Offence

Why take offence? Why get angry? Nothing good would come out of it. Clearly it doesn't make you any happier, except comparatively when you drag someone else into the fight.

Yeah, so someone can't keep his mouth shut, or pass things through their brains before speaking. Yeah, so some people just have malice in their blood. So? It's not like we have much control over what others can or can't say. Let other people be other people. What we can control is ourselves, so let's do that.

The simplest method is distancing. Don't make yourself a participant. Better yet, treat the part of you that does feel offended as a subject of study. Look upon him and wonder, why does he feel offended? Is there any good reason, or none at all? Laugh at him, even. Cordon the negativity off.

Otherwise, just take a big stick and whack the hell out of your foe. There's no room for half-measures!

The True Purpose of Free Gifts

There are some pedants who claim that the phrase "Free Gift" is bad English. Their line of argument is that gifts are by definition free, and hence the modifier "free" is redundant. Unfortunately, their insistence on such strict interpretations and usage of terms results them arriving at precisely the wrong conclusion.

Consider the following phrase, "$2 gift". Pedants would claim a contradiction, but it is clear to the astute mind that it is in fact valid. The word "free" does not modify the cost of the gift to the recipient, but rather the cost of the gift to the giver. In the proper context, it means that the gift is valued at $2, or costs $2 for the giver to buy.

There are two implications of the previous conclusion. The first possibility is that the "free gift" presented by the store or merchant costs nothing for the merchant to give. While this is true in some circumstances, for example crap freebies like pens, in general free gifts do cost a small yet substantial amount. This brings us to the second possibility, that the "free gift" is free (for you), but it is meant to be used as a gift. What this means is that free gifts are not supposed to be kept and used by yourself, but rather to be given away to plague people you disfavor. 

A Novel Solution to the Problem of Ministerial and Parliamentary Wages

In Singapore, ministers are paid considerably more than any of their global counterparts; wages for even a junior cabinet position work out to at least a million Singapore dollars. Now, that sum is a considerable premium over the median wages of Singaporeans, and therefore the policy of benchmarking ministers' pay to top earners invites much criticism and causes much dissatisfaction.

This is not to say that the policy is ill-founded even in principle. I think that it is preferable for a nation to be governed by the competent, and if the competent are discouraged by the low wages of serving office, then the disincentives ought to be removed and office holders compensated.

Yet the devil is always in the details. How much compensation is sufficient? Clearly no compensation is madness, unless one is a supporter of plutocracy. Conversely, paying too much is distasteful to public sentiment and may divert public funds from other useful ventures. Some middle ground is the best solution, but deciding this proper price point is difficult.

I am quite a believer in the free market, and I think that free market principles can be exploited to solve this difficult problem. The general principle is the same- you get what you are willing to pay for. If you don't think that something is not worth it, then don't buy! This basic idea is elegant.

My idea is this: Each candidate for a position (be it parliamentary or cabinet) sets a price at which he would work for. This price must be publicized openly; if and when he wins office, his wages are fixed at that level throughout his current term of service (with perhaps an increment corresponding to inflation). For the voters, everything remains the same- they vote for the candidate they deem most suitable for office. Implicitly, though, the decision criteria has changed; instead of selecting the best candidate, it has shifted to selecting the candidate that provides the best bang for the buck.

What do you think of my idea?

On the WP's Proposal to Peg Prices of New Flats

I disagree with the Workers' Party's (WP) proposal to peg the prices of new HDB flats to the median income of Singaporeans. I will argue that such a policy is ineffective in moderating housing prices, and that simpler alternatives are avaiable for controlling the price of housing.

The high cost of public housing may be viewed in simple economic terms, that of supply and demand. High housing prices is a natural outcome when demand for housing far surpasses the available supply. Both the supply and demand for housing can be further differentiated into two categories; the resale market and new flats from HDB. Such a differentiation is important.

For the purposes of simpler analysis I will assume that demand for public housing is inelastic; that is, the number of people seeking homes remains relatively constant regardless of housing prices. I also assume that buyers have no particular preference between a new flat and one on the resale market, given that both are priced similarly.

When a potential buyer seeks to buy a flat, there are two alternatives, a new flat from the HDB or a resale flat from the resale market. In general, the new HDB flat is cheaper than the resale flat due to a discount/subsidy, but the tradeoff is a waiting period for queuing, construction, etc (colloquially, waiting for keys). Thus, buying a flat from the resale market is naturally more expensive; this may be viewed as an "Impatience Premium" on those who have a more immediate need for housing. Demand for flats distributes itself naturally between the two sources of supply, subject to various influences. For instance, if housing subsidies are increased, a buyer may consider it worth waiting out for a new HDB flat, whereas if the waiting period for new HDB flats were to be increased, a buyer may find resale flats more attractive.

The WP proposes to peg the prices of new HDB flats to the median income of Singaporeans. The likely outcome of this policy is to reduce the price of new HDB flats, relative to existing prices. In the absence of other factors, this artificial price ceiling will have a modest cooling effect on housing prices, due to the reduction in the demand for resale flats. There is less demand for resale flats because more buyers will be persuaded by lower prices to wait in line for new HDB flats. Demand will thus be shifted from the resale market.

The chief effect of the WP's policy is to shift demand by manipulating prices. However, some undesirable outcomes result, namely increased waiting times for flats due to the greater number of people waiting for new HDB flats.

One objection to my arguments is that it is possible to avoid long waiting times by simply increasing the build rate of new flats. I agree with such astute observations. Increasing the supply of flats indeed alleviates the long waiting periods for new housing. But such an observation also highlights one important fact.

The problem with public housing is primarily one of mismatched supply and demand. High prices are but a symptom of this mismatch. Therefore, approaches that do not directly deal with either housing supply or housing demand are likely to be ineffective.

I believe that the housing problem is most effectively dealt with by scaling up the supply of new flats. This solution has a direct impact on housing prices, because if demand for housing is satiated by new flats, then demand on the resale market is correspondingly reduced, therefore reducing housing prices. In economic terms, by increasing supply, with demand constant, prices fall. With suitable management of supply, it is possible to control the cost of housing.

Let's revisit the WP's proposal. The plan to peg prices of new flats would result in prolonged waiting times for new flats, unless more new flats are built in response to demand. However, as I have argued, by simply ramping up supply of new flats, a moderating effect on housing prices is achieved. Hence, by Occam's Razor I would question the necessity of the price pegging policy. Let's only manage one variable, the supply of new houses to build, rather than also managing the selling price of HDB flats at the same time.

There are merits to the WP's intentions, though. While I disagree with their price pegging policy, I am swayed by the policy's objective of matching housing prices to the median income. My objection is merely that I do not believe price pegging is the best way to achieve that policy objective.

Quick Notes from A Political Forum on Singapore's Future

I've just caught the political debate between the PAP and the various opposition parties on CNA. As a whole the program wasn't too bad, though I would have preferred more substantial material.

Below are the quick notes I took during the programme. I'll post my thoughts and opinions at a later date, probably tomorrow.

** On second thought, since the programme has been discussed extensively, I shall no longer be posting my own comments on this issue.

---

A Political Forum on Singapore's Future

Opening Speech
PAP- global competition , income increase, best education, geriatric care
SDA- clean energy, innovation, education
SDP- those left behind
SPP- alternative voice, democracy, equality, safe place, financial hub, technologies
WP- wealth distribution, dignity, entrepreneurs, education (formative years, love for learning instead of drilling), affordable and quality healthcare, social safety net.
SDP- quality of leadership, whitely escape, ubs poor quality of living russia

Cost of Living
WP- hdb houses (pegged to median income), rentals (cost of business)
SPP- open door immigration policy forces increases cost of living
SDP- rising healthcare costs, waiting period (3mth subsidized, 3 mins unsubsidised) for medical care, 0 rate GST for basic services, hdb run as non-profit, assets locked into homes
SDA- housing (should not be a commercial issue, should be run as public good) healthcare, education, basic items
PAP- 23% servicing cost (cheaper relative to developing countries), medifund etc expanded (cities are expensive), poor get more than GST collected

Foreign Workers
SDA- harmful to jobs, level playing field, companies top up salaries of local worker
PAP- selectively recruit foreign workers (manufacturing 80% not sg, 80% managerial sg), not reduce, 2% unemployment, quota system (Singaporeans first),
SDA targeted industry
WP- rate of immigration not exceed capacity to absorb and integrate, no foreigners unless positions unable to fill, reduce reliance by increasing productivity (to fill with locals)
SDP- displaced due to cheap labour, Singaporeans first policy, demonstrate need first before hiring

Short and Long Term Challenges
SDA- wage does not match inflation, public interest ahead of commercial interest
SDP- shadow budget, public services (not private), cost of govt decrease (ministerial pay), 0 rate GST, Singaporeans first, minimum wage, build up SM enterprises
SPP- education build more universities, lifelong learning, political awareness in youth for platform for critical thinking, build more hospital beds (due to medical tourism), conductive environment for thinking, marginalized Singaporeans not normal (single mothers)
WP- lack of checks and balances in govt, need for parties to build strength to be alternatives
PAP- 85% utilization of beds, bulk of GST paid by rich and foreigners

A Personal Writing Challenge

In line with my recent belief that work-rate is almost everything, I've decided to challenge myself with a personal writing challenge. The goal is modest.

I'll write 100 words a day for 2011.

Therefore I'll end up with at least 36,500 words at the end of the year, if things work out. It doesn't matter if most of it is crap, as the goal is to increase the work-rate and sieve out the good stuff afterwards.

To keep track of my progress I'm including my current progress in my blog sidebar. This will be updated regularly, unless I fall seriously behind.

It'll be interesting to see how far this goes.

Trojans and Passwords

A few years ago my thumb-drive caught a Trojan from one of the computers in an undergraduate lab. It wasn't very sophisticated, and it's mechanism of action was quite simple to grasp; it simply copied itself to the thumb-drive and modified the autorun.inf such that the Trojan would run once inserted. Quite easy to remove, if you knew what to do.

Fast forward a few years, and now I'm teaching in the same lab. And my thumb-drive caught a Trojan again. It's quite probable that the source of infection is one (or more!) of the lab computers. Goes to show what happens to resources that are shared amongst many. I'm now thinking of getting a write-protected thumb-drive for special use.

The incident did make me more security conscious, though. I've changed all my online passwords. Pretty much time, anyway. The old one was left unchanged for too long. Wonder how long this one will last.