The following is an article by Very Fine Commentary posted on 7 February 2011.

by Hou Shi Hang

Free market or government intervention? It depends on your priorities.

Despite the strong stance of the Washington Consensus against government intervention, it is not a logical inevitability that governments will mess up the distribution of goods and services. It is merely a tendency that governments generate a degree of inefficiency. Inefficiency is not in itself a condemnation, while efficiency should be seen as an advantage rather than a definitive end, as there are inevitably other social goals that must be considered. Similarly, the efficiency of the free market is not proof that it is the “correct” method of economic distribution.

My Waterway at Punggol (HDB)

One good example of this principle is the Singaporean housing system. In most countries, the housing market is dominated by the free market. The government usually acts to supplement the market by providing for low-income households, or to promote home-ownership through legislation or housing subsidy. Unlike most other countries, Singapore does not emphasise the role of the free market in the provision and distribution of flats. For new flats, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has relied on queuing, and, since 2002, the Built-To-Order ballot system. This is highly reminiscent of the heyday of central planning. The rationale for indulging in central planning in this case is to avoid price volatility in the housing market and to make sure low-income households are not left out. This is an attempt to “legitimise” the market by making the prices more palatable to low income groups. The high degree of control the government wields also allows it to use housing policy for social ends; the government incentivises marriage by making new HDB flats eligible only for married couples or two or more singles above 35. Similarly, HDB flats have to abide by an ethnic integration policy and maintain a certain ethnic ratio, all in the name of maintaining racial integration.

To continue reading, click here.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

MOE to roll out enhanced bursary schemes; 55, 000 tertiary students to benefit from it

Education Minister Ong Ye Kung said on Thursday (22 August) that close…

SMRT Shortlisted For Employer of the Year Award 2016

Human Resources (HR) Excellence Awards 2016 Singapore  announced the finalists on its…

马国国会再通过废除《2018年反假新闻法令》

马来西亚国会下议院再次通过废除《2018年反假新闻法令》。 根据《东方日报》报导,马国会下议院以记名投票的方式,最终以92票支持51票反对,三读通过《2019年反假新闻(废除)法案》。 《2018年反假新闻法令》是在2018年4月2日,由国阵政府提呈并获得通过。希盟政府上任后提呈废除法案,虽然在去年8月16日下议院三读通过《2018年反假新闻(废除)法案》。 《2019年反假新闻(废除)法案》是由首相署部长拿督刘伟强提呈。 反对党国会议员在辩论环节时,仍全力支持必须保留《2018年反假新闻法令》。 希望联盟执政后,兑现希盟宣言里的承诺,废除《2018年反假新闻法令》。而国会下议院在去年8月16日,三读通过《2018年反假新闻(废除)法案》。 惟该法案再被带往上议院时,却在去年的9月12日,被上议院以28对21票驳回,以致《2018年反假新闻法令》废除不成。 至于马来西亚为何要废除《反假新闻法令》,要回到去年希盟政府开始执政后,声称现有法律已足够应对假消息传播的问题,例如1998年通讯与多媒体法等。 马国首相马哈迪表示,如果制定法律限制人们表达意见,恐怕亦可能遭政府滥用。 该法曾在去年提出废除,但遭马国上议院否决。  

#FreeMyInternet response to Dr Yaacob Ibrahim’s statements of 4 June 2013

  By #FreeMyInternet We refer to Dr Yaacob Ibrahim’s statement today as…