In threes - Duterte, Brexit, and Trump?

First there was Duterte, a.k.a. "Trump of the East", winning the Philippine's Presidential election.

Then there's the Brexit vote. Led by a Trump clone (among others).

Are we going to see a President Trump?

Pundits reading the tea leaves think the results of the Brexit Referendum is bad news for Hillary Clinton:

As Brexit proves, working people around the world are in no mood for common sense. They are angry, restless, uncooperative.

And that means (if US voters are like UK voters) that the angry, restless, working people of the US is also in no mood for "common sense" (because "common sense" will only bring them more of the same, which for them so far, has been nothing.

And the US will vote in a President Trump in November.

Right?

Well, good and bad things comes in threes, it may well happen! Right?

2016 - Speculations

Everybody seems to be talking about 2016.

Or rather they are thinking about 2016. Or are saying variations of "Just wait until 2016... THEN you will see!"

Like it would be a major upheaval in the SG political scene.

It won't.

Singapore's changing political landscape

Aug 17, 2012

PRIMER

This primer is the final instalment of a 12-part series in the Opinion pages, in the lead-up to The Straits Times-Ministry of Education National Current Affairs Quiz.

By Lydia Lim Deputy Political Editor

• PEOPLE describe General Election 2011 as a watershed election. In what way did it mark a new phase in Singapore politics?

SINGAPORE will hold its next General Election in about four years' time.

By then, 2016, most of you who are taking part in this year's current affairs quiz will be of voting age, that is 21. More likely than not, you will have a chance to cast your vote, and elect your Member of Parliament. You could say voting in elections is a new norm in the so-called "new normal".

How so?

In the decade from 1991 to 2001, the number of seats contested by the opposition in each election fell, from 40 out of 81 in 1991, to 36 out of 83 in 1997 and finally to just 29 out of 84 in 2001.

Why a US columnist is rooting for Singapore

May 12, 2012

Can Singapore's one-party governance system adapt to the stresses of globalisation and rising electoral pressures?

By Matt Miller

SINGAPOREANS couldn't believe their ears.

'I'm sorry,' said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong just days before the elections a year ago this week that dealt the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) its worst setback in the five decades since the island city-state became independent.

'If we didn't get it right, I'm sorry,' Mr Lee said. 'But we will try better the next time.'

The unprecedented public apology may well have saved the PAP from a debacle. But the 'new normal' ushered in by that vote (as well as a later vote for the more symbolic presidency, in which the PAP's choice won by just a few thousand votes) has upended politics in Singapore.

While the PAP lost just six of 87 seats in its unicameral Parliament, the party won only 60 per cent of the vote and some key ministers were sent packing.

One year on, it's clear that public discontent has opened a new chapter in Singapore's development that deserves the world's attention.

One Year On... Two views

[One year on... an assessment.]

GE 2011: One year later
Yahoo News,
7 May 2012

By P N Balji

The quick backstory of what Singaporeans have seen since the results of the 7 May 2011 general elections shows a People's Action Party government correcting policy mistakes that got voters so worked up that they brought the ruling party's share of vote to a historic low of  60.1 per cent and threw out two ministers and a senior minister of state from a group representation constituency (GRC).

Some unpopular ministers left the Cabinet, and hot-button issues like transport, immigration and housing are now being tackled with some urgency and eagerness.The phrase  "inclusive growth" keeps cropping up in politicians' speeches and interviews.

What opposition voters want: PAP II

Feb 5, 2012

In his new book, Breakthrough: Roadmap For Singapore's Political Future, academic Derek da Cunha analyses last year's General Election, during which a Group Representation Constituency fell to the opposition for the first time and the People's Action Party's vote share fell to a record low. This is an excerpt from the book:

One of the messages of GE2011 which has been in chime with previous elections since 1991 is that a large part of the electorate desires an opposition that does not differ too markedly from the People's Action Party (PAP).

The electorate wants an opposition that largely moderates PAP policies and does not attempt to initiate a marked change from the current form of governance. Too marked a difference from the PAP would result in some portion of middle-ground voters who voted for the Workers' Party (WP) in the 2011 election returning to the PAP.

Indeed, middle-ground voters appear to want incremental, and not radical, political change. Therefore, the WP's objective post- GE2011 has to be to continue to reach out to more middle-ground voters and attempt to achieve some dominance in that sphere of the political spectrum.

The PAP's Aljunied dilemma

Dec 20, 2011

By Rachael Chang

THIS year, the word Aljunied entered into Singapore political lore, replacing the near-miss of Cheng San with reality, and joining other constituencies in the annals of history.

These include Anson, Hougang and - evidence that the political winds blow both ways - Potong Pasir, which is now back in the hands of the People's Action Party (PAP).

For the next five years at least, Aljunied GRC - the first to be won by an opposition party - will also be the pea under the princess' mattress for the PAP.

Now that the shock of losing a GRC earlier than expected is wearing off, the PAP must confront an unsettling question - what next?

In search of a new narrative

What story of the PAP's role in society can help it better connect with Singaporeans today? Insight identifies themes that might form part of its new narrative.
18 Nov 2011

By Janice Heng & Rachel Chang

COME next Sunday, over a thousand People's Action Party (PAP) cadres will gather for their first party convention since the May General Election.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will make a keynote speech, which is expected to answer some of the questions that have surrounded the ruling party since former foreign minister George Yeo said in May that it was in need of 'transformation'.

Two days later, he lost his Aljunied GRC seat. The PAP would see its national vote share fall to 60.1 per cent, the lowest since Independence.

In the early hours of the morning, after the electoral scorecard was released in full, Mr Lee told the press that 'soul-searching' was on the cards for the PAP.

Some of the conclusions that exhaustive rumination over the last six months have yielded will be made known to the party rank-and-file - and the public - next week at the convention.

Mr Lee is likely to reveal key findings from the PAP's post-mortem report of the GE, put together by a 12-man committee headed by National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan.

Election Aftermath. Some musings.

Can PAP hold Potong Pasir, or will it fall the next election?

It is still a weak constituency for the PAP. Assuming the PAP do not absorb the constituency into a GRC, the PAP will still have several advantages. Firstly, Sitoh can work more openly and reflect the wishes of the electorate more effectively. Public works can be enhanced. He can do more to win the voters over. And hard-core Chiam supporters may move out (say to Aljunied?) or move on (i.e. shake off this mortal coil).

On the other hand, the next election, Chiam may try to retake Potong Pasir himself. It may be hard to defend against his personal attention, but again if the old supporters have moved on...

Nicole Seah's Party
The NSP has turned out to be arguably, the biggest loser in this election for fielding the most candidates and having nothing to show for it. Perhaps their A-Team should have Nicole, Hazel, and Tony. I have not heard Nicole in person, but Hazel and Tony have not impressed me.

The other biggest loser...
Would be the Singapore Democratic Alliance. They failed to file their nominations on time, and the only candidate to lose his deposit was from the SDA. This loose alliance isn't likely to get any tighter and I think its time has passed.

The so-glad we're no longer the lose-iest party...
title goes to the Singapore Democratic Party, for most improved party with the likes of Vincent Wijeysingha, Tan Jee Say, and Ang Yong Guan. Of course, this party was so far down, they could only come up. This is a party of principles. But if they want to win enough votes, they will need to translate those principles into concrete promises the voters can get behind. I don't see them taking any seats from this perspective. But 3 - 5 years is a long time.

The party formerly known as the Reform Party...
needs to work out a better battle plan. The enemy is the PAP, not your members. But I fear this party suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder. The moment there is more than one Personality in the party... Disorder!

But really, everyone should just join WP. If not everyone, then SDA and Reform by the next election.

SPP and SDP maybe in the election after next. And NSP after 2021.

All this assumes that WP don't collapse.

Workers Party
By focusing on branding, WP has the right idea. In the next election, they can split their A-team and leverage on the GRC system. Some can anchor Aljunied, while 2 of them, say Low and Sylvia, can boost the appeal of their East Coast team and try to take one more GRC.


[April 2014 update: Over the last few years, Tan Jee Say had resigned from SDP to stand as a Presidential Candidate. This of course means nothing. He can re-join SDP (or any other party for that matter) to stand for the next GE (to be held by 2016). Meanwhile Vincent Wijeysingha has also "retired" from politics. I think he wants to have a more direct effect on things. Focus on his area of interests instead of trying to propel a political agenda.  Hazel Poa has resigned from the post of Sec-Gen of NSP apparently from stress. But she remains a member. Meanwhile the star and poster girl for opposition politics have left SG to Bangkok for her career. Well, this is nothing, or could mean nothing. She is still Asst Sec-Gen and still active in NSP. And still returns to SG for NSP meetings. But being away from SG will mean some loss of ground contacts. Enough to matter for an election? Who knows.?]

[May 2014 update. Tan Jee Say is announcing the launch of his political party. OMG.]

The Best of Times

I believe that the election results was the best possible results for Singapore. Sure, we could have done with the talents and ability of George Yeo. But this election needed to roll out this way and it did, and it was the best possible outcome for Singapore.

Singaporeans became more politically aware and wanted the government to understand that they had issues with the way the PAP was doing things and they expressed that opinion, that anger, that fear, by fearlessly voting for the opposition.

If they had all that anger and did not express it, or if they had all that anger and it had not resulted in a concrete result at the polls, then democracy would have failed them, and they would have lost faith in democracy, in the Singapore model of democracy.

So yes, the election result was the best possible result because no other result would have expressed the will of the people as they expressed it between 8 am and 8 pm of 7 May 2011.

It had to be that way, and no other way.

From Fear to Anger

From the fear of voting against the PAP, to the fear that the PAP may be taking the people's support for granted, to the fear that the PAP may dominate and be permanently entrenched in the local political scene.

As Yoda said, "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

And so the Singapore voter has found the voice for their fear. And their screams of fear has become yells of anger. And the anger has been directed at the PAP.

The PAP has tried to blunt the anger, but the apology may simply be too late.

So anger leads to hate, and a vote against the PAP.

All that is left is to see if suffering follows.

Living the Unthinkable.

From "Thinking the Unthinkable",
by Eleanor Wong

[Note: The link to the original blog is broken, so I have deleted it.]

It's unthinkable that the PAP could lose a GRC and thus multiple seats 'overnight'.

This is eminently thinkable, of course. It is the natural outcome of the GRC system and, on the way up, it's been a potent plus for the PAP, helping them to snag a handful of seats with just one or two strong leaders in a GRC team. On the way down, so to speak, it could have the opposite effect. It's called leverage. It works both ways.

Actually, it's not inconceivable that this was exactly what the government was thinking about when it decided to reduce the size of some GRCs. And if the government can think about it, that's surely our licence to do so too.

I agree that it was probably to "minimise their losses" that the PAP reduced the size of GRCs, and also opened up more SMCs to pull the opposition heavy-weights to the SMCs. The more conspiracy-minded might even theorise that the PAP has an informant in the opposition, specifically the WP or even the SPP and got wind of Low's intent to abandon Hougang for a GRC contest, and Chiam's similar intent.

Is it a coincidence that Aljunied and Bishan-Toa Payoh both have 2 ministers? The only other GRC with 2 full ministers is East Coast GRC. Maybe there was a WP fall-back plan to challenge East Coast. In short, the PAP basically raised the stakes at these GRCs where sitting opposition MPs may launch their assault on a GRC.

As for thinking the unthinkable, I have a different perspective.

I think that I, that we Singaporeans have lived the unthinkable.

Any country with an unbroken dominance by a single political party for half a century should have poor human development, poor economy, high crime, corruption, inefficiencies, high unemployment, oppressed people, a failed govt or state or any combination thereof, or even all of those features.

It is unthinkable (by conventional political scientists acculturated to western democratic ideals) that any country with politics dominated by a single political party for 50 years could engender a society that has a vibrant economy, full employment, steady growth, low crime, an efficient civil service, little or no corruption, good health AND good healthcare.

Think the unthinkable? We LIVE it.

The nature of Rallies

The WP Hougang Rally (Thurs night) reminded me of the crowd at Yio Chu Kang Stadium in 1997. That was another huge turnout for the opposition. The crowd overflowed to the MRT station that night. The PAP rally at the same location that GE - dismal. You had space to picnic, kick a ball, etc. 

The rumour was the PAP had to bus supporters in to make up the numbers. Frankly I think the PAP should save their money and just do away with their rallies. Or maybe just have funfairs. And they should be self-deprecating about it. Call it the "PAP supporters rally funfair cum possible farewell party". PAP candidate should just dialogue with the fair-goers and incumbents should just say things like "I really enjoyed working with you these last few years. I hope I will be able to work with you again, but if not I thank you for your support." And maybe have Q&A with small groups of people.

The reason people don't go to PAP rallies is because 1) they are boring, and 2) they have nothing new to say. We've been listening to them for 5 years. We know their explanations and reasoning and rationale, and we either accept and agree, or we don't.

The reason why we go to opposition rallies is because 1) they are exciting, 2) they scold the PAP (on our behalf), and and 3) they come up with new ideas (sometimes). They express what we feel, and they validate our selfish concerns at worst, or our residual idealism at best.

Rallies preach to the converted.

The rousing speeches are more flash than substance. They tap upon the zeitgeist of shared experience, shared values, and shared beliefs. They neither attempt to justify their conclusions, nor do they make a case for their accusations, because the people already know the truth. The speakers just build upon this shared "truth" and seek endorsement of their candidacy, just as the audience seek endorsement and validation of their frustrations.

Those who would vote opposition were decided before they went for the rallies, and those who would not, would not have been swayed by the rallies.

As for those who would vote PAP, they would have decided a long time ago, and they would be busy getting on with their lives. Why would they waste time at a PAP rally? The whole point of voting PAP is so that the PAP can take care of the problems and people can get on with their lives.

So the 1997 election results, despite the huge turnouts at opposition rallies, was a loss of 2 opposition seats. Opposition MPs voted into parliament fell from 4 to just two. Hope of a better showing as a follow through from the 1991 election where an unprecedented 4 opposition MPs were elected were dashed. Early predictions of 5, 6 or even more opposition, were proven overly optimistic. The opposition movement had a setback.

I do hope that there is not another setback for the opposition, but I fear Low's double-down bet is highly risky. He has acknowledged as much.

That said, having heard Yaw Shin Leong, he seems to have a fair chance of holding Hougang for WP.

But don't be surprised after the dust has settled that PAP is back in power and there are no more than a handful of opposition voted in. If at all.

Hougang Workers Party Rally - observations

28 April.

At 7.30, there were already perhaps 2000 people on the field. The crowd continued to stream in until I estimate that there were perhaps 8,000 to 10,000 people. This was my ground estimate as I was not able to get to high ground to get a bird's eye view. So I could be off.

I couldn't see the stage because of the crowd, the stage was not very high, and the damn lights were on the crowd. Perhaps the candidates wanted to see the crowd's reaction.

Perhaps ISD wanted nice pictures for their photo album.

I missed the First speaker's introduction. He spoke in English. I think he's Indian. Some words on First World Parliament. He spoke in Chinese (I think) at the end just asking the people to vote Worker's Party.

The next speaker was a veteran (didn't catch his name either), and he spoke in Hokkien and was well-received by the middle-aged and older men in the crowd.

Next was Lim Li Lian, she spoke in English and she sounded like she was selling insurance, comparing the opposition to an insurance policy. I think if the PAP could use this imagery of insurance, they might turn a few people off the opposition.

Gerald Giam spouted standard platitudes, cliches, and had nothing really original to say. Dull.

Yaw Shin Leong spoke in Teochew, Mandarin and English. I think his Teochew sounded less than fluent, and his "I am Teochew" in Teochew and later in Mandarin was just so contrived. But the crowd cheered. That said, his speech in English was much better.

Low then spoke in English and cleverly responded to the PAP's charge that the WP wanted to be co-drivers and attempt to wrest control of the car from the PAP. Low cleverly pointed out that they were all in the same car and causing the car to careen out of control was in no one's interest, then he pointed out that co-driver's job could be as simple as talking to the driver to keep him awake, or if necessary giving him a slap if he was falling asleep. That got huge laughs from the crowd. And finally he pointed out that the WP did not have a driver's licence.

He was masterful.

Chen Show Mao then arrived and Low handed over the stage to him. Chen surprised by first speaking in Malay - just a bit as he said his Malay was not very good. Then he spoke in Mandarin, and somehow, I don't know why but Mandarin seems so well suited to the language of revolution. Perhaps it's because of shows like "Lust, Caution". Anyway, he connected well with the crowd in Mandarin and they responded to him.

Then he surprised the crowd by speaking in Tamil (I think). He got a few laughs.

For his English speech, he started to lose the audience. Or the audience was less responsive.  But I thought the speech was not inspired.

I left when he ended.

Rally speeches work best by latching onto shared values and shared beliefs. There is very little room for long complicated explanations, or for changing minds. It takes a very skilled orator and a very finely crafted speech to explain a problem, build a case, propose a solution, sell the idea and win the audience over, especially if the audience is skeptical in the first place.

But rallies are for preaching to the converted. So you just need to know what are the key hooks, and shared values and beliefs, and latch onto them.

So if the audience believe Ministers are overpaid, that is a launch point for a talking point. If the audience feels left behind by rising flat prices, use that shared knowledge.

I doubt if rallies really changes anybody's minds.

The worst case scenario

Biggest news on Nomination Day, Low Thia Khiang pursues dream of a GRC victory, leaves Hougang to Yaw Shin Leong (WP) to defend. Now there is no anchor for the Opposition, no sure thing. Even Low admits as much in the article:

Apr 27, 2011

Stakes and risk very high for opposition: WP chief
 
By Chong Zi Liang , Kor Kian Beng

WORKERS' Party (WP) chief Low Thia Khiang has said that the stakes and risk for the opposition in the May 7 election are 'very high' and Singapore may end up with no elected opposition MP.

Striking a stark warning, he told a packed press conference on Wednesday afternoon: 'This is a a watershed election. We may end up with no elected opposition MP.

'It was 30 years ago that JBJ became the first elected opposition in 1981. I hope we don't go back to those days without any opposition MP.'

Mr Low, 54, has moved out of Hougang single seat ward, where he was the incumbent MP for four terms since 1991, to contest the five-member Aljunied GRC, where the fiercest battle is expected to play out over the next eight days.

'I have contemplated this for a very long time. For the last 20 years since I was the MP, the opposition has not been progressing but has been regressing instead. Is this desirable for Singapore?' asked Mr Low.

The WP team will be squaring off the PAP's team led by Foreign Minister George Yeo.

Explaining why he has gone to the Aljunied GRC, he said: 'They (the voters) gave us strong support in 2006. I was more determined after the boundary report was out.

'Of course, the logical step is not to move out (of Hougang) because the stakes are high and the risk is very high.'

He said the party had been planning this move for the past three years but he became more determined to move out of Hougang for a GRC after the latest electoral boundary changes, which saw a part of the Aljunied GRC, where he said the WP enjoyed good support, being moved to the Ang Mo Kio GRC and the Pasir-Punggol GRC.

A part of the Marine Parade GRC - the Kaki Bukit area - is also now part of Aljunied GRC.

Said Mr Low: 'We could have waited for others to win a GRC but that is wishful thinking, based on how the PAP gerrymander at every election. We need to make a breakthrough in a GRC and teach them a lesson.'

With Low out of Hougang, there are no sure Opposition wins; no opposition stronghold.

The worst case scenario might come true, with no wins for the opposition!

Aljunied will be a hard fight and a hard choice. The Opposition has a chance, but they have telegraphed their punch and the PAP would not have been sleeping for the last 5 years. I am sure they have worked the ground to win the voters' hearts.

Potong Pasir is also highly at risk of returning to the PAP. For both Hougang and Potong Pasir, the voters may feel that their MP had abandoned them and that would allow them to abandon the opposition without guilt.

If Yaw can hold Hougang, it would mean that WP has established their brand. If he can't, then there is still a lot of work to do on the brand.

Bishan-Toa Payoh may be a close fight, but Chiam is the liability. Yes he has experience, but does he have the emotional engagement and history in B-TP? Mas Selamat is a non-issue for most Singaporeans.

If so, then the last two elected opposition MP may be gone by May 7.

Why the PAP should grant full voting rights to NCMP

The govt should make amendments to the constitution to grant Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, full rights to vote on Constitutional Amendments, Supply Bills, and No-Confidence votes against the ruling government.

The WP have been attacking the NCMP scheme as not true opposition, because they don't have the full rights of the MP.

Well, give them full rights. Even the right to move for a no-confidence vote against the ruling party.

With at least 1 NCMP in parliament, you know that there won't be more than 9 opposition MPs and NCMPs in total. That is how the NCMP scheme works. If there are fewer than 9 opposition, NCMP can make up the numbers up to 9. But if there are more than 9 opposition, the NCMP scheme will not apply.

That means should a constitutional amendment or supply bill comes up for voting, the 9 NCMP (the max number of NCMP) will not be enough to block the bill anyway.

So give the opposition what it wants. It will cost the PAP nothing.

And if the opposition now says, "of course the PAP gave us this concession, it is meaningless!", the PAP can then point out how the opposition have been focusing on pointless battles without considering the practical effects or outcomes of their pursuits. If they can't see the simple consequences of what is a relatively straightforward matter, what more can they predict the consequences of whatever else they are proposing.

What I REALLY think of the PAP

I think PAP are the worst politicians in the world.

They have no oratory skills, no panache, no finesse, no style, no sense of the ground, no idea when they should keep their mouth shut, when to be humble, how to appeal to the ground, how to inspire, how to encourage, how to emote, how to show strength, how to win hearts, how to defend without being defensive, how to go on the offensive, without offending, how to be conciliatory, how to be magnanimous, how to be gracious, how to concede a point without conceding defeat, how to be subtle and when to be blunt.

Fortunately they know their weakness and so try to keep campaigning to a minimum of 9 days so they don't shoot themselves in the foot. Too many times. In the same day.

The other thing you can say about them is that they obviously have integrity. When it comes to party politics they don't ask civil servants to write their speech for them.

THEY WRITE THEIR SPEECH THEMSELVES!!!!
(God help us.)

They can't find their own backsides with their hands tied behind their backs when in comes to campaigning!

Fortunately, they are good at government, and only 9 days in 5 years do we have to suffer the humiliating indignity of watching these people "sell" themselves to the electorate.

It's almost as bad as watching Ris Low give an interview.

Check that. it's WORSE than watching Ris Low give an interview!

I can't wait for this all to be over so life can get back to normal!

Predictions

Okay, this is just some preliminary thoughts.
Low Thia Khiang is a sure thing. As long as he stays in Hougang, he should win.

Chiam See Tong: Has had a good run, but with his age and health, I doubt if he can win in Bishan-Toa Payoh.

Sylvia Lim: I want her to win. BUT... she's not the grassroot type.

Chen Show Mao: He seems very assured and makes a good impression. I would like to see more of him, but I am concerned he would turn out to be like a Francis Seow. BUT his choice of party is the WP, and that gives me confidence that he is not just flash, but has substance.

Kenneth Jeyaratnam: I think the history of his party since he took over speaks for itself. If he cannot work with his allies, how can he convince the voters. He seems like a big disappointment.

Chee Soon Juan: I think he is still barred from running. But based on the SDP's manifesto, the party has no credibility with me.

Vincent Wijeysingha: I think he is an earnest man with strong convictions. But I think he is too idealistic. He stands for foreign workers, which is good as they should have an advocate. But they can't vote for him and I can't see Singaporeans voting for him because they want him to represent their maids. The other negative, he's standing on SDP's ticket.

Tan Jee Say: I think he's credible, but SDP is a poor choice in my opinion.

NSP: The Nice Silent Party has started to make some noise. But they haven't impressed me. However, I'm not an average Singaporean, so if any party can win besides WP, I would guess its NSP. I think they have the approach. Now their unique selling proposition is that they have the youngest woman candidate, but the photo on her Facebook page looks better than her in reality. So NSP now stands for Nice Studio Photo. It will come down to Goh Chok Tong vs the NSP and It's hard to imagine him losing.

Are HDB flats affordable

The Workers Party proposed pegging the HDB flat prices to the Median Household Income. What does that mean?

Here's what I worked out.

First I need to know the price of HDB flats.

From a 24th Mar 2011 Press Release

Boon Lay Fields

• $168,000 to $199,000 for a 3-room flat;
• $270,000 to $321,000 for a 4-room flat; and
• $334,000 to $391,000 for a 5-room flat 

Compassvale Ancilla

• $77,000 to $112,000 for a Studio Apartment;
• $194,000 to $232,000 for a 3-room flat;
• $303,000 to $359,000 for a 4-room flat; and
• $375,000 to $444,000 for a 5-room flat

Eligible first-timers with a monthly household income of $5,000 or less can apply for the Additional CPF Housing Grant (AHG) of up to $40,000, which can be used to offset the initial down-payment.

This is the AHG scale. The AHG has been enhanced with more grants, and a higher cap (from $4000 to $5000).

Average Monthly Household Income	Additional CPF Housing Grant (before 6 Feb 09)	Enhanced Additional CPF Housing Grant (from 6 Feb 09) **
$1,500 or less	$30,000	$40,000
$1,501 - $2,000	$25,000	$35,000
$2,001 - $2,500	$20,000	$30,000
$2,501 - $3,000	$15,000	$25,000
$3,001 - $3,500	$10,000	$20,000
$3,501 - $4,000	$5,000	$15,000
$4,001 - $4,500	-	$10,000
$4,501 - $5,000	-	$ 5,000

According to SingStat, the median income of a resident household is $5000 per month.
Scenario A: Couple earning $3000 and $2000 pm with combined CPF in their Ordinary account of about $30,000 after working for about 3 to 4 years.
They don't intend to use any cash top up for their mortgage payment. Maximum Loan is $249,700. They are eligible for AHG of $5000, plus the $30k in their CPF, they can afford a flat up to $285,000 which is within the range of a 4-rm flat in Boon Lay.

Scenario B: Same couple, but this time they intend to put up cash up to $1000 a month for their mortgage. Maximum Loan they can take is $499,500. With the AHG of $5000 and the $30k in their CPF, they can afford up to $535,000. Which means they can buy any flat up to a 5-room flat (but they will need cash savings to top up the deposit for flats over $350k as the CPF and AHG only covers up to that price).

If the couple wants to shorten the loan duration to 20 years, they will be able to get a $373,900 loan, and afford up to $409k flat or most 5-rm flats.

Scenario C: The same couple but this time they take the middle road and just put together $500 cash each month for the mortgage. They can get $374,600 in loans, plus the AHG and the CPF, they can afford to pay $410k and buy most 5-rm flats. If they cut their loan duration to just 20 years, they can get a $280,400 loan and afford to pay up to $315k for a flat or most 4-rm flats.

It would seem then, that the current policy provides the households below the median with additional housing grant, and together with the pricing, a young couple (one grad and one diploma-holder) exactly at the median could easily afford a 3-rm flat, or a low-end 4-rm flat without needing to stump up cash top-ups every month. 

Should they choose to scrimp a little, and top up with $500 cash each month, they can even afford a 5-rm flat. If they prefer to shorten their loan duration to just 20 years, they can still afford a 4-rm flat.

The PAP should tell the WP that HDB prices are already priced for affordability for Median household income.

.

Single Dominant Party

From an article in the Straits Times on Multi-Party or Single-Party system. Two essays. The second one noted that in debates on the multi-party system, there were several undefined terms. He pointed out the difference between multi-parties in parliament, but with one majority party in power ("Majoritarian democracies"), and government formed by more than one party (Coalition or he uses "Consensual Democracies" which is so euphemistic!).

However, at this point in the article, instead of comparing apples with oranges, he's comparing rotten apples with rotten oranges.

Majoritarian democracies are those whose governments have a clear majority (above 50 per cent) of seats in Parliament. Consensual democracies typically have coalition governments.

He found that majoritarian democracies did not outperform consensus democracies on macroeconomic management of inflation, for example. Consensus democracies did better in the quality of democracy, democratic representation, and the 'kindness and gentleness of their public policy orientation' - such as being more environmentally conscious. He also found no trade-off between the effectiveness of government and the development of democratic consensus.

The debate isn't between "majoritarian" and "coalition" or "consensual" government. It's between one-party dominant democracy, and a two-party (or even multi-party) democracy where two or more parties take turns to win a majority to run the govt. 

In this dichotomy, "majoritarian" and "consensus/coalition" govt are on the same end of the spectrum as far as I am concerned. The advantage of a two-party, binary oscillating govt is not much better than a coalition of parties forming a govt. In either case, short-term political survival and consideration trumps long-term objectives. 

In fact, I would argue that a binary oscillating democracy is locked in a thesis-antithesis infinite loop that never breaks through to synthesis. The reason is simple, the people have not found a party that promises and delivers.

Similarly, in a democracy where the votes are split between so many equally pathetic, partisan, narrowly focused political parties that could never hope to represent even half of the voters to win a convincing majority, the voters have not found a party that represents their common ground and common interest enough to win their support and mandate. 

In either case, the party or parties in power are only on probation and most never get confirmed.

In contrast the PAP has been confirmed over many elections.


.