PAP’s suka-suka planning = long-term planning?

Singaporeans should wake up from propaganda before PAP takes our country over the cliff. We should cease believing any form of long-term planning exists since Lau Goh became PM and begin to question highly-paid incompetence.

Almost all the issues we are experiencing today did not happen by chance but were created decades ago. Today’s crumbling infrastructures were planned decades ago, eg MRT.

For this post, I’ll just highlight the screwed-up planning of public housing which is a contributory factor to elevated housing prices.

The chart below shows the number of flats constructed over a 5-year period. It fluctuated between 189,000 units and 30,000 units. Long-term planning? Affordability during the 70s and 80s was determined by PAP jacking up CPF total contribution from 10% to 50% of wages and risking almost every cent meant for retirement to fund our housing (consumption) need.
Statistics from HDB Annual Report

A – From 53,000 units in 1970, PAP steadily ramped up the construction of HDB flats to a record high of 189,299 units (in a 5-year period) in 1985. During the same period, total CPF contribution rate was increased from 10% to 50% to ‘help’ more citizens become HDB flat lessees. Forcing a high percentage of wages meant to fund one’s retirement was clearly foolish but this was ignored by PAP.

B – Construction suddenly decreased 30% by 1990 and to almost half by 1995. In a single year from 1985 to 1986, CPF contribution rate plunged 15% but gradually increased to 40% in 1991.

The PAP had failed to learn any lesson: the following 5-year period saw an increase of about 60,000 flats.

C – After increasing construction to almost 160,000 units in 2000, construction then dived by 100,000 units to less than 60,000 units in 2005. During the subsequent 5-year period,  construction collapsed further to a record low of 30,000 units.

Due to a shortage, prices of flats skyrocketed. From 2005 to 2010, HDB Resale Price Index increased from 100 to 150.

D – Voters’ displeasure with PAP’s ‘long-term’ planning led to the record loss of a GRC in GE 2011. This forced the PAP to increase construction to satisfy the pent-up demand and stabilize prices. From 30,000 units, PAP decided to increase construction by more than 300% to 96,000 in 2015.

The huge fluctuation confirms PAP was engaged in suka-suka planning. It also toyed with Singaporeans’ retirement savings to support its housing programme and this has created another issue.

Singaporeans must be more discerning when reading propaganda.  When PAP talks about long-term planning, it must be:
a) Talking cock
b) Deluding itself
c) Lying
d) All of the above

It should be clear that long-term planning by PAP is really no different from suka-suka planning.  Can PAP MP Tin comment on this? 🙂

This entry was posted in HOUSING, POLITICS. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to PAP’s suka-suka planning = long-term planning?

  1. Anonymous incognito says:

    Proof that govt s do things badly and expensively. If the govt didn’t most of the land control construction housing would never have been a problem. The builders would’ve built for demand and budgets. The housing would be better quality and a lot cheaper.
    The problem is that making CPF obligatory distorted the market. The govt had to justify the humongous amount of money so the building frenzy but badly planned

    • Phillip Ang says:

      Being the policymaker, landowner, developer and banker, they determine the demand, supply and price. Their focus is always on profiting at our expense.
      They care less about the quality as we peasants really have no housing alternative. 😦
      Their mistake will be compounded and many issues will surface years down the road.

  2. David Phua says:

    Wish you a Blessed Joyful Happy Birthday. May you use you wisdom and wide Financial
    Knowledge to help Alternatives Intellectual Politicians to bring Singapore forward. Time for you to come forward to meet up with people like Lim Tean, Paul, Chee , Prof Thum , TCB, Dornald, Cris Kuan etc. Thankyou

    • Phillip Ang says:

      Hi David
      Coincidentally, met up with Lim Tean yesterday for coffee with a couple of donors. 🙂
      Will continue to support him and others.
      I am cut out to play a very different role and my views are at one end of the spectrum: PAP must go in order to have any meaningful change. Suggestions and alternative policies are really not my cup of tea.
      I have more than 2 decades of futures and stock trading experience but my knowledge is really limited.
      Thanks for your wishes. 🙂

      • david phua says:

        Hi Philip, thanks for your respond. A few friends of mine …Richard Wan, Francis Lee and Kwan Yu Kheng had numerous meeting with Lim Tean ( best of the alternatives who really spoke with his heart. People who does politics as career is dangerous , but successful l man with no financial baggage and willing to serve the country with their heart will bring us forward). In order for the incumbent to go we really need people like you to lay the foundation or at least be advisor to the new alternatives . I have been following your articles for along time and spreading your website to hundreds through apps and cards printed with your website address. We really need to do something before this country collapse…like you said. Hope to meet you sometime soon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s