Like the title suggests, a growing social media presence permits opinions, or nefarious jibes or what have you, to permeate the cyber-regions. If we so earnestly, arduously, passionately advocate for change, examining the policies of the opposition should be of utmost importance. After all, if you would cast your votes for the opposition, you would have a vested interest (instead of calling-for-change-for-the-sake-of-it/Nicole-vs-TPL kind of interest) in how they conduct their business. Let us look at one such policy,
Policy: Devaluing land
Would you then vote for a party with such a contentious proposition? I may not have the foresight of proven experts or veterans, but such a move to me is intuitively counter productive. In times of rising property prices, the policy may introduce systemic risk. It will signal that the rising prices were hallmarks of a bubble and devaluing land will inevitably send it 6 feet under.
One fundamental crux of attracting foreign investment lies in our political stability and its marriage with sound policies. You may or may not be contented with what our sovereign wealth funds are doing, but it doesn’t imply that a transition in power would automatically improve the positions of their investments. Suppose the devaluation of land show signs of materializing; you would immediately(at least in a semi-strong form market) see a market reaction in equity indexes relating to construction, property/REITS, and ultimately significantly dent the economy. Great news for home buyers who might have significantly more cash to design that lavish toilet, not so for systemic stability. Eroded investors’ confidence will slowly but surely phase in. Do expect to see a Bloomberg report on the impact on the reserves, and what it fundamentally spells for the economy.
For Singaporeans who are genuinely concerned with the direction of the nation, you are not alone. My allegiance is to sustainable and sound policies.
For the disgruntled, perhaps you would like to give up your growth dividends just to spite the government. After all, they were handed out by a party you would not like to see in power. You shouldn’t have to reap the benefits of a fiscal policy. A certain opposition held their meeting in a coffeeshop; by all means if it churns out ideas that would improve lives of the average citizen. But I suppose that wasn’t their primary agenda, because impression formation was. I have little interest being under the governance of such. Refunding TV license fees are popular, but provides no credible direction. Some of the policies are just laughable; at some point I expected Ashton Kutcher to appear when the opposition was giving it’s speech, and tell us we’ve been punk’d.
If you think rooting for the opposition demonstrates foresight and character (being defiant and such), think again. The elections are a perfect excuse for you to express dissent for the sunny island, no matter the choice of governance. Come 1st May 2011, there would be dissidents quietly pocketing that extra couple’o’hundred bucks. For the unfortunate peeps who fall into this category, petty jibes gets you nowhere. A better option would be to, A) emigrate or B) move your funds offshore.