On foreigners owning property in Singapore

Local news reported today that resale prices for private homes have shot through the roof this year. According to one analysis, foreigners make up the majority (60 to 70%) of the buyers of private homes in Singapore, thereby propping the prices up.

Even foreign celebrities, such as Jackie Chan and Emil Chau, have gotten into the act, and purchased a number of condominium units last week, spending in excess of S$10 million.

But Singapore is land scarce, and many local citizens face great difficulty affording their own homes. The incredible rate at which housing prices have been permitted to go up compared to local salary rates is an extremely disappointing reflection of the PAP government’s understanding of the local populace’s housing difficulties.

This author is of the opinion that foreigners should only be allowed to purchase residential properties in Singapore if they actually live in them. Singapore is far too small a country to allow foreigners to speculate in and drive up the prices of residential properties beyond the affordability of the main local populace.

Actually, this author views that ideally, foreigners should not be permitted to purchase properties in Singapore at all. Given Singapore’s limited land area, there is no good reason why foreigners should be allowed to acquire property at the hardship and expense of Singapore citizens (who should be given a decent chance to aspire to owning a private home someday). The PAP government should not have permitted foreigners to purchase private homes, much less, the majority of private homes in Singapore.

On the City Harvest Church and S$310 million

When this author first heard about how City Harvest Church was going to invest S$310 million in a Suntec stake, this author’s initial thoughts were:

1. Does God need all this money?



2. I don’t think God needs any part of this money. Why doesn’t the church (being a registered charity) donate the money to charity?

It appears that in these modern times, many religious institutions have immense sums of money sitting in their coffers, and they even go to financial institutions to invest all this money.

But… God (and by God, I mean any god of any religion) doesn’t need money. It’s only human beings who have a need for money. Why don’t these religions institutions donate all the money to charity? That seems to be a benevolent and godly use of the funds. God would have approved.

On providing public transport for the disabled

The PAP government has steadfastly to this day refused to introduce laws to require that public transport companies provide free or reduced fares for the physically or intellectually disabled.

The public transport companies, SBS Transit Ltd and SMRT Corporation Ltd have also refused to provide free or reduced fares for the disabled on their own initiative.

Now, public transport for the disabled is a matter of recognising that many disabled persons face financial difficulties in day to day living, and that as a society, we have a moral responsibility to look after our less fortunate members.

It is not asking for too much. Please understand that this is only a minority segment of society who deserves our care and concern. There are no substantial profit reductions asked for or floodgates unleashed here.

This sad, heartless state of affairs cannot continue.

The government should make the laws.

The public transport companies should practise corporate social responsibility.

But given that these institutions have failed to do so.. this author would like to make an appeal to all shareholders of SBS Transit Ltd, SMRT Corporation Ltd and even ComfortDelgro Corporation Ltd (which is the holding company of SBS Transit Ltd) to bring up this issue at the next general meeting of each company. As shareholders, you own the company and you have the ability and the right to require that the company do something for the less abled. Alternatively, this author would like to ask those who can and are willing to do so, to purchase the smallest possible portion of shares in any of these companies and make the request at the next general meeting of the relevant company.

If enough caring shareholders vote for it, free/discounted public transport for the disabled can happen.

Please feel free to pass on this message.

On COE prices and quotas

Today’s news reported that COE prices had gone up by as much as S$14,411 in the latest bidding exercise, with the most expensive COE (the open category COE) costing S$42,001.

The huge increases were because the government was going to limit the supply of COEs from April 2010 onwards by pegging it to actual vehicle deregistrations.

The present cost of a COE makes car ownership prohibitively expensive and out of reach from the common population of Singapore.

Is there a way to alleviate this cost of car ownership? Well, how about having a COE quota for foreigners? Say, a 25% quota, which means that 25% of the COEs released each month will go to foreigners, while 75% of the COEs will go to Singapore citizens.

Having such separate categories of COEs for foreigners and citizens will likely reduce the COE prices for citizens (because there will be more available COEs for them), and in effect make foreigners subsidise some of the high costs of car ownership (as the foreigners will probably pay a higher rate of COE given a limited quota). More importantly, it would also benefit citizens (who have long term interests vested here compared to foreigners who are here for the short term) by giving them priority in owning cars and driving on the roads of their own country.

On Singapore citizenship and permanent residency

There’s been a lot of buzz of late on how Singapore citizens don’t have much of an advantage compared to Singapore permanent residents. In fact, citizens are at a distinct disadvantage in many instances, e.g. compulsory National Service obligations (which also frequently negatively affect employers’ preferences) and the prohibition of dual citizenships.

In an attempt (weak, in this author’s opinion) to placate some of these complaints, the PAP government tried to fix the problem by giving citizens slightly better benefits, such as better subsidies or priorities in health, education, housing etc.

But the unasked question so far is: is there a need for this creature, permanent residency?

What is permanent residency? Generally, permanent residency refers to a person’s visa status, and a permanent resident is allowed to reside indefinitely within a country despite not having citizenship.

Not all countries have a permanent residency scheme. Those that do, usually have a good reason, such as special ties with certain other countries. For example, an EU national who moves to another EU country can attain permanent resident status after residing there for five years. Also, permanent residence rights are granted automatically between Ireland and the United Kingdom.

But Singapore has no such special ties with other countries, even with Malaysia, its closest geographical neighbour.

Hence, in today’s terms, why not abolish the permanent residency regime in Singapore?

In other words, a person is either a citizen or a foreigner. After all, a permanent resident is still a foreign citizen at the end of the day. There are many permanent residents in Singapore who will never consider converting to citizenship despite living, studying and working here most of their lives, and frankly, it’s usually an emotional thing with them. They do not see Singapore as their home country, and there is no loyalty to Singapore at all. In fact, permanent residents ought not to be considered as Singaporeans.. that just unhelpfully blurs the line between a genuine Singaporean national and a person who is not.

Abolishing the permanent residency regime in Singapore is not only a good idea, it is also right for Singapore. The rationale is that Singapore is a small country with limited natural resources. All nationality benefits (and obligations, such as National Service and Central Provident Fund contributions) should only be reserved for and belong to citizens, who are the ones with the right to vote. Hence, for example, given that land is a scarce and valuable resource in Singapore, only citizens should be permitted to own HDB flats.

If a person doesn’t want to be a citizen, that’s fine. He or she can always choose to be a foreigner working and living in Singapore under an employment pass or work permit – there is no problem with that. The expression “permanent resident” is really a misnomer.. the person isn’t residing in Singapore permanently at all, only temporarily. If a person truly wants to make Singapore a permanent home, just be a citizen. There is no need for a hybrid creation like “permanent resident”.

There are many benefits which can be gained from abolishing the permanent residency regime, which will far outweigh the downsides, if any. Housing will be freed up, and the red hot inflated prices will have a chance to be at a normal realistic level. Jobs will be freed up as some permanent residents (who never intended to be citizens anyway) choose to leave. Lots of governmental savings can be made because all the subsidies and benefits that used to go to permanent residents will no longer be required. Overcrowding will be alleviated. All the headaches and problems which the PAP government had futilely been trying to address regarding citizen vs. permanent resident benefits will go away.

The permanent residency scheme can be phased out. All eligible permanent residents can be offered the chance to become a citizen of Singapore. As for the ineligible permanent residents, they simply revert to being plain foreigners, which is exactly who they were all along anyway.

What do you think?

On the Jack Neo sex scandal and sexual harassment in the workplace

Much has been said about Singapore filmmaker Jack Neo’s infidelity recently. But little has been raised in regard to how his behaviour likely constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace, and in particular, the lack of specific laws in Singapore that protect employees from sexual harassment and give employees an avenue for seeking redress.

What is sexual harassment? One definition is that sexual harassment is the “intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favours”. It includes a range of behaviours from seemingly mild transgressions and annoyances to actual sexual abuse or sexual assault.

In the recent Jack Neo scandal, a number of women alleged that he made unwelcome sexual advances on them while they were in his employ or acting in his movies. Such behaviour certainly constitutes sexual harassment.

In this author’s view, every employee (whether female or male) should be protected by law from sexual harassment at the workplace. Furthermore, any employee who is sexually harassed at the workplace deserves an avenue of redress against the harasser. This is especially so if the harasser is in a position of authority over the victim. An employee who has been sexually harassed at the workplace should not be helpless without legal protection to defend herself or himself, and should not have to make the wretched choice of either losing the job or giving in to the unwelcome sexual demands of the harasser. If at all, the harasser is the one who should be penalised.

Now, sexual harassment is illegal in many countries, but unfortunately for Singapore employees, sexual harassment is not specifically illegal in Singapore.

In other countries, employers and harassers are legally responsible (under criminal and civil laws) for sexual harassment against their employees and liable to them for damages (i.e. monetary compensation for loss or injury). Examples of such countries include the United States, United Kingdom, the member states of the European Union, Australia, China, Philippines, India and Israel.

Why are there no specific laws enacted against sexual harassment in Singapore? It seems to this author that there are no good reasons why not, and it is time this lacuna is addressed by the Singapore government. In fact, sexual harassment is a prevalent problem in Singapore. In a 2008 study conducted by AWARE, 54% of the 500 participants surveyed reported having been sexually harassed at work. This includes both men and women.

Victimised employees need protection. And in this author’s personal opinion, it would not do to condone, or to rally around and support a harasser. Laws are vital to ensure that employers take pro-active steps to protect their employees from sexual harassment in the workplace, safeguard their careers and livelihoods, and give them a way to lodge their grievances. Having laws against sexual harassment will benefit not only local employees, but also the significant population of foreigners who come to Singapore to work (and who may otherwise be deterred from coming or harmed by the lack of sexual harassment laws). Certainly, such laws would go a long way in deterring a number of would-be offenders and protecting employees, and reprehensible cases such as the Jack Neo saga could be minimised or averted.