SOCIAL: Sports - Nurturing True Sportsmanship

In the recent SEA Games, Singapore collected 84 Golds, 73 Silvers and 102 Bronzes with Thailand finishing top with 95 Golds, 83 Silvers and 69 Bronzes. This has been an impressive record and a fitting tribute to SG50. 

Our 259 medals have surpassed our precious haul of of 164 medals (50 golds, 40 silvers and 74 bronzes) in 1993, when the Games was last held at home. We are all absolutely thrilled that we have done well as a nation that seeks to excel in everything that we do. But let's pause for a moment to look at the results and ask some questions.

The medals tell us which sports we are good at. One report (Click HERE)  said as follows:

“Over the past 18 days in 36 sports, Singapore’s largest-ever contingent of 747 athletes also delivered 25 Games records, 29 national records, 74 personal bests, and many first-time medalists. 421 were also making their official Games debut. Of the 36 sports, the Republic’s swimmers achieved the highest medal count of 42 (23 golds, 12 silvers and 7 bronzes).

Swimmers Joseph Isaac Schooling and Quah Zheng Wen were the most bemedalled athletes, winning one in every event they competed in. Schooling won nine gold medals and set Games records in all nine events, while teammate Quah finished with 12 medals (7 golds, 4 silvers and 1 bronze).”

One piece of glaring information comes across from the wins. A great majority of the medals were won by local-born Singaporeans.  And we are able to clearly identify the sports that we can be really good at. So, do we still need foreign talents to buttress our sports achievements when we could save our money on them and groom our own talent pool from young in the sports that we are potentially good at?

Say what you like, there can be no real pride in winning medals through the Foreign Talent Scheme which started in 1996. One sport that relies heavily on the scheme is table tennis. Even after 20 years, we are still relying on table–tennis players from China to win our medals. If we are unable to produce local-born table-tennis players to lead our nation in this sport after all these years, we need to ask whether the scheme has usurped the need to nurture our local talent or is table-tennis not really our cup of tea?

We also need to ask ourselves whether it is necessary for us to excel in every sport? To-date, more than 60 foreign athletes have been granted citizenship since the Foreign Talent Scheme started in 1996 (Click HERE). We do not know exactly how much we have spent in the scheme but it should run into the millions which could have been used more productively and meaningfully. 

Since we can now identify a number of sports where our potentials lie, wouldn’t it be make more sense to save our money on foreign athletes and invest in our local sports talents instead? We can bring in foreign coaches instead of foreign athletes? Afterall, sports is not about winning medals alone. It's about the spirit of true sportsmanship.

SOCIAL: Culture - Saving our Food heritage

One of the unique features of Singaporean culture is its food heritage which began with itinerant hawkers peddling on the streets. With the erection of hawker centres, Singaporeans found their favourite foods like char kway teow, laksa, mee siam and roti prata prepared behind more hygienic stalls which were leased from the government at cheap rentals. And the majority of Singaporeans take their daily three meals at these hawker centres which offer a great variety of affordable local food options.

Unfortunately, stall rentals escalated after the government's economic policies went on high gear. The National Environment Agency ("NEA"), which currently manages 107 markets and hawker centres, began selling the stalls in 1994 with takeover fees that ran into hundreds of thousands of dollars. About 2,000 stalls in 15 centres were sold in four phases between 1994 and 1997, and their leases were slated to expire between 2014 and 2017 (Click HERE) .These stalls were sold at between S$26,000 to S$ 141,000 each, depending on their location and size and owners re-sold and pocketed huge profits only to buy more stalls when they were allowed to sublet their stalls. The costs of running a hawker stall invariably shot up. So did food prices at these hawker centres.

Rental costs escalated even further for food stalls when the government stopped building hawker centres for some 26 years while air-conditioned food centres in shopping malls sprouted up like mushrooms. The impact on food prices was significant and families on tight budgets had to forgo at least one meal. Many Singaporeans eat out at coffee-shops too. These are located in housing estates and are the regular venues for many family dinners. With liberal policies on coffee-shop ownership (which attracted foreign investors looking for capital gains) and higher and higher tender prices for coffee-shops in new housing estates, stall rentals in coffee-shops shot up as well. High turnover of business owners in coffee-shops are now a regular feature and the quality of food has suffered. Old food stalls with huge followings and customers who grew up on their menu begin to close down one after another.

After GE 2011, the government announced in October 2011 that it will restart the programme of building of hawker centres after 26 years with a new policy direction (Click HERE). There will be 10 new hawker centres to be built over 10 years. These new hawker centres are to be run on not-for-profit basis instead of by commercial operators. This was a tacit acknowledgment that food prices in our iconic hawker centres have gone up too high. The first of these new hawker centres is now operated by NTUC Foodfare in Bukit Panjang with 28 cooked-food stalls offering at least two low-cost main dishes.This new policy direction in letting only social enterprises and co-operatives manage hawker centre has already led to disgruntled hawkers who were unhappy with the price-caps on the food they sell and that the centres are operated more like food courts which require them to pay plate collection and dishwashing collection and dishwashing fees, use common utensils and wear uniforms (Click HERE).

The idea of bringing down food prices in hawker centre is applaudable but the new management model of hawker centres looks set to have another negative impact on our heritage food culture as hawkers think of ways to cut costs. Why can't we go back to the old model of leasing out hawker stalls at low monthly rentals with a government agency managing the hawker centres? Such a model was working perfectly fine until they started to tinker with it. As they say, if it ain't broken, why fix it?

THEME: Public Housing - A Home for Every Singaporean

HDB's housing mission was originally premised on nation-building. Public flats were initially sold on a "construction cost-based" pricing policy to enable every citizen to own a HDB flat. Later, "land-cost" pricing was added and this eventually changed to "market pricing" which is based on resale prices. This last pricing policy has led to prices spiraling higher and higher, making owning a HDB flat out of reach for many young citizens today. 

These pricing changes ride on the back of promises to enhance assets and HDB's rigorous innovations to create public flats that are more like private apartments. These innovations moved HDB into the realm of real estate business, selling land to private developers. Consequently, a HDB flat can now cost more than a private apartment.

If nation-building is still HDB's sacred mission, then HDB has a duty to ensure that Singaporeans are the only ones who are eligible to buy HDB flats. If this is no longer its mission, then it should no longer be called the Housing Development Board.

As a public housing agency, HDB need not be concerned at all with the housing needs of foreigners and permanent residents. If foreigners and permanent residents choose to own their flat, they should look at private flats and not compete with Singaporeans for public flats which are built with taxpayers money.

HDB flats should also not be approved for use as dormitories for foreign workers or leased by HDB directly to foreigners or permanent residents.

HDB flats should not be acquired or rented to any public or private corporation, even if there are excess public flats. Excess flats ought to be rented out to meet the needs of Singaporeans who do not have the means to pay for a flat or are not yet ready to do so. In particular, 3- and 4-room rental flats should be made available to young couples, including single parents, who need a place with adequate living space to start a family and to raise children . 

If these measures are kept in place, there will be no need for HDB to keep building new flats. There will be more than enough flats if permanent residents are no longer allowed to own any public flat. HDB could revert to construction-cost pricing for new flats. In order not to impact upon the prices of existing flats which were bought based on market-pricing, these new flats that are sold more cheaply should not be re-saleable in the secondary market and must be re-sold to HDB when they are no longer needed.

Private developers are clearly motivated by profits. HDB should not sell land to private developers to build public flats and then disclaim any responsibility for building defects or non-compliance with building specifications. After-all, these flats are still sold with HDB's minimum occupancy requirement for resale which do not exist for private flats. If HDB chooses to disclaim such responsibility, then it should cease selling land to private developers. 

These are just some ideas. There are probably more and maybe better ideas that others may be able to come up with. Whatever it may be, we should not stop thinking of ways to improve our public housing predicament. May every citizen who needs a public flat be able to afford one without paying for it with an arm or a leg.