Labor in office, what will happened to property investment?

[alexlee]

5. Can All australians be employed or work in banking and financing industry?

Obviously you think a city can prosper just from mining. Why not banking?

They don't have to be directly employed. We're talking all the restaurants that serve the staff food (my group of maybe 20 people spends at least $2,000 every month just on dinner when we work late), stationery companies, coffee shops, taxis (I take taxis home probably 6, 7 times a month: multiply that by thousands, month in, month out), clothing, accomodation, hotels (because banking pulls clients and staff in from other offices), etc. Not to mention the bonuses that almost single-handedly drive property prices in New York and London.
Alex

 

[Kennethkohsg]

QUOTE=TheAnalyst;353169]

3. Demand moves the market. Economy development generates demand. I have found apart some suburbs in Perth. The market in WA is going reasonably well.

4. If you invest wise, I believe you still make a lot of money in WA. Why people hate bear share market but the bull market? You buy in growing market not a down market.

5. I believe you read Sundays and Saturdays paper. How crazy about the properties in Trig, Sorrento... Are all these people idiots? I do not think so.[/QUOTE]
*******************
Dear TheAnalyst,

1. Somehow, your line of thought comes out very clearly in this post and you have argued well for your case.

2. I fully agree with you, in this regard that Perth's growing Economy provide a more solid foundation for its housing prices to rise further in the near future, as compared to the present NSW State Economy as indicated by the recent report that higher household annual income in WA has exceeded those in NSW. Morever the nett population increase in WA has also been increasing at a faster pace in WA in recent times as compared to NSW, though numbers-wise immigration into NSW is still reported to be much higher than those mirating over to WA.

3. However, presently, Sydney has a far bigger population than Perth now and NSW's long term land supply for land housing is much more limited than those in WA. On the basis of the 2 basic housing factors considerations, I believe that the "scarcity" factor is more likely to play out first in the NSW's housing market than in WA housing markets much earlier and a for a longer foreseeable period, all things being equal. (Of course, one can also argue that future housing supply in NSW may stil be higher than those in WA, as more medium/high rise apartment living units can be built per m2 land in NSW as compared to WA's preference for low-rise single residential land/house units.).

4. As an investor myself, I also prefer to buy in a growing market than in a down market, as it is much safer...( but more monies are however in the bust than during a boom??... we make monies when we buy, rather when we sell??).

5. Regarding the trend of more people buying more expensive properties in Perth in recent times, I have mixed feelings and thoughts about the trend itself, at this point in time.

6. Morever, I am presently not well-informed nor quite understand this particular market segment yet for myself at this point in time.

7. Nor do I, at this point in time, truly understand the present trend of seemingly increasing interest and more "demand" and price surge for these expensive properities, both in Perth and across Australia-wide, which I have sort of notice, this same trend for myself too, recently.

8. I agree with you that the buyers are not "stupid", in the first place. But are they "greedy" or "rational" with their recent purchases? Are these the newly-found rich or"get-rich-quick" investors playing the market, having made a lot of monies for themselves from the mining and ASX stock-market booms recently?

9. Is the current buying trend for more expensive properties a basic long term fundamental trend? Or is it a mere a short term "speculative" investing trend? Is this trend sustainable over time, and if so for how long or/and how much longer?

10. Who are these people who are actually buying them and their housing intentions, that are actually driving up the market?

11. Are these buyers, the same rich people who have made a lot of monies during the mining boom and ASX stockmarket booms that are bascially driving up the the high end market Australia-wide? Is the GREED factor been properly factored in for the continued increasing pricer surge in the upper end property market segment in Perrth as well as Australian-wide?

12. OR/AND are these buyers the real long term owners-occupier buyers among the new rich Australians or/and the overseas rich migrants who are flocking over to Perth and to Australia in droves, to relocate their families here, in the near future? If so, what are the real reasons underlying behind this migration of the rich into Perth and across Australia-wide.

13. How will the recent Election outcome affect this trend? Or is the trend emerging as a result of the new confidence in Australia and its political leadership and its growing Australian Economy?

14. What do you and other members further think and say, please.

15. Looking forward to learning from each of you further, please.

16. Thank you.

Cheers,
Kenneth KOH

 

[Kennethkohsg]

Kenneth, it is obvious that you are uneasy about an ALP government, though I am unsure why. maybe it's the just the fact the government has changed which is new to you.

Governments don't change in Singapore and at every election you are warned about the devastating effect a change in government would be for Singapore. The media back up this argument. This isn't Singapore.

Governments change and our State departments are geared to handle the change with very little consequence.

On a final note, if you are genuinely not comfortable about investing in Australia with an ALP government in power, then my advice is to sell up or at least limit your exposure. not because it's an ALP government but I believe effective investment decisions are best made when you have a confidence in your environment.

*************************************
Dear Baloo,

1. You are right when you say, "Maybe this is the root cause of your uneasiness, the fact that a government change is completely foreign to you."

2. With regard to your statement, " You don't seem to be too confident in Australia at the moment.", I will honestly tell you striaght that "Not now but in the near future perhaps because of this change in government and the related policy changes, as well as other related social-economic ramifications, which may adversely affect the present housing markets in Australia and the direction/price movement.

3. In this respect, I will need to read up more and get myself properly self-educated first.

4. Personally, I am basically confident of Australia and of the Australian Peoples. This is despite I am presently feeling "uneasy" about this change in its political leadership and its related ramifications and social impact on the future of the various housing markets in Australia, for me as a foreign investor, at this point in time.

5. I have already invested into Australia. For me to modify my investment plans now, will immediately cost me monies at this point in time. Nor is it wise to make a move for my investment without getting myself properly educated first and without knowing which way I should decide to do with respect to my present investments.

6. I am not prepared to change my investment plans at this point in time, simply because of my present uneasy feelings and the new concerns that I have now and may further have subsequently.

7. I believe that all I need now is to get myself properly/ better educated on this respect, either by reading up myself or/and through this forum, to effectively address my new own concerns. Once I have achieved that, I know that the uneasy feelings will automatically go off by itself and I will naturally know then exactly what to do for my own investments in a rational manner.

8. Hopefully, you and other members can help me further, in this respect.

9. Thank you.



Cheers,
Kenneth KOH

 

[Kennethkohsg]

Dear Baloo,

1. Let me add further that now I do not think "the sky will collapse down on Australia immediately" . I have also spoken to some investors whom I know, to compare notes, but there were some mixed feedback/views.

2. However, we can always watch the market as it moves and examine the new policies that may come out from the new Government from time to time, for the related implications on the local housing markets.

3. While I may not be as confident of myself in investing under this new Govt initially, I guess that I can learn to take things as they come, and to get used to the change over time, subsequently.

4. While they may be some hiccups and bumps to surface along the way from time to time, the basic landscape is still intact. Consequently, I am prepared to live with that and to continue with my own investment plans as before.

5. Thank you

Cheers,
Kenneth KOH

 

[Celeste]

Do it have a dual array processor with fast pipeline RISC chip set and multi-channel redundant disk array and high speed independent graphics?

????????????????? special school software, and wireless internet, so much for me paying $500 to have the house networked, she can log on anywhere in the house. Ahhhh technology it goes to fast for me to keep up..

All I know is I thought it was rather expensive. We had no choice.

 

[TheAnalyst]

Obviously you think a city can prosper just from mining. Why not banking?

They don't have to be directly employed. We're talking all the restaurants that serve the staff food (my group of maybe 20 people spends at least $2,000 every month just on dinner when we work late), stationery companies, coffee shops, taxis (I take taxis home probably 6, 7 times a month: multiply that by thousands, month in, month out), clothing, accomodation, hotels (because banking pulls clients and staff in from other offices), etc. Not to mention the bonuses that almost single-handedly drive property prices in New York and London.
Alex

Alex,

1. It definitely can. If all the others support that. If Australia economy in every state like WA. I have no doublt, Sydney would be very attractive. However, in my view, Australia has nothing apart from exporting minerals etc. Can you tell me apart from CSR, some wines, what do we make?

2. Wealth is made --- whitout production, where is whealth from? You said rastaurants, coffee shops... all consumptions. In other words, we take money out of out porcket. We do have tourism.

3. Without mining, I believe Australia will be in deep recession. We would become a purely consumption country rather than production country.

 

[TheAnalyst]

QUOTE=TheAnalyst;353169]

3. Demand moves the market. Economy development generates demand. I have found apart some suburbs in Perth. The market in WA is going reasonably well.

4. If you invest wise, I believe you still make a lot of money in WA. Why people hate bear share market but the bull market? You buy in growing market not a down market.

5. I believe you read Sundays and Saturdays paper. How crazy about the properties in Trig, Sorrento... Are all these people idiots? I do not think so.

*******************
Dear TheAnalyst,

1. Somehow, your line of thought comes out very clearly in this post and you have argued well for your case.

2. I fully agree with you, in this regard that Perth's growing Economy provide a more solid foundation for its housing prices to rise further in the near future, as compared to the present NSW State Economy as indicated by the recent report that higher household annual income in WA has exceeded those in NSW. Morever the nett population increase in WA has also been increasing at a faster pace in WA in recent times as compared to NSW, though numbers-wise immigration into NSW is still reported to be much higher than those mirating over to WA.

3. However, presently, Sydney has a far bigger population than Perth now and NSW's long term land supply for land housing is much more limited than those in WA. On the basis of the 2 basic housing factors considerations, I believe that the "scarcity" factor is more likely to play out first in the NSW's housing market than in WA housing markets much earlier and a for a longer foreseeable period, all things being equal. (Of course, one can also argue that future housing supply in NSW may stil be higher than those in WA, as more medium/high rise apartment living units can be built per m2 land in NSW as compared to WA's preference for low-rise single residential land/house units.).

4. As an investor myself, I also prefer to buy in a growing market than in a down market, as it is much safer...( but more monies are however in the bust than during a boom??... we make monies when we buy, rather when we sell??).

5. Regarding the trend of more people buying more expensive properties in Perth in recent times, I have mixed feelings and thoughts about the trend itself, at this point in time.

6. Morever, I am presently not well-informed nor quite understand this particular market segment yet for myself at this point in time.

7. Nor do I, at this point in time, truly understand the present trend of seemingly increasing interest and more "demand" and price surge for these expensive properities, both in Perth and across Australia-wide, which I have sort of notice, this same trend for myself too, recently.

8. I agree with you that the buyers are not "stupid", in the first place. But are they "greedy" or "rational" with their recent purchases? Are these the newly-found rich or"get-rich-quick" investors playing the market, having made a lot of monies for themselves from the mining and ASX stock-market booms recently?

9. Is the current buying trend for more expensive properties a basic long term fundamental trend? Or is it a mere a short term "speculative" investing trend? Is this trend sustainable over time, and if so for how long or/and how much longer?

10. Who are these people who are actually buying them and their housing intentions, that are actually driving up the market?

11. Are these buyers, the same rich people who have made a lot of monies during the mining boom and ASX stockmarket booms that are bascially driving up the the high end market Australia-wide? Is the GREED factor been properly factored in for the continued increasing pricer surge in the upper end property market segment in Perrth as well as Australian-wide?

12. OR/AND are these buyers the real long term owners-occupier buyers among the new rich Australians or/and the overseas rich migrants who are flocking over to Perth and to Australia in droves, to relocate their families here, in the near future? If so, what are the real reasons underlying behind this migration of the rich into Perth and across Australia-wide.

13. How will the recent Election outcome affect this trend? Or is the trend emerging as a result of the new confidence in Australia and its political leadership and its growing Australian Economy?

14. What do you and other members further think and say, please.

15. Looking forward to learning from each of you further, please.

16. Thank you.

Cheers,
Kenneth KOH[/QUOTE]

Hi, Kenneth

1. If I gamble on Australia, I think I like to gamble on WA
2. If I want to gamle on WA, I would gamble on high end market.
3. Lower end market always hard because people's pocket is very tight. It is hard to squeeze extra 20/30 grand. However the high end, they can easily find extra 200/300 grand --- because their income was not measured in out normal salary term. The government, the media everyone target the low end.
4. Some real estate agents only sell high end market.
5. regarding the endless use of land in Perth, I probably donot agree with you. Perth land use is limited for urban development if you read the government land use plan. They have the plan on each year how many blocks to be released, also the infrastructure is not in place by one day.

 

[Celeste]

Hi all

I noticed know one answered in regards to knowing anyone who has been hard done by a workplace agreement. !!! So how bad are they??

Kenneth in regareds to Perth, I have noticed something the last 2 weeks.

I have had my reno in the armadale area on the market 2mths $290-310 range no sale. Properties in this area have been taken off the market and the no.s for sale have halved. Just B4 I put mine on the market the good ones were selling in 1-2 weeks? So now I am pondering wether to hold out for a sale a little longer or pop a tenant in.

I live Bullcreek, my neighbour had a property on the market about 5mths ago and there were a few on the market then. He had for sale for 8 weeks no offers - It was before june 30, he was trying to get the proceeds into super.

In the last 2 weeks I have seen forsale signs go up and an under offer sticker the nest day, at my daughter's school I heard of a couple purchasing B4 it was even listed. These home would be in the $600 -700+ range.

So, I guess the mid income earners are OK, the lower end is not buying.

I believe the papers and crys of forclosures etc. have scared the 1st home buyers. I have it from a top source in one of the big 3 banks that WA doesnot have a forclosure problem and that the no.s are really low. So there is plenty of money in WA.

Lets hope - for my sake anyway, as I would prefer to sell, I do not want to deal with tenants. That the ALP put in place thier plans for easying home affordability quickly. One can wish for say tomorrow!! L.O.L

Can anyone remember or find in any stats since the beginning of time of a gov't that whilst in power a: delivered on all promises and B: did not lie??

 

[THEHEATH]

John Howard lied countless times to the Australian people and introduced unpopular policies such as Workchoices which reduced job security. Many Australians didn't like the direction society was headed and voted for a change. Remember, it's not always about the money!!

/QUOTE]

*******************
Dear TheHeath,

1. I understand that Australians have twice voted out 2 serving Liberals PMs over workplace reforms.

2. What exactly is the issue underlying this workplace reforms? Is it a question of balancing the employers' vs employees interests and social fairness, or rather an rooted issues between Businesses vs Unions group interests? What the main root source to this issue that workplace reforms was deemed neccessary? Why was it deemed neccessary in the first place?

3. Looking to be further educated on this aspect, please.

4. Thank you.

Cheers,
Kenneth KOH

It was a combination of the two Kenneth. Firstly there were worries about employees interests vs employers interests. One of the key features promoted during the introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements (AWA's) in the move away from collective bargaining was the ability of an employeed to come to the table and "negotiate" the terms of their employment. Despite John Howards assurances otherwise I think there was a general feeling in the community two parties sitting down to work out the terms of an AWA DID NOT have equal footing. ie. While it was acknowledged that some highly skilled members of the workforce WOULD have some leverage when negotiating terms due to the unique skills they may have, there was a general consensus that workers of a less skilled nature (factory workers etc.) WERE NOT in a position to bargain and were therefore susceptible to exploitation. There were also concerns that in the event of an economic downturn this situation could worsen as employees became more willing to trade away entitlements and conditions in order to gain employment. Of particular concern were several high profile cases where workers were being asked to sign agreements which traded away penalty rates for weekend and overtime etc. for a trade off of two cents and hour (http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/campaigns/spotlight - just a disclaimer this website is a union run website, the your rights at work campaign has been the major campaign the union movement has been running since over the past few years). Now, another source of concern over the laws were that john howard did not go to the last election running a campaign about industrial relations reforms. After the last election Howard not only won government in the house of representatives, but also had enough numbers in the Senate to pass it's laws. There was a perception among some that Howard abused the Senate numbers he had to pass these laws which he had not put forth to the Australian people at the time of the election.

Finally, it was also very much a fight between two sets of interest groups. Groups such as the H.R. Nicholls Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._R._Nicholls_Society (of which the formers Federal Treasurer was a founding member of ) coupled with business councils argued for workplace reforms while obviously the unions fought it tooth and nail with a long campaign of rallies, tv advertisements etc. It was very much seen as a last roll of the dice for the unions, another term of a howard government would have been seen as almost the end of union influence in Australia.

There were a whole heap of other issues involved in work choices that were cause for concern Kenneth, including restricting the right to strike and increasing penalties for doing so (including potentially large fines for individuals circa 30k,the risk of being charged etc) the introduction of a the ABCC which was a building commission taskforce which were given some extraordinary powers such as taking away a persons right not to answer questions.

Anyway, this is just some things that come to mind.

 

[alexlee]

............................

 

[dave99]

1. After AlexLee's explanation, I still do not quite understand how the Australian Economy is being actually managed and run in real life context.

2. Care to educate me further on this aspect especially about the actual roles play by RBA and the Government and how they manage/control/influence the Economy the way they are required to do?

3. How exactly does the RBA Board Chairman and its members get to be recommended and appointed in the first place?

4. Are these political appointees appointments? Who exactly do they report to and held accountable by?

Cheers,
Kenneth KOH

Hi Kenneth,

The Government (PM & Treasurer acting politically) sets fiscal policy - number of public servants, number of dollars on infrastructure and projects, and tax rates. Other factors, such as the labour force, number and type of skilled workers, lending products and profit levels, property and business formation, and jobs growth, are almost completely privately driven, with various agencies such as APRA and the courts ensuring integrity of the payments system and enforcement of contracts. Contrast with Singapore where the government actively manages large areas of the economy.

The RBA sets the money supply through interest rates according to its mandate set out in the Reserve Bank Act 1959 section 10 - stability of the currency, full employment, and the prosperity and welfare of the Australian people. Currently, this goal is pursued through keeping inflation strictly between 2-3%. The Board is not accountable to anyone; it's power is based on the legislation. The Directors are appointed by the Government for 5-7 years but act independently. Of course since they are appointed by the Government, there is room for manipulation, but the electoral consequences of a government attempting to do this are seen as severe at the moment.

I think your concern stems from the fact that in Singapore, the economy is much more directly controlled through government intervention than Australia. So you understandably feel worried for the economy when the Government changes. But there are 2 points.

1. The economy in Australia is much more affected by the RBA and other nations than by the government of the day. Even big changes like GST have little overall effect. It is mostly driven by private decisions and incentives.

2. The Treasurer is supported in Australia by the Dept of Treasury, staffed by professional economic managers. Many of the same staff remain in place even through a change of government. The Department offers professional advice on alternatives, likely outcomes of decisions and recommended courses of actions to the Treasurer. This allows a new Treasurer to "learn on the job" as you say, without damage to the economy.

All Governments are new at some point and the Australian system is set up to allow that without losing expertise built up over time. Perhaps because the Singapore government never changes, you haven't had personal experience of this process. One way they stay in power is to convince you (successfully) that the sky would fall in if there were a handover of power.

My overall point is that with economic management being mainly with the RBA and market forces, I think a change of government is less of a worry now than, say, 20 years ago. You shouldn't pull your resources out just because of that.

Cheers - Dave99

 

[Sunfish]

Geez Dave. I asked him not to slam the door on the way out and now you invite (advise?) him to stay.

No wonder he is confused.

 

[dave99]

Lol - So much advice to sort through! Ken, I think your brain is going to explode!

 

[Kennethkohsg]

Dear Dave99,

1. Thank you for your kind education.

2. You said that RBA set money supply in circulation. How does it actually go about controlling the money supply?

3. What does the RBA do and go about ensuring full employment for the Australia people?

4. If RBA is accountable to no one, how does it do its own check and balance?

5. How does RBA determine and ensure its Board of Directors makes the right decisions and does not abuse nor misuse its powers?

6. Does the Opposition Party has any say regarding the selection and appointment of the RBA Chairman + the Board Directors, by the Ruling Govt, though independant?

7. Following this Election and change of government, does the old RBA Board under Glenn Stevens' Chairmanship continue on their business as usual?... Or does a new RBA need to be re-appointed again as a result of a change in the ruling appointment?

8. In Singapore, Ministers, being political appointments, are responsioble for setting the policy direction and making all the required political decisons and policy making for their respective Ministries. They are supported by the civil service headed by a Permenant Secretary in each Ministry. I believe that the set up is bascially quite similar as your set up in Australia, since both countries were ex-British colonies.

9. I understand and agree with you when you said, " The economy in Australia is much more affected by the RBA and other nations than by the government of the day."

10. However, regarding your next statement that " Even big changes like GST have little overall effect. It is mostly driven by private decisions and incentives.", I want to ask and clairfy, "who actually decides whether or not to introduce the GST policy in Australia in the first place, as well as the way the new GST Scheme is to be implemented?... The Federal Treasurer himself isn't it? ... rather than one of his professional economic managers??

11. When you say, "The Treasurer is supported in Australia by the Dept of Treasury, staffed by professional economic managers. Many of the same staff remain in place even through a change of government. The Department offers professional advice on alternatives, likely outcomes of decisions and recommended courses of actions to the Treasurer. This allows a new Treasurer to "learn on the job" as you say, without damage to the economy."

12. Are you trying to suggest that the Treasurer passively endorse each policy options recommended by his professional staff for implementation purposes and that he is not required to make any "political" decision at all?

13. Personally, I believe that having listened to the various policy options reccomendation made/presented by his professional staff, ultimately it is the Treasurer himself that actually decides which policy to implement or not to implement, as well as to decide which options to take as recommended by his Treasury staff, isn't it?

14. Though subjective and highly political, this decision-making is critical and will have to be made by the Treasurer himself, rather than by his professional staff, isn't it?

15. This Treasurer/Ministerial decision-making process will always have certain political implications/ bearing/consequences on the ruling party. Consequently, I do not believe such decision-making skills can be effectively " taught" through on the job training, which you are trying to suggesting to me. Do you not agree?

16. The Treasurer himself will need to have good prior politcal instincts and judgement call first when making all these decision-makings. Whether the decision made was appropiate or not, it will always has certain immediate political consequences, which I believe that the professional staff will not be able to advise the Treasurer properly because of its political implications, isn't it?.

17. Likewise, for the purpose of illustration and clarifications, consider the case concerning the deportation and visa cancellation for Dr Haneef.

18. The actual decision to cancel Dr Haneef's Visa and to have him deported out of Australia, is solely decided by the Immigration Minister, Andrew Kevin, himself, rather then by one of his staff or/and by DIMIA, isn't it?

19. Strictly speaking, this decision making is NOT purely "administrative" in nature, as it has certain political implications and consequences for the Liberal Coalition Party as the ruling Government.

20. Consequently, whether or not, a political scandal may eventually emerge out regarding the appriopiateness or/and "political correctness" of the Minister's decision outcome, will ultimately depend on the Minister's own judgement and his own political instincts as the appointed Minister responsible for the affected Ministry, isn't it?

21. If the Minister has made the "wrong" decision or an inappropiate one, it will have immediate political implications on himself/herself and on his/her own ruling Party. Depending on the degree of political repercussion/embarrassment suffered by the ruling Government, the Minister making the decision, will be held responsible for the outcome for the decision being made. Consequently, he/she may end up losing his/her Ministerial job appointment if the political consequences are grave.

22. One good example would be Ms Amanda Vanstone who has lost her Ministerial appointment, after a series of blunders made by her DIMIA, and who was subsequently posted out as a diplomat.

23. Thus, I do not know how your Minister can be quickly and properly "taught" to develop this political making skills and to acquire the neccessary political experiences, through this on-the-job training process.

24. I personally believe that such skills can only be developed through having sufficient exposure and experiences in this decision-making process and is highly dependent on the Minister's own personal politcal insight and skills.

25. Each decision making is a "risk" for both the Minister as well as for the affected people/parties.

26. Consequently, there are much risks involved each time there is a change of government and a new team of Ministers are being appointed to run their respective Ministerial portfolios. These risks can only be mitigated depending on the political background of the newly appointed Ministers and their level of political experiences and acumen.

27. For your further confirmation and comments/discussion, please.

28. Thank you.

Cheers,
Kenneth KOH

 

[Kennethkohsg]

Hi Kenneth,

All Governments are new at some point and the Australian system is set up to allow that without losing expertise built up over time.

Perhaps because the Singapore government never changes, you haven't had personal experience of this process.

One way they stay in power is to convince you (successfully) that the sky would fall in if there were a handover of power.

Cheers - Dave99

**********************
Dear Dave99,

1. In Singapore, the new Ministers are being groomed by first exposing them as much around the different Ministries through their levels of appointments and rotation of duty across different Ministries.

2. Depending on the background of each new incoming Minister, they can be first appointed to serve as Parliamentary Secretary level, then Minister-of-State levels, Senior Minister of State levels, Deputy Minister levels, full Minister levels.

3. In certain "heavy-weight" Ministries, like the Ministry of Defence, we will have 2 Ministers per Ministry i.e. one highly experienced Senior guy as the First Minister and one junior one as the 2nd Minister. The senior Minister will guide and mentor the junior minister while he is on the job training as a a full-fledged but "in-experienced" minister running the Ministry.

4. In Singapore today, we now even have a few Senior Ministers posts created and a newly created "Minister-Mentor" post to help oversee and advise the new Prime Minister on his job of running and managing the Nation.

5. The day-to-day operational running and planning for each Ministry is actually headed by 1 or 2 Permenant Secretary supported by the Civil Service. All these civil servants are non-political appointments. They are actually equaivant to the various professional and admin staff in your Australian Ministries.

6. Because of these closely managed on-the-job training for the various political appointments upto the Ministerial levels, new incoming serving Minister would have acquired the neccessary political skills, experience level and expertise to properly manage their respective Ministries independantly by themselves as a full-fledged Ministers, subsequently.

7. Because of Singapore's one single dominant Party Government System and the weak opposition, we are able to achieve the required political continuity through the same repeated ruling PAP Party Government after each successive General Elections as well as through regular inter-generational leadership renewal process, without causing much disruption to the ruling Government structure.

8. In your context of the 2-tier bi-partisan government structure and given the different " opposing" political idealogies, each time there is a change in the Federal Government, I assume that the general direction of the country and its Government will also start to change and may swing from one to the other and with each different preferred political slant to achieve different intended political results for their respective political parties so as to ensure the ruling party Government will continue to stay in power after each successive elections.

9. Consequently, once in power, the ruling party government will come out with certain policies or carry out the required policies reforms to benefit their own ALP/Liberal supporters and interest groups.

10. While the ruling government set forth to achieve its national objectives, I believe that its policies formulation/implementation are likely to be "slanted" to benefit certain interest groups and/or re-aligned to suit the ruling party political ideology.

11. Consequently, I expect the new ruling ALP Government to come out with new policies or/and to carry the neccessary policy reforms on existing govt policies which are more likely to be pro-ALP and more pro-workers, rather than pro-business or pro-investment.

12. To what extent, will these future new policies/policies reforms be "slanted" towards Pro-ALP which may adversely affect the investors' interests directly, I do not know presently.

13. Given the fact, many of the ALP Government front-benchers are likely to be appointed Ministers for the first time, I can expect certain levels of policy mistakes being made during the first few initial years while the new ministers are still new and inexperienced on their job as the appointed Minister in Charge of their respective Ministerial portfolios.

14. In this respect, I can expect that things are going to change from previous practices which I am familiar with before or/and probably heading toward opposite direction in the near future. This may be highly detrimental to my own investing interests.

15. For your further comments and discussion, please.

16. Thank you.

Cheers,
Kenneth KOH

 

[Kennethkohsg]

Perhaps because the Singapore government never changes, you haven't had personal experience of this process.

One way they stay in power is to convince you (successfully) that the sky would fall in if there were a handover of power.

********************
Dear Dave99,

1. Like your Australian Government System, the civil service is the real professional backbone structure and support for the Singapore Government. They are non-political and answerable directly to the Singapore public through their respective Ministers-in-charge.

2. As far as I am concerned, I am confident that the same civil service will still be in place, even though there can be a change in government for Singapore.

3. What will change is only the political direction for our country though there may be much up-heaveals for some of my own fellow Singaporeans, who may grown to be too accustomed to the present PAP Government and its way of governing.

4. I have no concerns regarding the level of political experience and skills for the incoming Government for they would have been well tested and proven their political acumen during the General Election process;- otherwise they would not have won the Election in the first place.

5. Because we are used to governing Singapore for its continued national survival and with the people supporting the Government, we do not have true bi-partisan political support. Consequently, despite different political idealogies, the basic social institutions and the way things are being carried out in Singapore, will remain essentially much the same, in substance though it may change drastically in its forms.

6. However, given your distinct bipartisan politics and their different political ideologies, I do not know to what extent the Australian Government structure and tax/investment related policies will change, following this change in government.

7. Put it another way, my concerns actually reflects my own present serious lack of proper in-depth understanding regarding the Australian Society, its Australian Government/Politics and the proper running/functioning of the Australian Economy.

8.Thank you.

regards,
Kenneth KOH

 

[human]

********************

7. Put it another way, my concerns actually reflects my own present serious lack of proper in-depth understanding regarding the Australian Society, its Australian Government/Politics and the proper running/functioning of the Australian Economy.

Kenneth KOH

Geez ..Kenneth
Waffling non-stop repeatedly in over 100 posts over 3 days and enough written content to re-write Aus GSt tax laws, you come to conclusion that you have serious lack of knowledge for Aus society, gov, politics and economy..


perhaps you need to give your fingers bit of rest and stop flogging the dead horse