Master wealth builders understand a secret: You have to keep your spending down while your income increases. You must teach yourself to feel the truth: that every time you buy a depreciating asset, you become poorer. Remind yourself that most of the junk you buy becomes unused after a few months and does not provide you with that much value anyway.
To begin with, one must avoid all forms of debt much as you would the plague. Secondly, one must live on half his income. This meant that what you made in your job at the end of each month must be used to pay for only the basic necessities and the remaining half would be saved and invested.
If you adhere to this basic rule of avoiding debt and living on half your income, one couldn't help but becoming wealthy over time. "But what should I invest the remaining 50% of my money in?" It doesn't matter what you invested in since you'd be using only a certain part of your discretionary income. If you bombed out on one investment, you'd eventually come back on another one.
Wealth is not acquired through addition. It is acquired through multiplication. Very few fortunes have been made by adding up paychecks and overtime. Two factors are most important in achieving wealth:
- The number of years that an individual has been consistently saving and investing.
- The proportion of funds, on average, allocated to higher return investments such as stocks.
Simply stated, if your goal is to accumulate a significant amount of wealth during your lifetime, you must first save something and then exercise control over one of two factors: your long-term rate of return or the time horizon over which you compound your wealth.
3. Send all money overseas where investment returns are higher.
4. Retire overseas (for lower costs-of-living).
FIC Regulations for Foreigners Buying Property In Malaysia
Any foreigner buying property in Malaysia is required to get approval from FIC (Foreign Investment Committee) and State Authority. Foreigners can only purchase properties valued more than RM150,000 but there is no limit to how many units a foreigner may buy. Foreigner on-selling to another foreigner requires FIC approval. If selling to a Malaysian, but FIC needs to be notified.
Lalapore was a neat little country. It was small, but it had a good trading location. This attracted a Colonial occupant who developed its trading capacities, and brought lots of migrants to work there. After a 100 years or so, the Lalaporeans got rid of the Colonial occupier so that it could take charge of its own destiny. The beginning of this new nation was fraught with hardship. No hinterland, no natural resources, a poor, mostly uneducated population required drastic political measures to set her on the right path. Up rose a party - the Papsmear Party - that towered over many others; one Party that was schooled in the Colonial's way but whose heart was in Lalapore. This Party was overwhelmingly endorsed in the inaugural election and its leader, Mr Leeder, became the beloved leader of a new nation. The new Leeder of the Papsmear Party and his merry men were geniuses. They got their priorities right and ensured that kids were educated for the future, that infrastructure was conducive for foreign investments, that the country was clean and green, etc.
Election after after election, the Papsmear Party gained ground. Despite the presence of opposition voices in this 'democratic' country, dissent was crushed; not by illegal means, but by efficient enforcement of anti-defamatory laws that the Papsmear Party regularly used to sue and bankrupt opposition politicians (and also foreign media), making them ineligible for future elections.
The population of Lalapore largely votes for the Papsmear Party. Some do so out of appreciation for its good work. Some do so because the opposition are not strong enough to be trusted in parliament. Yet others do not even get to vote because the opposition cannot field enough candidates. The wealth of the economy and the stability of Lalapore society have made many Lalaporeans apathetic to politics due to complacency. The Papsmear Party has done a good job, so why rock the boat, right?
But storms brew in the horizon. Leeder of the Papsmear Party, dies. After a firm grip on the Papsmear Party and Lalapore for more than 50 years, Leeder's death spurred pro-Leeder and anti-Leeder camps within the Papsmear Party to scamble for the spoils. As blows are traded, the Papsmear Party's squeaky-clean image takes a beating as Papsmear Party-members use underhanded methods to oust fellow members. Finally, in the brouhaha, a massive Scandal hits the Papsmear Party, and no spindoctoring can save them. With mounting pressure from Lalaporeans for justice to be meted out, the President dissolves Parliament and calls for fresh elections.
All Papsmear Party members immediately quit the Papsmear Party to form their own parties. But the stain from the Scandal means that their names are now not worth the price of the ballot-papers that they are printed on. The opposition, on the other hand, had a field day generating support from disgruntled Papsmear Party supporters.
On election day, the opposition wins. Lalaporeans sit in front of the live-update TV screens, in tears. Some cried for the downfall of the Papsmear Party, while others teared in happiness of the long-awaited victory of the oppostion in Lalapore. But yet others cry because the the Pillar of Lalapore - the Papsmear Party - has given way to an untested, un-united opposition who have never tasted power before.
Rolling in his grave, Leeder, the dead founder of the ex-Papsmear Party, finally sees his glowing political folly in the darkness of his crypt. In his eagerness to ensure a top-down one-party dominance in Lalapore for the sake of political and governmental efficiency, his deliberate marginalisation of the opposition had been calculated to keep them weak. A weak opposition was good for the Papsmear Party while the Party was infallible, but the collapse of the Papsmear Party exposed an ugly wound that the opposition ably exploited.
Now, Lalapore under the new government is having its first taste of 'democratic' freedom. But with the new government being untested and inexperienced - thanks to the oppressive Papsmear Party - Lalaporeans can only sit and wait to see if everything is a sweet dream or a bitter nightmare.
Moral: You reap what you sow. But with an entire country at risk, we are not simply looking at a worthless bushel of wheat going up in flames.
"If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication." - Lee Kuan Yew (April 27, 1955)
From the letter by the Housing Board's Ms Kee Lay Cheng ('How prices of new HDB flats arrived at'; ST, Nov 17), it would appear that new flats that are sold are not subsidised. Ms Kee said that 'new HDB flats are priced below their equivalent market values so that buyers enjoy a substantial market subsidy' - that is, they are sold at prices lower than those sold in the open market.
There is no such thing as 'market subsidy'. If a flat's price in the open market is $400,000 and the seller reduces it to, say, $350,000, he is giving a discount and not a subsidy. Likewise, if the HDB sells its flats at $350,000 each, it is giving a discount to what similar flats can fetch in the open market.
A subsidy is the difference between the cost of a product or service and the reduced price at which the product or service is sold or provided, the difference being absorbed by the Government to make the product or service available to those who may not otherwise be able to afford it.
Thus, if it costs $200,000 to build each flat (land cost + construction cost + consultants' fees and other incidentals) and they are sold at $150,000, then the HDB is giving a subsidy of $50,000. On the other hand, if it sells the flats at, say, $350,000, it is in fact making a profit of $150,000, even though it may be giving a discount of $50,000 to the market price.
The flats in Queenstown that are close to the MRT station were constructed after demolishing low and medium-rise blocks that were constructed during the early 1960s. The land on which they stood was acquired at very low cost. Even allowing for inflation, the final costs of the flats cannot be the prices now quoted by the HDB. At these prices, the flats are not subsidised.
To say they are sold at these prices because they are near the MRT station is to place a value on them and not their cost. It would have been far better had the HDB said that, because the flats are located close to amenities, they will not be subsidised, but will be sold at cost or at a small profit to subsidise flats not so well-located.
Cheong Chee Mun
ST Forum Dec 8, 2006
HDB Consistently Incurs Losses Selling New Flats
Mr Cheong said that HDB acquires land for public housing at 'very low cost'. This is not correct. The land for public housing is purchased from the Singapore Land Authority at market value, based on the Chief Valuer's assessment.
The total cost of developing four- and five-room flats is higher than the example of $200,000 mentioned in the letter. The development cost is even higher in mature HDB estates where the market valuation of the land is higher. Hence, the assumption that HDB enjoys a profit of $150,000 per flat is wrong.
HDB has consistently incurred losses in the development and sale of new flats. It is unable to fully recover the costs of development as it sells new flats at a subsidised price. Together with the other types of housing subsidy, such as the CPF Housing Grant and the Additional CPF Housing Grant for lower-income families, the sale of subsidised new flats results in a tangible and substantive cost to the Government. Specifically, over the last five years, HDB's home-ownership programme incurred an average annual deficit of $390 million.
Kee Lay Cheng (Ms) Deputy Director (Marketing & Projects) For Director (Estate Administration & Property) Housing & Development Board
ST Forum Dec 14, 2006
Deficit In HDB Flat Sales A Paper Loss To Govt
Ms Kee took the stand that HDB did not acquire land at a very low cost. However, she failed to note that since the 1970s, the Government had acquired land at very low cost under the Land Acquisition Act.
She then informed us that the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), a government agency, sold the low-cost land at a value determined by the Chief Valuer, another government body, to HDB, yet another government agency. This inter-government agency sale certainly ramped up the total development cost for HDB.
As the vendor and purchaser are related, the transaction is a zero-sum game to the Government's bottom line because HDB's liability matches SLA's gain. Hence, I see the deficit in HDB's sale-of-flats account as an internal 'paper loss'' to the Government, not a tangible cost.
Ms Kee merely stated that the total development cost of an HDB flat is higher than $200,000 and disputed the deduced profit of $150,000. However, no figures were provided. Why can't Ms Kee reveal the true land cost, construction cost, consultants' fees and other incidentals in the building of a typical flat?
Steven Lo Chock Fei
ST Forum Dec 28, 2006
Why Sale Of State Land Is Done at Market Price
Mr Lo agrees that CPF housing grants are a tangible cost to the Government. However, he feels that new HDB flat prices are not really subsidised because the land is not priced at original cost.
We wish to explain why he is mistaken. Whenever state land is sold by the Government, it has to be done at market price, whether for public or private housing. If not, it may result in a drawing on past reserves for which the President's approval is required under the Constitution. This price takes into account the fact that substantial resources are invested to provide major infrastructure, such as roads, MRT, sewers and utilities, for the new housing development. The land value would have been significantly enhanced beyond the acquisition costs incurred by the Government.
The price of HDB flats takes into account the market value of the land. In order to make the flats affordable, they are sold at a price which is lower than the market. The difference in price is the subsidy. It is a real subsidy, and not a paper loss.
HDB does not reveal the land and construction costs of specific projects as they vary from location to location, and from time to time. However, overall, it is unable to recover the development cost of new flats. That is why it incurs an overall deficit each year for its home-ownership activity, as reflected in its annual accounts which is available publicly.
Kee Lay Cheng (Ms) Deputy Director Marketing & Projects) For Director (Estate Administration & Property) Housing & Development Board
ST Forum Jan 10, 2007
New Flats' Market Value Minus Sale Price = Subsidy
I refer to the letters from Mr Viktor Ye Kok Kheong and Mr Leong Sze Hian (ST, Jan 1 and 2, respectively) pertaining to the subsidy for new HDB flats.
First, Mr Ye asked if it is true that the Chief Valuer values all land in Singapore using Raffles Place as the benchmark. We wish to state that it is not so. It is a fundamental valuation principle that lands are valued based on the specific attributes of the site, such as location, the permitted use of the land, and tenure. The Chief Valuer's valuation has to be supported by comparative land-sales evidence.
It is simply not tenable to benchmark every plot of land to Raffles Place pricing, as this would drive property prices beyond the reach of most Singaporeans.
Second, Mr Leong asked HDB to reveal its land and construction costs to prove that HDB flats are subsidised. He has missed the point. To understand the full extent of public-housing subsidy for new HDB flats, one should be comparing the market value of the flats with the sale prices charged by HDB, rather than look at the input costs of land and building.
New flats are subsidised as they are being sold at prices that are lower than what they would otherwise fetch in the open market. If this subsidy is not real, why should many flat buyers choose to buy new flats from HDB instead of resale flats in the open market using the CPF Housing Grant?
Kee Lay Cheng (Ms) Deputy Director (Marketing & Projects) For Director (Estate Administration & Property) Housing & Development Board
Many Singaporeans are asking how much it cost to build those HDB flats. Since they are delivered to buyers not in stayable condition, you have to spend tens of thousands more to fix it up with flooring, etc. Some people are wondering if the subsidised flats are sold above building costs...
Construction costs have NOTHING to do with subsidy. What HDB gives out is a market subsidy. As long as your new flat is less that what it cost to buy off the market, you are subsidised. Even if HDB can construct each flat for $1, they can claim they subsidise you. Get it?
Lee Kuan Yew: "Singapore’s brand of democracy works because the Government gives the country’s citizens every reason to vote for it at elections. But we have engineered it so carefully that they must be very stupid to vote this government out. The government solved the housing problem by building public housing using Central Provident Fund (CPF) money. These flats are then sold to Singaporeans at cost price. For the Singapore citizen, his flat is something substantial that he owns and has to pay installments. So he must have a job. If you change the government, you have no jobs, the house is taken back."
It's incredibly difficult to become so deeply deeply reviled overnight and with so little effort but someone has actually managed to accomplish this feat. I've heard of high-fliers, over-achievers and overnight sensations but achieving this kind of publicity in such a short time is truly worthy of praise. It's like she just reached inside and ripped our collective guts out, then waved it in our faces. See? These are your guts. See? Now I'm throwing them on the floor and stomping on them.
How do you keep a nation of citizens compliant and non-critical? How do you keep them on the side of the Government? By Keeping Shit Like This Out of Our Faces, Thank You Very Much. It's easy to believe that our MPs really care about the common good if we don't hear otherwise. It's not so easy when some 18-year old kid starts parroting condescending nonsense like this. How about we just NOT have any news? Just insert more advertisements. Or just say "Sorry - what she said was wrong" - even if you don't mean it? Give us half a reason to continue to suspend our disbelief.
People are not animals and we shouldn’t live like animals or to be governed like animals. There is no excuse that we should treat our fellow humans like how the animals treat their own kind. We are building a civilized society, not a jungle. Everyone have their ups and downs. So, by the elitists' logic, its a matter of time before they become the outcasts of the society since they will fall sick, grow old and inevitably make mistakes during the course of work. When that happens, accordingly to the rules of the jungle, they should be "eaten" or throw aside / abandon.
Life is a loop, what goes around, comes around. So, be careful when you make a general comment or naive statement about someone unfortunate. You never know when it will be your turn. You might expect an MP to share your concerns and troubles but please be understanding, an elite MP who holds a top post, does not struggle to pay for his HDB flat, never needs to stay awake at night worried about medical bills or the cost of his children's education. It is totally unreasonable for ordinary Singaporeans to expect their elite MPs to understand the challenges, problems and fears they face in their daily lives.
Many people believe we have an meritocracy. Actually we don't. What we have is an elitist system based on selection - resources and opportunities are generously continuously allocated to this group of elites through the system and a structure.
"Singapore is like Sparta, where the top students are taken away from their parents as children and educated. Cohort by cohort, they each select their own leadership, ultimately electing their own Philosopher King... But when I reached the end of the book, it dawned on me that though the starting point was meritocracy, the end result was dictatorship and elitism. In the end, that was how Sparta crumbled." - Ngiam Dow Tong, a former top civil servant (link)
The most important characteristic of real meritocracy is not that the winner takes all at the end but that everyone has a chance to play and compete. It is this competition that creates energy and dynamism in a society. To have this competition, we need a level playing field and for as many people as possible to feel that they have a chance. Other features of a meritocratic society is the lack of secrecy and tendency for the system to eliminate inherited advantages.
Elitism is different from meritocracy. It is the belief that the views of a selected group of people, the elite, are far more worthy than those of others (the non-elite) and hence the views of the public can be disregarded. Because more resources and opportunities are allocated to the elites, the accomplishments will reaffirm the original belief that they are more deserving of those opportunities. The elite have been selected and exempted from real competition even when they go for elections...
Noblesse Oblige - obligation of those of high rank to be honorable and generous. “We must instill a sense of duty in our children; every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity; an obligation, every possession; a duty.” - John D. Rockefeller Jr
"It's not so much: "there, there, it's not your fault" vs "you're losing out, you better do something about it"... but "you're in trouble, we know it, and we will help you." The thing is: Jobs disappear. People don't. Unless they jump onto the path of oncoming MRT trains. Is the government going to help them? Or justmake fun of them?" - Mr Wang Says So
“Singapore Inc.” was a buzzword that the Gahmen came up with a few years back in one of the many efforts to rebrand Singapore. Corporations are profit-driven. They only have a profit-motive. Corporations have no heart, no sense of charity. Their only objective is to make more money.
Singapore Inc is like another corporation. The average Singapore citizen is like an employee of this company. As with all corporations, the employees will be exploited, naturally. They will need jobs, and their job will depend on the corporation. In a world where there are no unions, no legislation; and where there is only 1 corporation, the employees are entirely at its mercy. It can pay them as much or as little as it deems fit, it can choose not to give them any benefits, or to restrict those benefits. The employees are dependent, almost to the point of being beholden - they have no choice, they need to eat, they need to feed their children, they need this job - and thus, they accept. Singapore, the country, is a lot like Singapore Inc. It exists for a profit-motive - to power the economy. So that it can plough back the profits into itself and perpetuate its existence.
Singapore is like an office. A citizen is like a minion; working to power the economy. We are an IC number, and a statistic. We have no influence at all. We cannot speak out. If we gather in a group of more than 5, we constitute an unlawful assembly. If we organise a peace march, we constitute an illegal procession. If we speak out on the internet, there is a possibility that we bring prejudice to the maintenance of harmony. We have no say in how our country is run, no say in how our money will be used, no say in anything at all. We cannot do much; we have been handicapped.
I wonder why our government can tell us with one voice to stop complaining and whining and to accept policies which are all for the good of the economy, and on the other hand to tell us not to leave and to quit and to stay and that this is our home. A corporation and a home are mutually exclusive concepts. No one willingly stays after work any longer than he has to unless he is being compensated for it; there is absolutely no reason to. A corporation is cold, distant and sterile; it does not care for you at all; you are but another worker ant working for a distant queen.
From cradle to grave, the stoic Singaporean takes what is given and gives back what he can give. He asks for nothing and utters not. Ridiculed by the children of those he put in power. Betrayed by those he put in power. He works on and on, then he dies. He performs his role. He sees not the vision. He sees not his place in the cogwheel of the great Singapore Masterplan, the Singapore Dream. He works so as to be able to live. Driven only to live and not to dream.
His life cut constantly, cut infinimestially.Just enough to breathe, just enough to live. Bleeding but never dried. Breaking but never broken. That priceless stoic Singaporean worker. Living to live and dying without a dream.
And this is why Singapore Inc. will never be a home.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan spoke about why its better for voluntary welfare organisation (VWO) to play the larger role in helping the poor and disadvantaged in Singapore: “You want commitment, you want passion, you want dedication, you want people whose hearts and minds are truly resonating in sync with the people they are trying to help. Hearts and minds like that cannot be bought, cannot be employed.”
This is LKY talking about how difficult it is to get leaders to stay in Gahmen for the long haul: “It is not possible to hire a foreign talent to run this country. You must have the passion, you must have the commitment, you must share the dreams of your people.”
You must have noticed both leaders talking about similiar attributes required for leaders and voluntary welfare workers - that is, commitment and passion and the ability to connect with the people you’re serving. LKY believes the similiarly “committed and passionate leaders” of our country needs to be paid million dollar salaries in order to make it worth their while to sacrifice their careers and fat paychecks for the good of the country while really committed and passionate welfare workers are paid pittance...
Funny how things works in this country - and you wonder why I have such contempt for the “elites” that run this country.
To begin with, one must avoid all forms of debt much as you would the plague. Secondly, one must live on half his income. This meant that what you made in your job at the end of each month must be used to pay for only the basic necessities and the remaining half would be saved and invested.
Wealth is not acquired through addition. It is acquired through multiplication. Very few fortunes have been made by adding up paychecks and overtime. Two factors are most important in achieving wealth:
Simply stated, if your goal is to accumulate a significant amount of wealth during your lifetime, you must first save something and then exercise control over one of two factors: your long-term rate of return or the time horizon over which you compound your wealth.
