing to accept (because they feed their family in Singapore).

If this gap between the wages is $1,000, the equalisation can be achieved by introducing a levy of $500 for each foreign worker and a wage subsidy of $500 for each local.

This equalisation should be made only for the jobs where it is difficult to find locals, such as cleaners, security guards, bus drivers and construction workers.

For jobs where the wages are sufficient to attract locals, there is no need to give work pass for foreigners.

Here is my video;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8_CLCYH85I&t=48s