Main Stories, Top Story, Uncle Leong's corner, Uniquely Spore - Written on Monday, September 29, 2008 8:01 - 28 Comments
Population and national investments – missing numbers
Leong Sze Hian / Columnist
I refer to the Department of Statistics’ reply “Number of S’pore citizens growing” (ST, Sep 20) to Michael Eng’s letter “Is the population of Singapore citizens shrinking” (ST, Sep 18).
It states that:
The number of Singapore citizens has been growing. Last year, the number of Singapore citizens stood at 3.13 million, about 0.8 per cent higher than the 3.11 million recorded in 2006. The number of permanent residents (PRs) was 0.45 million last year, an increase from 0.42 million in 2006.
With 39,490 new babies in 2007, about 15,000 new citizenships granted last year and only 1,000 Singaporeans giving up their citizenship in a year, why is the increase in the number of Singapore citizens only about 20,000?
Even if we take away the 17,140 who died in 2007, shouldn’t the increase in citizens be about 36.350, instead of 20,000?
[39,490 new babies + 15,000 new citizens - 1,000 “give up citizenship” - 17,140 deaths = Total: 36,350]
So, is the number of citizens growing or shrinking?
According to the DOS’s latest Population Trends 2008 report, the number of non-residents grew by 19 per cent while the resident population went up by a mere one per cent, and PRs by 6.5 per cent, compared to 2007, as of June 2008.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/378563/1/.html
Since the number of citizens grew to 3.16 million from last year’s 3.13 million due to the higher number of citizen babies and more PRs taking up citizenship, and the number of PRs who became citizens for the first half of this year, was 9,600, it appears that about 12,038 citizens are unaccounted for
(30,600 citizens increase –[(18,032 resident births + 9,600 new citizens - 500 "give up citizenship"] – 8,570 deaths (assuming half of 2007’s number).
So, does this mean that the number becoming citizens increased by about 32 per cent from about 7,300 for the first half of 2007 to about 9,600 for the first half of 2008?
What was the number for the whole of 2007?
Since 34,800 were granted PRs in the first six months of 2008, compared to 28,500 in the same period in 2007, does it mean that PRs are increasing at about 22 per cent?
Could the missing 12,038 have anything to do with the “give up citizenship” statistic?
With the current trend of foreigners and PRs growing much faster than citizens, when will citizens be projected to be less than non-citizens in the population ?
————–
Revealing the reserves
I refer to the articles “GIC sees good Citi, UBS returns in long run” (ST, Sep 24) and “Tougher investment environment ahead, says GIC in first performance report” (My Paper, Sep 24).
In 2006, it was disclosed that the Government Investment Corporation’s (GIC) annual rate of return for the past 25 years was 8.2 per cent in Singapore dollar terms.
Now, in GIC’s first ever performance report, the annual rate of return for the past 20 years was 5.8 per cent.
So, its 8.2 per cent for 25 years, but 5.8 per cent for 20 years.
[The fund does not make available financial statements but the elder Lee said in 2006 that the fund had earned an average return of 9.5 percent annually over the last 25 years in U.S. dollar terms. Lee Hsien Loong told Reuters in May GIC will not be as open as sister fund Temasek. – Reuters]
The question that may be on everyone’s mind may be - what was the return for the last 25, 26 and 27 years ?
Reporting different time periods may make any meaningful comparison or analysis more difficult.
In the defamation trial against Dr Chee Soon Juan in, it was reportedly said that our reserves was US$ 300 billion.
Since GIC, on September 23, said that its portfolio is well over US$ 100 billion, does it mean that the portfolio shrunk by about US$ 100 billion or more in a matter of months?
I estimate that Temasek’s investments in financial institutions since last year, may have shrunk in value by more than $ 10 billion.
In the interest of transparency, can Temasek and GIC give Singaporeans more details ?
Impact on national reserves
Whilst everybody has been talking about the impact of the financial turmoil on Singapore’s economy, financial institutions, investors, etc, I would like to ask what is the impact on our national savings and reserves?
The finance minister said: “Asian economies will have to tighten monetary policy to fight inflation but this should be a calibrated approach”, at the Association of Banks’ annual dinner on 27 June, 2008.
According to the Ministry of Finance’s web site, assets in the form of cash, government stocks, other investments (quoted and unquoted), deposits with investment agents and securities held as statutory deposits - trust companies, was $ 522 billion, in its statement of assets and liabilities as at 31 March 2007. This is an increase of about 8 and 11 per cent respectively from 2006’s and 2005’s $ 483 billion and $ 437 billion.
Since the Financial Transfers to various funds like the Edusave, Medical, Lifelong Learning, Community Care Endowment Funds, Development Fund, etc, was about $ 4.9 billion for FY 2007, does it mean that in a sense, the Budget surplus was about $ 9.1 billion ($6.4 billion surplus + $ 4.9 billion financial transfers - $ 2.2 billion special transfers) ?
As I understand it, does it mean that some of these funds may not actually be deemed as expenditure, as they merely top-up these funds of which a small component (interest only ?) is actually spent every year ?
For FY 2008, Financial Transfers are estimated to be about $ 10.7 billion, an increase of about 118 per cent over FY 2007.
In this connection, does it mean that transfers to the Development Fund ($ 5.26 billion) to meet future development outlays, may in a sense, be accounting as an expenditure now for an expenditure anticipated in the future - and thus may lead to an under-reporting of the Budget surplus ?
If we add back the transfer to the Development Fund of $ 5.26 billion, does it mean that the estimated FY 2008 budget deficit of $ 0.8 billion, may become a surplus of $ 6.06 billion ?
Are the above conventions used by other countries in their Budgets ?
Deferred projects
I also refer to the article “Govt defers projects worth $ 1.7 b” (ST, Jul 23).
It states that “A total of $ 4.7 billion of public sector projects will now be pushed back to 2010 and beyond”.
As I understand these expenditures have already been accounted for in the Budget, will the deferral result in an under-reporting of the Budget surplus?
Have these Development Funds already been charged to the Budget as Financial Transfers?
Temasek
I also refer to media reports about Temasek’s annual report, press release, and performance for the last year (My Paper, Aug 27).
Does Temasek’s portfolio, which grew to $ 185 billion, an increase of 13 per cent from $ 164 billion previously, which includes a $ 10 billion injection by the Minister for Finance (incorporated), mean that the increase without the $ 10 billion injection was $ 11 billion ($ 185 - $ 10 - $ 164 billion) ?
So, does it mean that the increase was about 7 per cent ? ($ 175 divided by $ 164 billion).
How much assets have the government injected into Temasek in its 33-year history ?
Have these injections been by way of cash or state assets ?
In respect of the injection of state assets, were they injected at nominal or market value ?
———-
Related posts:
28 Comments
The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 29 Sep 2008
[...] Discourse – TOC: Population and national investments – missing numbers – Singapore Complain Hub: Singapore: Contraception awareness among teenagers severely lacking – [...]
who will bailout the ones who bailout others?
Dear Mr Leong,
Thanks for your informative article.
I see that USA can bail out companies.
Can you give a clue who can bailout SWFs if they have similar troubles?
regards
black can be white
1) Komenos on September 29th, 2008 11.04 am
You are fortunate to have got a very frank Stats lecturer. In the old days, Stats lecturers would not have been so forthright – and a lot of us got to learn it the hard way in our working life.
/// With 39,490 new babies in 2007… ///
Sze Hian – I think not all new babies born in Singapore are Singapore citizens..
It is very typical of MIW to either blackout information or provide half-truths. That is why S’poe badly needs a Freedom of Information Act. Many developed countries have such an Act, whicih allows anyone to apply to extract information from the govt.
“Can you give a clue who can bailout SWFs if they have similar troubles?”
Of course it’s Singaporeans whose going to bail out the SWF. You can expect more utilities/GST hike (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/379056/1/.html)
and you may never live to use your CPF monies.
Remember what an MP once said….”Ask not what the country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your cuntry”
Dear T
Even if we assume that 15% of new babies and 10% of deaths are not citizens, we still have 12,141 missing.
Cheers
Leong Sze Hian
Re State Assets.
The reality is that 5 to 7% are acceptable numbers for passive investors.
What we do know is the smartest and the best are choosen to run this CIC fund.
25 years ago the 20 year bond rate in Australia was 15% and the US Bell Weather 25 year bond rate was 12%.
Lately, the big long term investment in Merrill Lynch was made at $47 per share it was a flip of a coin wheather Lehmans failed or Merrill failed.
The last time I looked the investment had lost a third of it’s value.
Thank goodness we have the scholars looking after GIC.
My view may be limited, but I am only thinking in terms of the expression :
[39,490 new babies + 15,000 new citizens - 1,000 “give up citizenship” - 17,140 deaths = Total: 36,350]
The new babies they mentioned may only refer to those who came from live births. Well, at least that’s what I inferred from the statistics dept. There wasn’t any consideration on babies who were adopted from overseas, and then converted to Singapore citizenship (?). If this is also allowed, the number may not be 36350, but higher….(though we don’t need to be precise for big picture discussions).
” In the defamation trial against Dr Chee Soon Juan in, it was reportedly said that our reserves was US$ 300 billion.
Since GIC, on September 23, said that its portfolio is well over US$ 100 billion, does it mean that the portfolio shrunk by about US$ 100 billion or more in a matter of months? ”
Good question here, where are the other US$200b? sure alot of singaporean folks would like to know where have the difference gone to!
With due respect, I believe and do hope that our respected past president OTC’s ghost will come back and haunt our officials as he (as a celestial being now)should by now know what are the numbers which he had asked for last time when was an earthly saint.
As LSH pointed out, there has been a lot of discrepancies in the facts and figures provided by the MIW starting from the Mas Selamat saga. The gaps are begining to show and the freedom of information act if ever introduced will be the death bell. The myth will be destroyed by true facts.
Good work pointing it out. I have been noticing the discrepancies yearly too (long before Mas Selamat). Other common ones that are often contradictory are:
life expectancy and death rate, along with birth rate and fertility rate, don’t agree
inflation does not tally with price rise, or they’re using a seriously wrong consumer goods basket
unemployment and GDP growth along with wage growth
etc
But let’s not be too hasty jumping to conclusions. It’s one thing to note huge discrepancies, it’s another to draw inferences from them. It could be merely be extremely inept statisticians… Or it could be something much worse than just hiding bad results and mismanagement.
“But let’s not be too hasty jumping to conclusions. It’s one thing to note huge discrepancies, it’s another to draw inferences from them.”
Should we take the worst case after all this government pride itself having the best elites to run the nation, nothing but the best. If such a best people do such a pathetic job, what cannot be worse in the government ?
Daniel, without affecting your proposition, I would like to correct you and enlighten you about the impossibility that our government has the best elites doing their best work to run our nation.
Our elites are selected mainly by grades and psychometric tests.
Career performance and good results with high IQ has been shown to be mildly correlated, but not fully correlated, and 100% (deterministic) causality is out of the question.
Furthermore, for careers, bright people with options self-select themselves into the careers that fit them. Our elites, often being indoctrinated at a young age, lose their options and choices before a mature decision has evolved. Even if they hate their elite job, if they performed as badly as einstein did in school, they would still be stuck there.
Lastly, our elites, the cream of the crop of Singaporean student, is merely the best out of around 4 million compared to a global (educated) 2 billion. Our “elite” is less than 0.2% of the global “elite” (not to mention that the western world produce more great people per population).
Although this does not conclusively say that our government is not elite, it leaves any such assertion open to many questions and doubts.
Also, the above reasons excludes the mention of Singaporean bureaucratic culture and other workplace politics that can stunt even the most able, so even if we do have the best elites of the world, we are not guaranteed of their best work and results.
The more likely scenario, in line with your proposition about a partly defunct government, is that our government has failings in many areas, which leads to worrying issues like this.
Dingfeng,
thank for adding on. I have no doubt on the intelligence of gahmen and scholars but have question on their moral conviction and act.
In fact, I strongly believe that Singaporean scholars and gahmen are intelligent and know what is right and wrong. They have propensity to learn. But whatever intelligence and education are useless if they could not do what is right. My observation is that these scholars probably able to discern what is right but in pursuit of materialistic gain and faster promotion, they playing smart by just doing what upper management want them to do and just use their smartness to support their boss.
It is sad. Very sad. When you speak to most of these scholars, their answer are generally “No choice. If want to promote and has good life, just follow and support the orders. If I don’t do it, someone will. My boss is my client and I have to make him happy.” It is the fear of offencing his boss and lost promotion and favours that force to act in “unethical” way. As who his boss take order from, it doesn’t take long for us to figure out.
The best of the best elites are nothing if they could not do the right thing and stand up for their moral conviction.
Daniel,
I am glad to see a departure from objective news into inferences. In the absence of information and truth, an educated guess is better than no guess at all. Since there is an absence of other inferences here, yours is the best guess.
So, let’s take what you said as the truth, that our “elites” are talented, able and possess a sense of what’s right (and is motivated to do what’s right to a certain extent). Then we have to conclude that it is a factor external to them that’s resulting the failures we discuss. Let’s call the external factor “system”. If what you are saying is that the “elites” are not doing their job well, then what it implies is that there is a flaw in the system.
The best of the elites are nothing if they cannot correct a flaw in the system. Yet, if elites chose to be elites out of free will, then they willingly chose a life that perpetuates (since they lose all option to correct the system) the system. As you (and so did some other politician) said, our elites are talented and can find equally (if not more) well paying demand for their talents and services in the private sector. It is clear that our elites did not perpetuate the system out of greed for material wealth, but perhaps out of some darker values (power hunger without virtue?).
Another more worrying implication is, if the elites,because of their predisposed positions of power, cannot change the system, then who can? If we take it that understanding comes before control, and observation is the precursor to understanding, then we are still only struggling with the observation part.
Anyway, as a Singapore citizen, I have to eat supper and ensure my survival that results in the economic productivity that is seemingly more and more necessary to ensure political stability in my country.
I think that most of us Singaporeans know that something is wrong. To that end, accurate news doesn’t elucidate us any further. Accurate news doesn’t show us what to do. Ignorance leads to apathy, but so does enlightened helplessness.
Yet, our most basic and instinctual response is to find news, to justify that we are right. And by censoring the news, the government forces Singaporeans to fight the information battle. But in this war, information is the red herring. By expending resources justifying our self righteousness, by finding scarce information, we are giving up on the war. And while we point our fingers at the ruling party, the same system would gladly and inevitably lower its tendrils on the next party.
Something else is needed, be it an inferential jump or acts that follow astute analysis. Something more than mere news and angst.
“In the absence of information and truth, an educated guess is better than no guess at all. Since there is an absence of other inferences here, yours is the best guess.”
In fact you don’t have to second guess, you just need to go to the ground to know and speak to these people. Try not to find those who still in government job, they won’t divulge much and many will just talk positively just to keep their job. Speak to those high flyers who left the government sectors and you begin to understand the “brutal truth”. But then, it is the same for many organization, just that in government job, the budget tend to be greater and is using taxmoney (Singapore INC is that freaking rich, isn’t it ?)
Daniel (#17):
My personal experience with government scholars re-affirms your statement that “the fear of offencing his boss and lost promotion and favours that force to act in unethical” way“. Most of the Singaporeans at my university are government scholars. I recalled the times I campaigned for the reform of Parliamentary Elections Act on campus and was seeking for signatures for petition. Some welcomed my actions and stressed that they support my action in principle but will not bite the hand that feeds them, while others branded me a trouble-maker on campus. Either way, it is clear that these government scholars do not intend to stand up for the ethical choice.
Transparency & accountibility – NKF, CPF, GIC, Temesek. 1 down 3 more to go.
Whatever amount or investments in USD that were held before 1996 would have easily lost 20% or more of its monetary value by now. SGD to USD was averaging 1.60 then but is averaging 1.40 currently.
Assuming USD200 billion holding, 20% = $40 billion burnt
The USD’s value is heading for the ocean bed as the US crisis moves into the next phase.
23) Harrison on October 4th, 2008 12.53 am
Assuming USD200 billion holding, 20% = $40 billion burnt
If this is true and accurate then all Singaporean would be doomed soon. Just imagine how much more taxes and price increase would be implemented to recover all these losses, not even to mention the on-going obscene salaries all these MPs are drawing today.
I guess that’s why MAS is allowing USD to appreciate again so that we can lower losses in our investments. Are we sure inflation has abated? Anyway, economy is slowing and I guess which ever way the government has the game. It is strange that MAS came out today to say that our financial system is strong. I keep hearing about people taking out money to put in their own safe, not sure how many did?
$40 billion = $40,000,000,000
That is not hade currency but Singapore currency ! Damn, some freaking oldman still can even sleep peacefully.
small issue to the oldman here, what is $40bil to him, with the money he has now under his wing, maybe can even buy up one of the entire neighbouring country and name it Lee Guo Jia.
Keep up the great work! Look forward to reading more from you in the future. I think it will be also nice if you add “send to email” tool so people can forward the articles to their friends easily.
Leave a Reply
Uncategorized - Jan 15, 2010 10:12 - 126 Comments
It is affordable – Mah Bow Tan
More In Uncategorized
- Rebutting Law Minister K Shanmugam
- Challenge of communication
- TOC & Talk Politics hold successful Year in Review forum
- “Live” from Post Museum – TOC’s Year End Review
- The Fajar Generation
Uncategorized - Jan 15, 2010 10:12 - 126 Comments
It is affordable – Mah Bow Tan
More In Uncategorized
- Rebutting Law Minister K Shanmugam
- Challenge of communication
- TOC & Talk Politics hold successful Year in Review forum
- “Live” from Post Museum – TOC’s Year End Review
- The Fajar Generation
Well I still remember that my Stats lecturer told us not to trust statistics as they can be easily manipulated into showing favourable results for the person/organisation he or she is representing