The Anorexic State
Friday, 16 May 2008, 9:17 am | 55 views
Farquhar
A recipe for government spending
In the now-defunct TV series “The West Wing”, a turning point for the fictional Bartlett administration came during a debate about whether to include the line “The era of big government is over” in the President’s speech.
That debate dramatised the contest over the American government’s size and role during the Reagan era in the 1980s. Ronald Reagan charged into the White House on the back on a brand of mid-western conservatism and a hitherto unmatched enthusiasm for smaller government bred during his term as governor of California. There, where his Democratic predecessors had left behind a bloated administration blamed for stymieing the Sunshine State’s growth, Reagan turned things around by cutting taxes and spending.
Reagan applied the same formula to a struggling America when he became president, famously declaring in his inaugural address that “Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem”. Reaganomics - by reducing taxes and getting spending (with the exception of defence expenditure) under control - was credited by some economists for laying the foundations of the seemingly relentless economic growth America experienced in the 1990s, though it had the side-effect of turning the country from a creditor to a debtor nation during Reagan’s tenure.
Nevertheless, one estimate put the reduction of non-defence discretionary spending under Reagan at 14%1. At the end of Reagan’s presidency in 1989, public spending stood at around 33% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), not much higher than at the beginning of his presidency; it is around 35%2 today. But the American government is rather lean compared with its European counterparts such as Britain (45%), Germany (46%) and France (53%).
Yet the Singapore state is positively anorexic compared to those developed countries, with government expenditure for 2008 projected at only 14.2% of GDP. And like an eating disorder the Singapore state seems constantly unable to keep in even such meagre portions, regurgitating a S$6.3 billion surplus (2.6% of GDP) for 2007.
Nonetheless, this striking lack of appetite compares well with the Anglo-Saxon or European countries, where ever growing entitlements for pension and healthcare benefits are voraciously consuming the budgets. It has made possible a system of low taxes for individuals and firms which is part of the country’s attractiveness as a destination for investment and foreigners.
But the upshot is the lack of anything resembling a welfare state in Singapore. Lacking a pension system, the burden of saving for old age is borne almost entirely by the individual, regardless of income, even though it is possible that a good number of low-income workers will not be able to save adequately for their retirement through little fault of their own. Similarly, the onus of healthcare provision rests mostly on individual. Hence, despite a fast greying population, government spending on healthcare stands at 1.6% of GDP, compared with the US (6.8%), Britain (6.9%), Germany (8.7%) and France (7.6%)4.
Such parsimony stems from the ruling cabal’s abhorrence of welfare. It believes that welfare will have a highly detrimental effect on the work ethic, and that shifting the burden of provision away from the individual to the government also diminishes the notion of individual responsibility. As a rule the ruling cabal prefers government expenditure going into investment rather than consumption, and welfare is probably seen as a particularly wasteful sort of the latter.
Changing the mix
However, there is an argument to be made that the Singapore’s government tight-fisted approach towards spending might be becoming out of step with growing public expectations. There are several reasons for this.
First, the public discourse over the role of the government is gradually changing. The debate in the “West Wing” was simplified by the characters as one over the philosophy of government - whether the state should “get off people’s backs” (low taxes, low public spending) or play a bigger role in helping those who “can’t pull themselves up by their own bootstraps” (higher taxes, higher spending on public services).
Reagan’s attack on the government was fuelled by his belief in the former. But even he didn’t cut welfare schemes like Social Security or Medicare by much. On the other hand, people who subscribe to the latter believe that government plays an important role in helping those citizens left behind by their individual circumstances or by forces beyond their control. This necessitates more redistributive taxes and bigger expenditures on social programmes. In some developed countries that already have welfare systems the trend is towards even higher expenditure. For example, the British government’s spending rose from 37.5% to 45.6% of GDP from 2000-2006, with most of the increase going to the National Health Service and other types of social spending.
The seeds of a similar debate in Singapore might be slowly sprouting, given the increased calls for the government to do more to help the needy. The government itself recognises this, hence the cautious introduction of programmes such as the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme. The Workers’ Party, running on a social democratic platform that called for a welfare safety net enjoyed a pretty decent showing (by Singaporean standards) in the 2006 election. It is no longer simply enough for the government to provide economic growth - it has to tend to issues about the quality of life. Perhaps one day welfare will be perceived as a form of investment in its citizens rather than an unmitigated waste, though Singapore is still a long way away from that.
The second reason is that Singapore’s sound public finances mean that it has the capacity to do much more. The level of government spending in Singapore is more in line with developing countries (roughly 20% or so on average) than with its developed status. It is also lower than countries like China (around 30%) or Malaysia (25%). There is room for raising taxes in a country that enjoys some of the lowest taxes anywhere. For example, income and corporate taxes have been on a downward trend, even as consumption taxes (which affect poorer people, who probably don’t pay income tax, disproportionately) such as the Good and Services Tax have been increased. Even without raising taxes, the government has a large surplus to bank on (the surplus for 2007 was more than twice what was spent on healthcare).
Or it could simply redistribute spending. In 2008, Singapore is projected to spend a whopping 28% of its budget (more than what it will spend on health and education together) on the military. The ruling government would say that national security supersedes other concerns. But the current level of defence spending comes across as being a tad over-zealous, considering that it is likely to dwarf what Singapore’s neighbours spend (in 2005 Singapore spent much more on defence than Malaysia and Indonesia combined5).
Furthermore, greater spending on the welfare of Singaporeans might be becoming as important a concern as national security. Welfare programmes, if implemented correctly, offer a means of addressing the increasingly urgent problems of growing inequalities and the exodus of Singaporeans frustrated at being treated as second-class citizens in their own country. That’s why welfare was implemented in Western countries in the first place.
The ruling cabal would probably rubbish the notion of according welfare the same priority as something as fundamental as defence. Singapore cannot prosper without security, they would insist. But it’s also worth noting that Singapore simply can’t prosper without Singaporeans.
Farquhar can be reached at: farquhar.toc@gmail.com
***
1 Tad DeHaven and Veronique de Rugy, “On Spending, Bush Is No Reagan” (Cato Institute, 1st April 2003)
2 Bureau of Economic Analysis
3 Singapore Budget 2008 Highlights - http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/speech_toc/downloads/FY2008_Budget_Highlights.pdf
4 World Health Report 2006
5 Richard A. Bitzinger and Curie Maharani, “Arms, Money, and Security: Southeast Asia’s Growing Importance as an Arms Market” (S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, 8th April 2008)
——————
Email this to a Friend
Bookmark this
RH:
1. A dentist I know, recently, in between doing my mother-in-law’s dentures, opined that spending so much menpower and money on the military is stupid. RH Quote: “There are no stupid people but institutional stupidity is everywhere.”
2. His argument is simply that ‘Singapore has no oil like Iraq or vast lands that could be captured for farming, etc, so in fact, invading Singapore is a LIABILITY since the invader would have to feed and look after the population, as probably required under international rules/laws of Occupation, etc.’ Seeing that indeed, SG is just a tiny islet crammed with HDB flats and people and nothing else, it makes more sense to capture Batam or Bintan instead, since there are vast available land and few people.
3. So, the huge spending on the military is many, many times OVERDONE.
RH [sorry, hit wrong button and sent, incomplete. Continue here]:
4. There is also the divine retribution element to military spending. All states face 2 main spendings: military and civilian. The 2 are a zero sum game. You overspend on the military, the civilian sector suffers. INEVITABLY.
5. For example, the US outspends the rest of the world [combined, even, probably] while Japan, the 2nd biggest economy, has a no-war Constitution that limits military spending. Result? The US has only 17% of its manufacturing in non-military devices and so lost all the CIVILIAN initiatives to the Japanese, from TVs to cars to laptops to fridges, to washers, to almost everything in an ordinary household. Even bullet trains and nuclear reactors, so it is not all simple household Tech.
6. Thus, while nobody starves or is homeless in Japan, or even suffers the many indignities of the indigent, there are millions of homeless and sometimes starving Americans. Divine retribution.
7. Life is about choices. Govt, too. When govts choose the God of War over the Goddess of Plenty, their people suffer all kinds of indignities we are witnessing, from aged bent women rummaging rubbish bins for discarded drink cans to old men wiping tables in foodcourts at S$700pm with 1 day off every 2 weeks, working 12 hour days.
8. Thank you, TOC, for another insightful article.
Obviously, Robert Ho doesn’t have a good grounding in history.
History has taught us that invading countries to “acquire” their natural assets is but one of the reasons. Just because Singapore doesn’t possess any natural assets doesn’t mean that we will not be attacked.
1. Countries wage war with their neighbours for idealogical & religious reasons.
2. Countries wage war with their neighbours to divert attention away from their domestic failures and to whip up national fervour to achieve their political agenda.
3. Countries wage war with their neighbours for economic reasons, i.e. destroy whatever economic achievements made by their neighbours. If you can’t get a step ahead of your competition, just drag them 2-3 steps back!
Freedom and independence of a nation is not built on the premise of blind faith and trust in the goodwill of its neighbours, but on its ability to defend itself and to inflict more corresponding pain upon the aggressor/invader.
RH:
Dear Kelvin CHENG,
1. Rebut my points, not slur that ‘I don’t know history’ as if you do.
2. What does history really teach? The feeble, unthinking ‘lessons’ of history that you regurgitate mindlessly from Institutional Stupidity are all superseded today by the humongous costs of war.
3. Let me teach you some lessons of history. First, only rich nations can wage war because it has become very, very, expensive. Every bullet you fire costs almost a dollar. Every bomb you drop from a warplane costs more than the destruction of a targeted building in Malaysia or Indonesia. Every missile you fire costs more than its target, even if you are spot on target and not miss it by metres.
4. Thus, Malaysia or Indonesia are not so stupid as to wage a war that will bankrupt them. In recent history, only the US can wage war but even now, the US with the world’s biggest economy cannot defeat a handful of Iraqi Sunni insurgents, what more poor countries like our neighbours?
5. Thus, all the reasons for war which you mindlessly regurgitate pale besides the modern costs of war. You mention such frivolities as ‘diverting attention from domestic problems’, ‘ideological reasons’, to ‘hinder us economically’ due to jealousy, etc, ha, ha, ha, are all laughable. Our neighbours are not mad or stupid. They also have far less money than the US to engage in military adventures. Look at the US today, the richest country in history. Yet it, too, is hurting economically from its insurgent operations, not even a full war, in Iraq.
6. I could go on but will not waste my time teaching you real thinking.
Nice column. But I think it’s a little dangerous to assume too quickly the level of the government’s obligations to its citizens, especially as most citizens gain more in benefits than they give in taxes/fees. I don’t think we should assume a govt owes its people efficient healthcare or education, or even a basic standard of living.
I think there is a very real fear about going down the welfare path in the present government. They are probably right, and not only on grounds of affordability. Just look at the middle east countries and Brunei. Those who travel frequently will know that our government despite its many faults is a lot better than most.
Very little credit given to the discipline and diligence of ordinary Singaporeans who were the backbone for the country’s growth over the years. The government is a lot better than most BUT Singaporeans deserve much better. There are many faults with the present government but are they aware or even doing something about it. A government that cannot assure the people a basic standard of living,education, healthcare and security does not deserve the support and should step aside and allow better talents to do the job. What we are seeing is a ruling party that has created a system to entrenched themselves. They are hearing but not listening. Netizens have pointed out fairly, the exorbitant spending on defence and the way off the mark budget surplus. Couple this with the losses from GIC/Temasek, which is no small change, we can see that there is a case to do more for Singaporeans who need help.The in your face, out of this world remuneration for the ministers was also inappropriate and did not resonate well with the people. It is a case of having too much money, being greedy and spending foolishly. The government has spent billions accumulating the latest hardware when the focus should be on the heartware. The NS/ Reservists are the backbone of our defence and if their heart is not about defending the country, then whatever the state of the art hardware means very little. The other heartware that our government should really put more effort is improving relations with our neighbours. Therein I see the real problem.
Why are we spending so much on military hardware which does not make sense at all?
We have tanks but we get more tanks like the Leopard. That is a main battle tank much bigger and powerful than the AMX13. Why do we need it?
We have helicopters why do we buy apache with hellfire missiles? For what purpose?
We have submarines why do we buy stealth frigates? What do we want with it?
We have hundreds of F16 why do we buy F15? If that is wasteful buying F15 is dumping money to the wastebin.
Why are the gahmen spending so much on this hardwares and not heartware of the people? We want a gahmen that loves the people not expanding armed forces at the expense of the people. Bear in mind, who has the vote. In peace time, our vote is mightier than a bullet.
I think we have to give credit to the government for making so much out of the number it spends on defense and security. I think the main issue should be about the “Value” of our defense spending. I mean, we have spent billions of dollars on defense and security but at the moment of truth…..our number one terrorist has strolled out of a prison and remained at large for 75 days.
I watched the whole last invasion on TV of Lebanon by Israel and was shocked to see the legendary mighty Israel military neutralised by the wiry and mobile Muslim fighters who are just armed with small tank penetrating misiles. The clumsy tanks are of no match to these fighters who do not fight a conventional war. The Americans are facing the same problems in Iraq and Afganistan.
I agree with the comments that we have to rethink outr military strategies on these lines and that the pouring of monies on showpiece military hardwares may just prove out to be what they are .
I believe the Sg military paranoid whether real or fantasised has more of a political agenda to keep the Sg males under control and scrutiny. NS is not just for security but it is an even more effective deterrrent for dissidents.
Fever Guy ,
might consider another reason. The reason is for business interest, and of buying these foreign weapon, Singapore gaining valuable knowledge and expertise on learning how these hardware work so that they can reverse engineer and innovate to create own product, business opportunities and sell own made weapons to foreigners. Remember, the government has Singapore Technologies and other companies to manufacture weapons that sell oversea, including Bionix, SAR, …
It is $$$, $$$ and more $$$ ! for the coffers of course , not the citizen.
They even work with Junta with pride, what’s else these coffers can’t do ?
“I don’t think we should assume a govt owes its people efficient healthcare or education, or even a basic standard of living.”
Then why the government think we own them a living then ? Why are they continue to stay in power and lavish themselves millions and benefit, even though they lost billions , and is incompetent compare to those from the past ? Why deprive ourselves of such right when the government themselves has no remorse about controlling and taking from us, and having those right themselves ?
Are they above others ?
” Those who travel frequently will know that our government despite its many faults is a lot better than most.”
I travelled a lot too and yet I find our government pathetic. Give me a break, Singapore is such a tiny red dot and we need recorded number of gahmen and exorbitant salary and spending to run ?
We come this far and this government is a liability now, not a asset anymore. Times change and so will be our mindset. It is about money. When you pegged service with money, thing will do well, albeit citizen paying more and more.
How much should a Government spend on the welfare of its citizens? Singapore represents one extreme; France represents the other extreme. I believe that a middle ground is better.
This middle ground seems to be represented by America. Surprise! It is the world’s biggest advocate of the free market, capitalist system, and yet it spends more on the welfare of its citizens than Singapore. (Hey, I must be careful here, as I am not suggesting that we run a big budget deficit!).
I think that it is possible for Singapore to spend more on welfare, without running into any budget deficit. We only suffer a smaller budget surplus.
What is needed? We should provide all citizens a basic level of education, healthcare and old age pension. I think that Singapore has done quite well in education and healthcare in the past years.
I do not agree with the recent trends to pass some of the higher costs (of education and healthcare) to the citizens. It is better for the Government to put in more efforts in ensuring that these basic services remain affordable and accessible to the citizens (i.e. control the costs).
If there is a low cost alternative, more people are not forced to spend on the higher priced products offered by the profit-driven enterprises.
We can educate our citizens to be frugal, and to avoid spending more money on non-essential luxurious items (unless they can truly afford them). Consumer education is necessary and needs to be strengthen. We need a stronger consumer association.
We need to provide a basic amount of old age pension, say from 75 years, to citizens at low income levels. Due to their low wages, it is not possible for them to save for their old age.
I applaud the Government’s recent efforts to encourage these people to keep their savings in the Central Provident Fund and to offer a higher return on their savings. Due to the poor yields in past years (within and outside the CPF), many of these low income earners do not have sufficient savings for their retirement. It is justified to consider some basic level of old age pension. I believe that the cost of this pension can be adequately covered by the past accumulated surplus of the country.
I’m surprised Tan Kin Lian has cited America as the middle ground. America, based on gini coefficient, is only marginally less unequal than Singapore. If we discount defense expenditure, the US doesn’t actually spend that much more per capita than Singapore on welfare. If you look up ‘Welfare state’ on Wikipedia, it shows the US having the 2nd highest rate of absolute poverty amongst a study of developed Western European economies.
We haven’t received an adequate explanation why Scandanavian socialism won’t work yet. I do recall such a question being asked once, but i can only recall the Prime Minister clumsily side-stepping it with a one-line answer, saying its got something to do with us being a multiracial country, which quite obviously, doesn’t really answer the question but the papers uncritically printed it anyway. I believe it’s possible to run a regime with higher taxes and better welfare provision, without running into corruption or a welfare mentality.
If we examine the experience of the welfare state, its often half-measures that lead to failure, meaning what was needed was not cutbacks, but more welfare. Take the NHS for example. Long queues are not primarily the product of surplus demand - nobody is going to demand hip replacement if their hips are fine. When we see long queues and poor facilities, that’s a supply side problem. In healthcare systems that apparently ‘work’, you don’t get these queues because the price of treatment often forces the very poorest to forgo treatment, seek inferior treatment or to delay treatment for as long as possible. The demand for healthcare doesn’t diminish, only the ability to make that demand effective by being able to afford it. When you want to institute universal socialised medicine but don’t provide adequate facilities so the queues are acceptable, you overpromise and underdeliever, and when the wealthiest have the option for seemingly superior services in the private sector, resentment and dissatisfaction builds.
If we can convince the wealthiest in our society that not only will their taxes be spent wisely and for the good of all, and that it is in their best interest to live in a socially harmonious society, the ones who ought to stay will stay.
But anyway, since Tan Kin Lian wants to pursue a third way, i would suggest Britain. Britain today exploits the free market, and London is perhaps the world’s most important financial centre. Yet there is a reasonable amount of welfare provision. University costs £3000 a year - until 2006 it didn’t cost a thing - and you only pay up once you start making £20000 a year. The NHS is still intact. It is an incredibly mobile society, even more so than America, which is something that always surprises people.
Hi Matt,
I think that you are right. Britian may be a better example of a middle way than America.
I was thinking that America is rated the most competitive economy in the world, and they still have:
> minimum wage
> unemployment benefit
> old age pension and Medicare
Singapore has quite affordable health care (compared to America). I hope that the cost continues to be kept affordable.
So what is the right balance for defence and social (education, welfare) spending in 2008-2009? How much is too much or too little? I for one want the government to open its treasure chest in these lean times.
Daniel,
We singapore never reverse engineered anything of value. We can built ships(hull) but never built our own advanced military components. We can upgrade F5/A4 engines and avionics but never a new fighter plane. We don even built a submarine or a main battle tank. We built some funny looking tanks nobody wants to buy. We dont even built advanced missle but a SAR rifle(M16 still way better). Talk about reverse engineering we are many steps below Taiwan and China. Why? We singaporeans stupid? No. We are a little country suffering from serious brain drain of local talents. Now our talents are foreign who has little stake in this country. Do they care? Your bet is as good as mine.
Thus spending billions but catch no ball of any advanced technology. We should develop the HEARTWARE of the people first. Make them the prioity in education.
FG
Dear Cx,
Farquhar believes that a government does have certain obligations - efficient healthcare, education, and a basic standard of living, among others - to its citizens. Citizens have certain inalienable rights, and it would be difficult to exercise these rights without being provided some measure of the public goods that were mentioned.
Perhaps you are disagreeing with the level of provision (e.g. whether to have free healthcare), and this is certainly contentious, which is why there are differing levels of welfare provided in various Western countries.
Dear Kin Lian,
Thanks for your comments. Farquhar certainly agrees that we need to occupy the middle way and that Singapore currently takes an unacceptably extreme position on this.
Farquhar is in agreement that a basic amount of old age pension needs to be provided for low income workers. As mentioned in the article, currently all the risk of saving for old age is borne by the individual, but the system does not compensate enough for the fact that some individuals are much more vulnerable than others. The CPF system needs to be reformed.
However, the problem with controlling costs of some goods in the manner that you suggest is that first, wealthier segments of the population may benefit disproportionately from the cost-controlled items; second, it distorts market incentives. Perhaps it would be better for the market to set the price, but the government steps in with grants to help the needier ones. For example, an argument can be made that fees at NUS and NTU are far below the cost of the education that they provide, though perhaps the short term solution might be to increase the fees that foreign students are paying.
With regards to educating citizens to be frugal - this is part of trying to mould societal norms. But such norms have been slowly changing over the decades. How can they not, since Singaporeans have been encouraged to embrace a materialistic culture in lieu of political activism!
There might be nothing much more that the government can do to encourage frugal behaviour, given that all the disincentives against wanton recklessness are already inherent in the Singaporean system, e.g. a lack of a social safety net, tough bankruptcy laws, societal ostracism towards failure. The only recourse is to step in to force people to save (e.g. CPF).
Dear Matt,
Thank you for your comments. Farquhar cannot agree more with your two points, that “I believe it’s possible to run a regime with higher taxes and better welfare provision, without running into corruption or a welfare mentality” and “If we can convince the wealthiest in our society that not only will their taxes be spent wisely and for the good of all, and that it is in their best interest to live in a socially harmonious society, the ones who ought to stay will stay”.
However, Farquhar believes that America, while more unequal than Britain, actually has a more socially mobile society than Britain. Class is still very much stratified in Britain, more so in the US. Part of the reason has to do with the sheer diversity and regional scope of the US, which allows people to move around to where economic opportunities are. That being said, the level of social mobility in the US has been declining over the past few decades.
If what you say is true, the Prime Minister certainly needs to justify why the Scandinavian system won’t do for Singapore, though Farquhar suspects that the dauntingly high level of taxation required would scare off a good number of foreign investors. There have also been indications that parts of the system are beginning to break down; in Sweden, employment growth is not fast enough so the state is paying workers to take long, long holidays so that someone else can take their place.
Regarding the experience of the welfare state, Farquhar would argue that is not so much half-measures that lead to failure, but unconditional welfare that leads to too much market distortion. You have rightly pointed out that, in the NHS, long queues are a supply-side problem, but only so because good hospitals did not have any incentive to expand their services to accommodate increased demand until recently; and that bad hospitals did not have any incentive to improve their services. And it was also a failure of policy, since most of the spending increases in the NHS went towards higher wages for staff rather than to building more facilities.
That being said, the NHS was considered a stellar success (in terms of improving the health of British citizens and providing for those who can’t afford it) a 20 odd years ago so there are some things to be learnt from it.
Dear Matt,
Re the above comment, meant to say “Class is still very much stratified in Britain, more so than in the US” Left out the word “than”.
Dear Farquhar
I believe that certain essential items can be kept low, through some subsidy. For example:
1. No need to levy ERP and road tax on public transport
2. No need to levy land cost for schools and hospitals, offering basic level of education and health care.
People do not consume public tranport and basic health care for enjoyment. Each person can only educated for a certain number of years. They cannot over-consume basic education.
I find it acceptable for these essential services are subsided by taxation. Those who wish to have higher level can pay for the higher cost.
This was the approach adopted in Singapore during the first twenty years of our independence. It has the support of many people. The approach changed during the next twenty years, leading to a more unequal soceity and harder life for the lower income people.
For all those interested, I suggest a reading of “The Undercover Economist” by Tim Harford.
Fever Guy,
“Thus spending billions but catch no ball of any advanced technology. We should develop the HEARTWARE of the people first. Make them the prioity in education.”
I concur with you. Our government is the most stupid government I ever came across together with the Junta. Unfortunately, their stupidity borne well for them for they know that to stay in power and wealth, they have to continue to degrade and suppress the citizen of their right and render them powerless. These are the traits of oppressive and selfish regime and most associate with dictator and tyrant. Our government know very well that with citizen suppressed, the foreigner will be powerless too since they don’t belong in Singapore, and thus any great benefit and wealth will be retained to those belong to Lee’s dynasty. This in history is able to make few generation of dynasty working but result in being overthrown later like the monarchy dynasty which LKY imitates.
Why I say Singapore government is most smartest and most stupid as well ?
Most smartest if government want to stay in power forever by taking the power of all citizen away cos it is either them or us.
Most stupid because the government can never ever built a world class country known for innovation, creativity and economic sustainability because the citizen, the essense and prosperity of country, is been deprived of their right and end up citizen migrating or remain voiceless and inept. Notice that most economically strong country has a happy citizenship and strong culture etc Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand…
The Singapore government endup throwing money to buy foreigner’s support and skill, but these will endup in failure as history has shown. Did we not learn history ? Of course, the coffers will rather want short-term than long-term benefit after all they can always retire else where , and no one will question because a law is passed down to prevent private investigation of coffers. They continue to live in their own ivory tower and enjoy all the weath and riches exploit from the commoner.
Singapore has a culture that try to imitate the westerner with its own Asian value, and these Asian value is not of Singaporean’s value but of LKY’s value. We the citizen just screwed by the coffers up and down, left and right.
It is also sad to see that student who benefit from the scholarship and oversea intern of university who become the mouthpiece of the authority because they own the gahmen a favour.
I see a beak future in Singapore consider we do not have real leaders ruling the country but real clowns. You know your country is screwed when money matters most than earnest heart to serve the nation, and when money buy the leader moral authority. Let’s not be brainwashed by the MSM into thinking that it is the way in Singapore. Money is not the root of evil but greed of money is the root of all evil. Our leaders show this trait especially well. No need to conceal.
Fever Guy,
For all we surmise, Singapore GLC did built a lot of military stuff but it is just secretive for public to know and MSM never tell the full truth. After all, did the MSM or LKY tell us that Singapore is selling weapons to JUNTA ? DSO, and other organization are building stuff that sellable to rest of countries, it just that like Temasek and GIC, they just keep mum because they think the citizen cannot handle the brutal truth.
Just check the Wikipedia will tell you how much of military hardware we have and what is been built in Singapore. Bionix, Steath ship, Matador, etc
Remember Singapore need not just sell physical hardware, they can sell knowledge, design and expertise which is harder to check … Didn’t the government sell the airport management knowhow/software to Dubai as well ?
Dear Farquhar,
” For example, the British government’s spending rose from 37.5% to 45.6% of GDP from 2000-2006, with most of the increase going to the National Health Service and other types of social spending”
But I think it is worth mentioning that such increase in spending sees very little real results (the new target appointment time to see a specialist is 12 weeks while at the moment, most appointments takes over 3 months to get), On the contrary, one can get an appointment at NUH far quicker than that. It is worth mentioning as wll that NHS spending is now £110bn (about 150% of Singapore GDP) (more than enough to hire the entire Singapore population to work there).
US Social Security will pay out more than its income from around 2017.
I would be pretty happy to live in US/Britain if I am 60 now, but I have in my 30s, I expect there to be nothing left there in 30 years from now.
Britian welfare model is a bit terbalik in the sense that the labour government decides how much they want to spend, and the look around for the money / borrow money to spend it, rather than see how much money they got and then live within its means. (and hence gets itself into the current mess where it doesn’t have money to spend to stimulate an economy at the verge of a recession). Singapore government, on the other hand, has too much money and don’t want to spend it.