I attended yet another “Young NTUC’s Coffeeshop Talk” on 3rd September. This is the second I attended, with the first one more than 6 months ago. The guest of honor this time is Ms Grace Fu (Senior Minister of State for National Development and Education).

The talk started off with an introduction to the mission (and / or vision) of the Ministry of National Development, and an explanation of each of the points. This include examples – like the Pinnacle at Duxton, the Southern Ridges Walk, plans to diversify commercial activities to the Kallang River Basin and Jurong Lake area (with success at Tampines) etc. In general, it explains the MND’s role as not only being a ministry of building houses, but also one with a plan to make Singapore a more attractive place. The introduction then ended with a multimedia presentation of development of Marina Bay and what it will look like upon its completion.

After which, the audience is invited to ask questions. Surprisingly, there were no questions about the MND’s mission and also the Marina Bay development. The first question asked revolved around the ever increasing COV (Cost over Valuation) and what the government gahmen plans to curb it, and whether more gahmen help is in place to keep housing affordable.

If I have gotten Ms Grace Fu’s answers right, it is her opinion that the days of ‘afforable housing’ that our parents know of is long gone and we can stop thinking about it (not her words but what I understood). The minister further mentioned that the gahmen has no intention to further raise subsidies as a result of the increase in COV, other than to very specific groups of needy people. Josephine Yeo (MP, Bishan-Ang Mo Kio GRC) elaborated further that she is against increasing subsidies because that will only encourage people to go for even larger, more expensive housing and driving the cost up further (something I agrees with very much). Someone else also mentioned that curbing COV with legislation only encourages under-the-table transactions which will not help with the situation very much.

The minister reminded everyone that valuation of flats is not something controlled by the gahmen and the COV is a result of transaction done between buyers and sellers. She mentioned that we could go through records of transactional prices and see for ourselves that COV has almost remained at zero most of the time, and at times even negative (i.e. flats are sold below valuation). It is my opinion that the minister seems to be in the opinion that control of the COV is in the hands of the buyers. In short, buyers should walk away from over-paying too much over valuation. On top of which, she mentioned that the gahmen has to allow prices of flats to appreciate, as matured estates with more amenities will fetch a higher price by default.

I do not necessary agree with the minister on her argument that the ‘regulation’ of COV is in the hands of the buyers, since my perception is that while Singaporeans may walk away from such a deal, certain cash-rich foreigners may not hesitate to pay above valuation which in the end fouls up everything for us. In fact, I have always been under the impression that prior to Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997, some Hong Konger’s were paying way above valuation causing property prices to spiral upwards. In effect, there’s only so much Singaporean property buyers looking for a roof over their head could do.

The questions then moved on to the matter of the Ethnic Integration Policy (Ethnic Quota, or ‘EIP’ for short) maintained in HDB estates. It was asked why the quota is so strict, and why it can’t be eased as it was noted that some flats were left empty for years, and not sold even though there are buyers of certain races who want a flat in a particular area. One pointed out that it is a waste to leave the flat unsold until another buyer which meets the racial quota comes along. In answer, Grace Fu reminded all that it is national policy that an MP be representative of all races instead of their own. As such the EIP is also to prevent the appearance of townships with a heavy concentration of a particular race. As far as I am concerned, the minister basically gave text book answers and didn’t quite answer the whole question, though everyone understands the necessity of the EIP.

At this point of time a poll was taken on whether the attendees think it is just our luck or good planning that should Singapore recover quickly from the present recession. There is no surprises here, with a result showing 13% on good luck, and 87% on good planning. I didn’t place my vote, since I am in my opinion that it is both good luck and good planning. After all, our economy is so geared for export that we are the first in Asia to enter into recession not long after the Credit Crisis hits the U.S. There is of course no surprise we will rebound quickly once consumer confidence is restored in the U.S. However, I must admit that the steps taken to limit the damages from this crisis, such as Jobs Credit, is pretty good planning in a way.

Finally, a quick poll on taken whether one would be upset and disappointed when their children send them away to an old folks home when they are old. This eased the ‘tension’ on the matter of housing, and surprisingly the results were pretty close – with 52% saying they would, while the remaining 48% saying they wouldn’t.

The main topic brought up with regard to this poll, was whether legislation is necessary to enforce filial piety and the taking care of parents, why children would take their parents to home etc. From what I gathered, I think there is not so much an objection to people sending their parents to homes, but rather, the dismay that some people actually then abandoned their parents there and also not pay the homes for the services. It is almost certain most people are against legislation enforcing a matter of morality and I for certain is against the gahmen taking up the role of an arbitrator in moral issues. It is however clear, that there are no objections on using the already in place Maintenance of Parents Act to obtain payment from those who abandoned their parents to old folks homes.

Other topics involved the reasons in why some children would take their parents to old folks homes, from the lack of day care centers which is easy for their parents to travel to and also those who are afraid allowing their elderly parents to roam around causing social problems, such as losing their way home. After all, the two-child policy results in smaller families with only two children or less, and their own work commitments would make it difficult to take care of their folks at home. This reminds me of the situation of the mother in Jack Neo’s ‘Money No Enough 2’, and I can understand the helplessness and the lack of control over their situation.

The session rounded up after this, as it was running late (almost 9:30pm) on a Thursday night. Surprisingly, the matter on religious harmony was not touched on even though I noticed a poll was prepared for it and the minister did not touch on her other portfolio – Education.

All in all, I am still encouraged by such talks. While it may not necessary help us understand gahmen policies, not to mention that I may not always agree with all of the explanations and answers, it does help me understand more about what fellow Singaporeans think, and indirectly their reasoning behind the choices they made.