ST: Reits 'unlock capital, create jobs' in Asia

(06-03-2014, 03:22 PM)opmi Wrote:

(06-03-2014, 02:18 PM)yeokiwi Wrote:

Quote:On Tuesday, however, Member of Parliament Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio) called the divestment "a mistaken policy" during the Budget debate. "The government lost the ability to influence rental prices resulting in developers and investors (including Reits) making the money - this is passive income and not productive income benefiting the investors," he said

Hey, that is the problem as pointed out by Inderjit Singh. What kind of society is this where everyone is bent on living with passive income???

Technically, it is a free market but commercial properties' price are sticky and dominated by a few entities. Look at the private residential properties market, the developers have the holding power to keep the unsold properties. Without HDB, all properties' buyers will get slaughtered.

Similarly, JTC or whatever stat board must own a portfolio of commercial properties to keep the rental in check.

I hate to see my favourite hawkers, vehicle repair shops' owners, eateries' workers, restaurants' staffs to work like mad(18x7, 365 days) to pay for rental and have no time to rest every week plus going to holidays yearly.

A hawker that works 18hrsx7days is not gonna cooked good food.

HDB/JTC/URA/SLA/ENV cannot just own properties. Need to manage them competitively and with a social objective.

E.g. owned a bunch of HDB malls. No traffic. Tenant mix sucks. Tenants stick around too long, hoping to sublet and free ride.
If these malls are competitively managed and attract tenants, that would give a run for the REITs money.

Govt mission is NOT profit maximisation. This place is NOT Singapore INC, concept promoted during the seat-warmer regime.

Inderjit Singh is one of the most outspoken PAP MP since Tan Soo Khoon.
http://www.askmelah.com/tan-soo-khoon-spore-7wonders/

The issues Inderjit mentioned, including his non-support of the population white paper, shows he is on the right track and I generally agree with him. I do hope he will last.

I will reiterate here again: Divestment of public goods into a profit oriented enterprise is a big mistake. It will not be able to fulfill the social objectives. The idea that social objectives have to be self funded is a big con by the proponents of Singapore Inc. Yet many TODAY still believe that this is the right path even when government starts to backpeddle.

羊毛出在羊身上 what goes around comes around

I can't believe that someone advocating the public goods wants to talk about "羊毛出在羊身上 what goes around comes around " as the money the government spends grows from a tree instead of collecting from the very people it serves.

Obviously you have no idea who is the 羊and where is the 羊毛 and still barking up a tree, so I'll leave it as it is for you to figure out the cashflow, since our socialist founders obviously couldn't balance their books either without this illuminating Singapore Inc ideology

(07-03-2014, 04:05 PM)freedom Wrote: I can't believe that someone advocating the public goods wants to talk about "羊毛出在羊身上 what goes around comes around " as the money the government spends grows from a tree instead of collecting from the very people it serves.

PS it is roughly translated as "goat's hair has to come from the goat"

Hi, I would appreciate for the benefit of others, if you use other language besides english, a translation be provided next to it so that others can understand as well.

thank. you.

There is always google translate.

(07-03-2014, 04:47 PM)specuvestor Wrote: Obviously you have no idea who is the 羊and where is the 羊毛 and still barking up a tree, so I'll leave it as it is for you to figure out the cashflow, since our socialist founders obviously couldn't balance their books either without this illuminating Singapore Inc ideology

(07-03-2014, 04:05 PM)freedom Wrote: I can't believe that someone advocating the public goods wants to talk about "羊毛出在羊身上 what goes around comes around " as the money the government spends grows from a tree instead of collecting from the very people it serves.

PS it is roughly translated as "goat's hair has to come from the goat"

I can understand Chinese perfectly. Wonder where the money will be from to fund such social needs? Money does not grow from trees. Either government has to use the reserve, which is robbing the future generation, or has to use tax which was available for something else, or has to create a new tax, or a combination of the above.

Whichever it is, it is someone else funding these unprofitable uncompetitive "social" enterprise.

Yes, government simply transfers wealth. Maybe you are "barking at the wrong tree"?

(07-03-2014, 05:39 PM)freedom Wrote:

(07-03-2014, 04:47 PM)specuvestor Wrote: Obviously you have no idea who is the 羊and where is the 羊毛 and still barking up a tree, so I'll leave it as it is for you to figure out the cashflow, since our socialist founders obviously couldn't balance their books either without this illuminating Singapore Inc ideology

(07-03-2014, 04:05 PM)freedom Wrote: I can't believe that someone advocating the public goods wants to talk about "羊毛出在羊身上 what goes around comes around " as the money the government spends grows from a tree instead of collecting from the very people it serves.

PS it is roughly translated as "goat's hair has to come from the goat"

I can understand Chinese perfectly. Wonder where the money will be from to fund such social needs? Money does not grow from trees. Either government has to use the reserve, which is robbing the future generation, or has to use tax which was available for something else, or has to create a new tax, or a combination of the above.

Whichever it is, it is someone else funding these unprofitable uncompetitive "social" enterprise.

Yes, government simply transfers wealth. Maybe you are "barking at the wrong tree"?

I was helping flinger understand Chinese.

Like I said, our founders did pretty well without the Singapore Inc mentality. Either they were cooking the books or had a money tree stashed somewhere.

Or perhaps they simply understood socio-economics better to have a growing reserves. Or maybe LKY's appraisal of Goh in his memoir was right, should have stuck with that view and saved us from a wasted decade and still counting the cost even today. The other Goh however, namely Goh Keng Swee and Hon Sui Sen, has taught us a better way

As far as layman like me is concerned, can anyone tell me in what years or how many years our G. has run a budget deficit? Don't you all worry, our G is very good at giving the people with the right hand and taking back with the left hand. If not how come our G suddenly says, "There is already "earmarked" 9 billion $ for the 65+ and above for what ever "social programs". IIRC the coming new social contract with the people. Mind you first time in history such generosity from our G to some group of people of Singapore. imho.

In the past they always said deficits but end up with surpluses, look at their past records . I don't trust what they said many years ago. Even ex MP Tan Soo Khoon warned them in the Parliament not to use this tactic .

(09-03-2014, 04:28 PM)cfa Wrote: In the past they always said deficits but end up with surpluses, look at their past records . I don't trust what they said many years ago. Even ex MP Tan Soo Khoon warned them in the Parliament not to use this tactic .

Ha! Ha!
Really? MP TAN SOO KHOON said that? No jokes!

But that's our G's style from the days of the "OLDMAN".

Hokkien says, "PUAT HUNG! Boh buay tia wey".
Now don't think it can work on the younger generations. Who are so much more educated and well informed.