Rajiv Chaudhry / Writer
In this four-part series, Rajiv contends that Singapore’s current economic model of high growth, which has served the nation well in the past, is unsustainable for the future as it will undermine Singapore’s ability to provide a high standard of living for its people.
Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four |
Photo: The Marina Bay IR will create a lot of unnecessary low-value jobs -- is this what Singapore needs? Courtesy of Joshua Sosrosaputro / Creative Commons
The Singapore economy
In the 1980s Singapore’s policy makers took a conscious decision to transcend the low-cost/low- value economy and move into more higher value activities such as computer chips, semiconductors and services.
In the 2000s it is attempting to move into still higher-value ‘brain’ work by developing a research and development wing. However, by clinging on to the ‘old economy’ at the same time, the focus appears to be somewhat blurred.
The catchword should be “quality” not “quantity” but this is something that seems to have eluded our policymakers, judging by their desire to relentlessly pursue growth in every area of the economy.
The Economic Review Committee, chaired by the then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, while acknowledging in February 2003 that growth would slow in the future compared with the heady years that preceded it, continued to emphasise the twin engines of manufacturing and services. In particular, the report stated that “manufacturing will continue to be an important growth engine”.
With the benefit of the insight that the current economic crisis provides and other reasons mentioned here, it is apparent that this reliance on manufacturing is misplaced. For a start, it leads to social pressures and stresses the physical environment owing to the need for both land and large numbers of workers.
More importantly, manufactured goods have to find markets which increases our reliance on exports, since the domestic market is limited. If there is one thing the current crisis has shown, it is that we need to reduce our dependence upon exports in general and the US market in particular.
Focus more on services industry, R&D
I submit it would be a far better proposition to concentrate our efforts on services alone, as the main engine of growth. The government has already identified and recommended the creation of service clusters in areas as diverse as aerospace, medical tourism and tertiary education.
At the same time, there should be sharper focus on high-value, high-quality research and development in both the pure and applied sciences and engineering. Arguably these, together with the supporting services needed, will provide sufficient grist to keep a reasonable-sized population gainfully employed without the need to import large numbers of people with all its attendant problems and issues[i].
These kinds of activities will also be, hopefully, less dependent upon external factors and less cyclical in nature.
Instead, our policymakers seem to be taking us down the value chain again. Casinos (for a casino by any other name is still a casino) are the type of activity that will create pressures of exactly the sort that a country of Singapore’s size doesn’t need.
In attempting to compete with Genting (land area over 6,000 hectares[ii]), Macau and the cruise ships, we are revving up the economy and creating a circular argument: “We need more people to run the show”. If we didn’t have the activity in the first place, we wouldn’t need these extra people.
Too much emphasis on low-value jobs
In fact, it would be interesting to know how many of the myriad jobs that will be created by the integrated resorts, bell-boys, chambermaids, waiters and the like will be filled by Singaporeans? Anecdotal evidence says that the hospitality industry is already stretched to the limit and struggling to fill these low-value positions.
This opens the government up to the charge that it is creating jobs for foreigners, rather than taking care of its own. The policy of “growth at all costs” also leads to the very real possibility of a bubble being created which, when deflated, can cause enormous headaches (the causes of deflation are often outside our control, as we are witnessing now). In times of trouble, it is easier to manage 3 million people than 5 million.
And therein lies another fallacy, that of linking government minister’s salaries to the growth in GDP. So long as this policy exists, the incentive for ministers (they are human, after all) will be to keep pumping up the economy.
As a parallel, recall the events that led to the crisis on Wall Street. Think of the legions of bankers who who were paid enormous sums for creating products that supposedly removed the risk from financial transactions, yet they left the worst mess the world has seen in 80 years. So long as the reward system was tailored to the production of ever more exotic products, the bankers obliged by churning them out in increasingly larger numbers. With hindsight, this proved to be a disaster.
Do we really need to put the economy on steroids? Is Singapore merely an economic machine and all of us just individual digits, mere cogs in the wheel? Are we still so insecure that we have to hark back to the days when we “fought the communists in the gutters”?
Let us take a bold look and challenge the status quo in order to safeguard the sustainability of our quality of life.
End of Part Three.
Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four |
__________________________________________________________
[i] Note: small numbers of high-quality immigrants will still continue to trickle in. This type of “brain-gain” has been shown to be a major factor in the enormous progress the USA has made over the past century, enabling it to maintain leadership positions in the economic, scientific and technological fields).
[ii] Lim Goh Tong – My Story – page 77 ; Pelanduk Publications (www.pelanduk.com)
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Most of Jobs are below $180O. How PMET going to survived!
I am looking forward to part 4.
The casinos are a difficult issue, and I remain undecided about its costs vs benefits.
Mr Chaudhry seems to advocate a less diverse economy, with less emphasis on manufacturing, and more on higher end jobs. I beg to differ.
People are diverse, with very different skill levels, inclinations, and strengths. There needs to be a wide diveresity of jobs at various levels and across sectors.
Research and development are basically non revenue generating activities – high risk, high cost with only a fraction of the products making it to market. Do companies not cut back on such staff too in hard times? Bear in mind that RnD staff when retrenched, are in very difficult positions. They are highly specialized, with limited options for alternative income. PhD qualified and nowhere to go – its a terrible position.
Is there concrete evidence that the services sector is less cyclical?
I see that we have benefited much from a more diverse economy. Engineers now, for example, have additional career options in say, the Pharma/Biotech sector, an option not really available a 2 decades ago. Diversity is key, while as a whole, we try to move everyone up the value chain.
The Gahmen has the option to try all manner of things to stimulate economic growth. Whether it benefits few or many, or what sectors, low or high value, or whether most folks become worse off is not really a big issue.
The most important thing is political and social stability. That means PAP will still be the 98% seat gahmen and the streets are peaceful, whatever the economy.
This has been assured for 40 over years. I think it will also be assured for the next 10 or 20 years or more. Why not?
So life goes on.
There was a time when many Diploma holders could not find jobs due to factories shift to china and malaysia and elsewhere.
Why was education master plan not able to forecast this demand or the lack of it?
Future employability depends on the master plan for education.
Wrong plan and you see many could not find a job even when there may be new jobs created in future by foreign investors. And if that becomes true, many foreigners will take their place. Citizens who have not market value may be stuck here and as cost of living increase further, and more come in, i say good luck !
As a Singaporean, I’m living my life in the lowest maintenance cost possible. I have few commitments and I don’t smoke/drink, thus I can safely say this recession didn’t impact me much. But however, that doesn’t mean I totally ignore the importance of a good economy. And I mean an economy GOOD FOR SINGAPOREANS, NOT FOREIGNERS.
I agree with SY.
The economy need to provide all kinds of jobs since unemployment affects people of all backgrounds. If anything, blue-collared workers (i.e. below poly diploma) makes up 70% of the unemployed in 2008. Focusing more on higher-end jobs does not address the bulk of the unemployment problem.
The second interesting irony was that Rajiv placed him complaints of the casinos under the section “Focus more on Service Industry and R&D.” Isn’t casino part of the service industry? And to that point, it also illustrates that the service industry, like the casino, relies highly on external tourism. This brings us back to the same argument why Rajiv wants to move away from manufacturing- to reduce dependence on exports. In this case, aren’t we back to square one?
Maybe reliance on external tourism isn’t as volatile as exports? One only needs to recall the drastic drop in tourism during SARS and aftermath of 9-11 to know it can be equally unreliable.
Perhaps, service industry does not need to be reliant on external tourism but can be dependent on domestic consumption. At 4 million people (and it is so crowded), we are already heavily reliant on tourists. If we want to be less reliant on tourist spending, we need to have more population to substitute spending of tourist, or spent as much as they do. Neither way is a good option.
From the way I see it, relying on outside spending embodies the trade-off we have to make between dependence on external forces (tourism and exports) and internal dependence (which require more people, domestic consumption. Can we achieve that?) The breakthrough we have from this dilemma is to mitigate external risks by industry diversification (service and manufacturing). To reduce our diversification, is putting us back in a worse position.
So to have more external dependence or to have more people? What should we choose? Or maybe Rajiv has the solution out of the catch 21 in part IV.
There isn’t much room left for growth here. This is a fact regardless of who runs the govt. We can of course continue to rely on the China-Europe shipping routes, and in our bad neighbourhood of nations, rely on our banking services. These can be counted upon. Other niches like Medical services, Education services will still make money. IR is itself a gamble. No, there won’t be enough high end jobs for all of us.
Key is you must not only keep yourself employable, but internationally marketable as a talented potential citizen. Ironically, you won’t need to emigrate as long as your talents are relevant to current needs. Govt policies are selectively geared towards keeping relevant talents capable of emigrating by giving them the best that SG can offer. However, if you’re not one of them, you just go queue up in the polyclinics and wait 3 months to get your 1st appt for treating your 3rd stage cancer. Afterall where else can you run to?
I hope in part 4, there will be touching on the sustainability of the following other models:
1. highest politician salaries and superscale civil servant salaries.
I ask based on the fact that the whole world only singapore has such high salaries. There was a statistics in the web somewhere that says in this world, and some say the universe, the TOP 30 highest paid (official salary) politicians are all from singapore. Is this true or not true? IF so, for how long can such a model sustain given when Europe, highest cost of living area, politicians pay are many times lower. I see that Obama is able to work hard with the salary paid to him. So, if the rest are content with it they may not ask for the same high salary or higher salary. If so, being unique , for how long can such model last? 10 years , 20 years, 50 years, 75 years, 100 years , ETERNITY? I believe the above choices should be inclusive enough to contain the answer. ;)
2. 1st world cost of living. Many 1st world countries have one of the highest costs. Singapore is certainly among them. In time, its logical to assume even more so. Who would disagree? IF so, with the current pro-business model where FTs come in and there is no min wage inplace, and people are complaining about it, but many not daring enough to show it, for how long can this model sustain? Do not be mistaken, IF i am a business, I would kiss the policies shoes. IF i am a mere mortal leh?
Feel free to comment on my comment.
aiyoyo
see today news (sad story again)
“Singapore’s economy contracts 14.6% on-quarter”
aiyoyo
hmmm, should our dear leaders lead by ownself cutting their pay?
economy is like a balance diet, cannot rely too much on just a few MNCs in a particular sector, there must be a balance of low, mid & high value jobs. this is to minimise any impact of an industry giant winding operations here. like now, PMETs who were retrenched in a mid-high or high value jobs should not be “carted” (with little choice) to low value indutries like retail/service type jobs.
in the short run such staff may not have the morale to perform, also, its a mismatch of talent pool. how it affects companies’ bottomline is anyone’s guess. in the long run it will be harder to find another job with similiar remunerations of their prev PMET jobs, as annually there are fresh grads both local & foreign, who are cheaper to hire. for middle aged PMETs, how can they survive on similiar pay with a fresh grad given the likelihood of more financial commitments, some with a family to support?
anyway the service & retail industry cannot rely on tourist dollars to sustain itself. not when most tourists are not spending in the heartland malls which cater to domestic population. as some have already pointed out is rather volatile. & other neighbouring countries have a currency exchange rate more favourable than S’pore’s.
If growth falls, and more job losses, then what about home foreclosures? The artificial high resale HDB flats sustainability is questionable too
With due respect to the author, I’m not sure whether focussing on services is the answer and whether it would change the mix of high wage vs low wage jobs. It’s easy to criticise the casino (and I object to casinos on ethical grounds; impact on families etc) but I find it difficult to criticise the economics behind it. We might question why Sands/Genting etc can make significant profits but from the perspective of adding X jobs in Singapore, it is net beneficial.
For a different perspective on addressing income inequalities in society, read Paul Krugman at
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/economists/favorite_krugman.html
Having said that, it is immensely welcome that TOC can at least occasionally shift its attention from 1987 to 2009 /beyond and from pink dot issues to red dot issues. Was beginning to wonder if it was worth visiting this site anymore…
The Gov seems to be out of Ideas!
Let say if Casino fail to attract Rich Foreigners(PRC, Dubai, European) here!
What do you think Gov will do? Will they being pressured by Sands to open to thousands of Ah Beng, Seng, Ah Ma Soy who are so eagerly to rush in!
What is the social consequences! High Sucide Rate! Prositutions happen not just Geylang but Duxon and Joo Chiat
I am also on the same track that we should look for a balance between manufacturing and service industries. Service industries cannot function in a vacuum, because all service industries are ‘parasitic industries’. This is the reason why a service workforce needs to be trimmed accordingly the moment we do not have growth spurred through the manufacturing areas.
It’s common knowledge that if you are in civil service for years, and even if you don’t have a performance level matching your salary, you won’t be fired.
This is also the same point I am trying to raise : why are policy makers (service industry) keeping the same workforce when the GDP is down.
Manufacturing industries on the other hand bring real products into the hands of the people. Then of course the catch is limitations in the export markets. This is where we need to be selective on what to manufacture. High value products (manufacturing or R and D) are not always the answer unless you are able to provide a more sustainable infrastructure (not just a sustainable one) compared to other countries.
“from the perspective of adding X jobs in Singapore, it is net beneficial.”
Neutral singaporeans, the question will be how many of the jobs goes to FW and how many goes to locals who are in need of that same job
“Neutral singaporeans, the question will be how many of the jobs goes to FW and how many goes to locals who are in need of that same job”
Actually, this is a very good question.
theoratically, S-Pass holders are capped to 25% of the workforce of the company. but it does note seem like the case in reality.
can some towkay/boss explain how does it work??
hi Neutral Singaporean,
not sure about the economics behind the IR project. maybe its a more glam project for construction industry to embark on? would look good in company portfolio woh. another pro company decision yet again? like creating business opportunity (the many community upgrading projects- lift, & common areas?) for small & medium construction firms? not to mention the en-block fever last year…
#15 SZ & #16 RW
Hi guys – not sure I understand the objection, so maybe an example makes the original point clearer.
Assuming 70% of let’s say 5,000 jobs go to Singaporeans and 30% to foreigners. Would Singaporeans be better off with those 3,500 extra jobs or would we be better off if the casino wasn’t built and we are short of 3,500 jobs?
I’m not arguing for casinos but I can’t find a counter argument to the point above from a pure economic viewpoint that the casino is a net benefit. Obviously there are social ills and I’m against gambling from an ethical perspective. But on pure dollars & cents why not?
In Singapore, there is only one growth that is recession proof: the minister salary. When they made mistakes, their pay remain the same. During recession or any serious crisis, their salary remain unaffected. when the economy picks up they will rush to increase their pay drastically again. Because of this legal corruption, many rushed to join politics in the name of helping the poor. It is certainly so because the poor are getting poorer and the rich getting fatter and their arrogance knows no boundary.
18) Neutral Singaporean, Provided the percentage is as good as what you assume, and like what you have said, you are assuming and that can make an A.s out of U and Me, pardon me for the pun. you are taking the best case scenario and I am seeing it as a worse case scenario. human perceptions differ…likewise, i am assuming to, so vice-versa
pure dollars and cents will only come in when there are people patronizing it, and that’s provided they want to come to singapore. tour agents overseas has become less inclined to promote singapore as a tourism spot and until it has really been proven , i am still skeptical…as everything is assumption. what you have said is really your view, just like you don’t believe in ours, like wise it goes around…lol…one man’s meat is another man’s poison.
Neutral Singaporean, you ever heard of Innocent unless proven guilty? and guilty unless proven innocent. well, in this case, it will be, unless it has proven itself, we can be skeptical…or it can be the other
You consider followings are creative / good long term policies ?
1) P65 performing hip-hops (utterly tasteless and make-a-fool of themselves)
2) Rallying for 4 million smiles during S2006 (cant even get 40,000, problem with leadership in this case)
3) Uniquely Singapore( as a tourism tagname, but unique about what not even Singaporean knows)
4) P65 partying out at Zouk (partying away and still get paid)
5) Casinos (why only now where people had been suggesting about it since 80′s)
6) High pay to keep talents to run Singapore (might as well get foreign talents since we dont need the ‘hearts’ )
7) Habitual gamblers counselling (only when they wanted the 2 casinos?)
8) ERP and COEs (from an idea of controlling car population, then to controlling traffic, then to controlling usage patterns of vehicles)
9) Baby bonus (which after so many years and so much money, local couples still get the blame for not producing)
10) Build To Order , BTO, for HDB flats (no one sees the long term effects it has on Singaporeans yet, not surprised given the quality of our leaders)
etc..
Scholars are good in academics, not in survivalships. Future ministers must attend Ranger course first.
#20 SZ:
i think Neutral SIngaporean has a point about the figures. If I am not wrong, there is a ratio for S-Pass holders to local workforce– 1 foreigner to 3 locals in the company.
however, the curious thing is that it does not feel like it in reality.
Possibilities- (i) i misunderstand the ratio part, (ii) govt does not follow guidelines in giving out the passes (iii) employers are playing the system- with phantom local employees, for example.
anyone with experience to share about this??
Hi RW and Neutral Singaporean, for your info, i believe IR will be considered as a Service Sector, of which “Services companies are presently allowed to employ foreign workers on Work Permits up to 45% of the company’s total workforce. From 1 January 2008, MOM will increase the access to 50%.” of which S-Pass Quota can consist of max 25%. So for the IR, ain’t it possible for the IR to employ 25% max foreigner to work in S-Pass level job and the other 25% percent to work in the more basic jobs.
which means for dear Neutral Singaporean scenario, it can be only 50% and not 70%, but half a loaf is better then none of course. and worse comes to worse, it will as RW suggested…
“At the same time, there should be sharper focus on high-value, high-quality research and development in both the pure and applied sciences and engineering. Arguably these, together with the supporting services needed, will provide sufficient grist to keep a reasonable-sized population gainfully employed without the need to import large numbers of people with all its attendant problems and issues[i].”
I’m guessing the author of this article is from a non-technical profession. Good innovation depends on a complex interplay of factors, and one key interaction is between the factory floor and the research lab. Hollowing out manufacturing in favor of r&d services seems like an obvious answer, but it betrays a lack of understanding of how science and engineering develop, and how new technologies come into being. sometimes, the most boring advances in things like ball bearings and precision machining techniques are necessary for great advances in new technologies to be made.
the usa has made a huge mistake in the last two decades in allowing their manufacturing industry to wither in favor of service and the FIRE economy, particularly in offshoring operations to china (whose low cost operations accelerated manufacturing’s decline in the usa), and now they are paying the price.
Not sure if the situation is really this bad. in my company, alot of female colleagues came to office after 9.30am or worst during rainy days around 10am. Took lunch for around 2-3 hrs to shop as our office is situated at town area. Can you believe this? They acted like tai-tais. I really think some Singaporeans are having it way too easy. These are the kind of people that should get retrench & work in low value jobs like what the article mentioned.
Last time when some kind soul suggest using Solar to power facilities,
they said no.
Now, investors of solar coming here.
Recently, a flat leaseholder (aka flat owners), put a solar panel and asked to remove.
now, they say working on it.
@#$%#@$%%^$!!!
regards
facade sarks.
Growth at all costs, even if it costs our poorest folks their lives.
TrueBlood, IRs were concived at a time very different from now. The world have changed. Such an earth shaking crisis have permanently shifted the tectonic plates of consumption, liesure, etc., so be prepared for desperate measures to make the IR work.
Let’s face it, we have absolutely limited options to sustain the present econ model. Like someone said, “If we’re lucky…..”
How can someone be so sure that it is a U turn when he thought Singapore has trillions of reserves and everyone is living in Golden period with Swiss standard of lvings. Can you trust him again or you thing it is time he should retire and get proper medication?
13) TrueBlood Singaporean on May 21st, 2009 8.14 pm
Casino : “SIN” is part of its name.
While people who wants to go to casino, in the past, have to go overseas or go onto boats, now anyone who can show some money (buy the expensive ticket) can go in and gamble away his future. Its easier than ever thanks to the accessibility – no need passport and cost of travel.
Easier means more would go there where they had not gambled in a casino before. This crisis has made many senior workers jobless and the pro biz policy makes employers spoilt for FT choices – cheaper, younger , contract and short term employment they happy.
Despite the family-member-can-bar-them ‘solution’, i am sure many would be welcomed to gamble away. Afterall billions have been SUNKED in.
So, my take is, more newbies in casino gambling would become addicts.
Usually, gambling = sad story. Families broken. Life lost. Forced Prostitution etc.
What is the Price of the Life of a Mere mortal?
This model benefitial to who?
How to justify lost of lives and broken families where many members will be affected?
regards
the 3 pink tombs
hmm i think the opening of the IR is to add to Singapore’s BRAND IMAGE as the Hong Kong of South East Asia — calculating its benefits just in terms of the jobs created is a very narrow way of looking at things.
Hi SZ – I see your point about the ratios potentially being used to generate proportionately more highend jobs for foreigners, assuming the rules are what was stated. IMHO this is a more general point about the S-Pass rules which I don’t think I know enough about – but is not specific to the casino. It’s an open question whether the right ratio is 50-50, 70-30 or some other ratio.
For the risk that no one comes to the casino, well, that’s normal business risk. Just like if you and I were to open a cafe, if we didn’t make money and had to close down then the loss would be ours, the landlord from whom we are renting the premises doesn’t care, he would just evict us and keep the deposit. So if the casino doesn’t make money, Sands & Genting have to answer to their own shareholders. This is true of any company which opens a factory in S’pore. But I don’t think just because a company might potentially go bust that means we should bar them from investing in Singapore?
Thinking about it some more, I think the real issue is that there must come a point where the job creation economics don’t make sense at the margin anymore. It’s probably more a case that because land is so scarce in Singapore, was the IR/casino the best use of the land in terms of jobs created etc?
This question makes sense only if there were real competing alternative uses for the land/ other resources. I don’t know enough to opine (and welcome other folks’ comments) but I guess I together with other forummers feel disappointed if we as a country are at such an adverse tradeoff point that all we can do is create lower paying jobs via the IR.
Some would say, that’s the market right now – get used to it. Do what you need to do to survive. Which is probably true from a rational perspective. But is it the Singapore Dream that we grew up believing in?
To #28,
Job creation : If singaporeans do not benefit more from these jobs than foreigners do, what is the point? Would this be considered success?
To illustrate, as a hypthetical scenario:
USA / Europe : high labor cost countries. Lets say their leaders open up their gates and allow any FT to go there and work and compete with their people and grant PR as ‘efficiently’ as signapore.
For 1 high cost American / European labor, under this scenario, an employer there would be able to hire 2 or more FTs. The employers happy like Hell.
Base on this, more jobs get created. On paper, Job Creation increased substantially. IS this a success? To me, from citizens perspective, it is not exactly – it creates problems also, for the people.
So why should companies hire their locals? So if cheaper labor gives more profit for employers, would they spend some of this gains to hire locals? Why would they want to do that? Does it make any business sense when hiring cheaper labor is what they wanted in the 1st place?
In this scenario, what would happen to the 1st world citizens of USA / Europe?
The answer is clear. This could not happen there in the 1st place. Their people power is too matured.
In this scenario, what would happen to the 1st world citizens of USA / Europe?
The answer is clear. This could not happen there in the 1st place. Their people power is too matured.
The answer is, the employers move their operations to China or outsource to India.
Two big mistakes Singapore did were: not encourage its sons and daughters go overseas, not encourage entrepreneurship.
The government should have nurtured a diaspora, which would have played a key role in helping the Singapore government identify investment and development opportunities in foreign lands.
Instead of pumping money only into foreign firms, it should also have venture-funded SG entrepreneurs across the globe.
For starters It could embrace the concept of sister cities to encourage cross-cultural exchanges. But before that, it should stop labelling those who leave as quitters!
32) Neutral Singaporean
The rules is stated at MOM website and they did state which industry fall into which sector with how many percent quota. so do check it out ;-) so most probably, at best, it will be 50=50 scenario…
oh, btw, what is the singapore dream? i never even think of it…lol…i work hard for what i want…and there is no point “dreaming” since it won’t get us there…pardon me for been cynical…but that’s human
I agree with mjuse. Manufacturing is the backbone of anyway economy. In the sixties, the us diverted its focus from a broad based manufacturing economy to a financial services focused one. Resulting in the wealth generated to be spread only to a few super rich ppl. Ie the bankers and affiliates. Resulting in all the increased rates of economical upheavals. Money is being moved around the world in the blink of an eye. Basically all the financial markets around the world is the rich man’s hunting ground. And we’re paying the price of it now. Manufacturing is still a better way to spread society’s wealth is a more wide spread and equitable manner whereby instead of just a handful get the lion share of the gains now the wealth is distributed among a larger pool of ppl.
Hi SY at # 2: thoughtful comments but if the government is to foster an R&D/pure research culture such as at Oxford/Cambridge or at MIT/Harvard or even at CERN in Geneva, then it would have to ensure long tenure for those involved. I agree the private sector alone will not be able to shoulder the burden.
Mjuse at # 24: a comparison with USA is not pertinent as the US and Singapore are at opposite ends of the scale where physical size is concerned.
I think what the writer is trying to drive at is, if only 2,500 jobs out of 5,000 at the IR s goes to Singaporeans, then can another solution not be found to gainfully employ these 2,500 Singaporeans without, at the same time, having to employ 2,500 foreigners, creating other pressures highlighted in the previous article? The problem cannot be looked at in isolation, as just an economic problem, because of the unique nature of Singapore ie size limitation.
If we had used this reasoning and held the population stable when it was at 4 million (including foreigners), Singapore would be a much more pleasant place to live in today. There would also be less of an unemployment problem.
In fact the IR s will have thousands of rooms, necessitating an army of cleaners, house-keepers, waiters, cooks, security guards and the like. The ratio of low paying jobs to high paying ones is likely to be 70:30. How many of these low paying jobs can be filled by Singaporeans, given that the government is planning to add a total of 30,000 hotel rooms in the hospitality sector in the next 5-6 years?
The problem is worse in the manufacturing and process industries where 7 foreign workers can be employed for each local employee and in the marine sector where the ratio allowed is 5 FW to 1 local worker.
If Singapore keeps adding foreign workers at this rate, how much longer before it turns into a mad-house?
if our economy is part of the Total Defence, it has shown to be quite a weak pillar.
/////Staying relevant and competitive through rapid change and development:
When we upgrade our skills and knowledge, it helps us to stay relevant and employable in this rapidly changing world. Our ability to embrace lifelong learning and re-training is vital to keeping our economy competitive.
Putting in place robust economic systems that can continue to function in times of crisis:
When the foundation of our economy is strong, our economy will not break down so easily in times of war or crisis. Sound policies and practices help us withstand external shocks. Putting in place measures to keep businesses running and maintaining stockpiles of essential items also help to keep our economy going.
Making Singapore livable for future generations:
By saving electricity and water, and by adopting environment-friendly practices as a way of daily life, we are helping to conserve energy and to protect our environment. As a result, Singapore will continue to be livable for future generations./////
from http://www.totaldefence.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/topics/totaldefence/about_td/ed.html
I believe “growth at all cost” in fact cost the poor much much more than the rich. Who can be worse off when inflation keeps on revaluing the spending power? If more and more foreign workers are let in, low wage workers’ wage is likely not be sticky, instead of going up, it goes down. The capable ones will always look for the higher wage and to the rich growth is growth.
If this cost or inflation (due to net wage inflation) is going to relocate monetary recourses, who is going to be worse off? Who then will have to bear the cost? How about focusing on ever increasing income gap?
Given a worse off situation, poor people find even harder to educate themselves as they do not have the money for any form of tuition while the rich people can always educate themselves better for an obvious reason. Again is this right? Is the poor going to continue being the lowest life form in Singapore? Growth is always about how to relocate resources to help the poor. If the wage of the low income group dips during growth then what is growth to them?
What about detrimental externalities?
Casino is opened by individuals who value private benefit more than social benefit. How high can the social cost be? Is private benefit to, regardless of highly capable, selfish and greedy working individual or the company shareholders wants good growth for big money, more or less important and social cost?
Would a Casino inflict a final adverse effect on the poor? Would a certain percentage of the poor spend $100 and walk into the casino to gamble and try their luck? Would the poor enter the career to work as prostitutes? Of course, this group poor can induce young for some sex trade…
Let’s don’t talk about the poor. Working adults are too busy in the highly competitive society; would they have time for their children hence caution them about what casino can being to them? Would a Casino which is so near to them be a bad influence to them? Young people can reach there within MINUTES!!
How effective can education curb such as adverse effect? If you are or going to be someone’s dad or mom, the million dollar question is: Is the living environment right for their son or daughter to live in?
With a good growth model that can create lots of possible unanswered problems, can someone like neutral Singaporean answer these whole lot of questions?
The Emperor has no clothes on!
He doesn’t know it (or doesn’t want to know it).
They dare not tell him.
Where they dare to speak, he hears them but doesn’t listen to them.
Many just keep quiet – either too scared or too blasé,
#12 Neural S’porean -Having said that, it is immensely welcome that TOC can at least occasionally shift its attention from 1987 to 2009 /beyond and from pink dot issues to red dot issues. Was beginning to wonder if it was worth visiting this site anymore…”
Well said, a lot of Sinaporeans will share your view, that is why they are not here at TOC, where you get the perception that it is a site of frustrated chaps everyday hamtam the gahmen for every conceivable thing probably to let go some steam. Sometimes quite pathetic.
The Straits Times misrepresented this subject on 26/5/09 edition by claiming that most – including Low Thia Khiang – were also convinced that Singapore export-oriented-growth model was correct, disagreeing with critics who have questioned the “grow-at-all-cost” strategy. Only Seah Kian Peng was reported to have mentioned the growth-at-all cost model and he actually questioned if the growth-at-all-cost model was realistic. Maybe the reporter mistook an export-oriented-growth model (supported by Low Thia Khiang) for a grow-at-all-cost model. Unfortunately it is not ST’s habit of correcting their own mistakes.
The grow-at-all-cost is exactly what we should not do. It means pursing economic growth irrespective of costs to our well being, to our environment and our society. Even for business enterprises the single-minded pursuit of growth has led to failures as revenues (the equivalent of GDP) are pumped up with no profit. Growth is only worth having if the benefits derived from growth outweigh the both tangible and intangible costs. The difficulty for a state is agreeing on what some of these costs are, especially those that are not yet or are extremely difficult to quantify in dollars, such as quality of life issues. Perhaps we should move to a Value Added measure so costs are not forgotten. Gross Value Added? Nation Value Added?
I look forward to Rajiv’s 4th part.
I just want to mention I am just all new to blogs and absolutely loved this blog. Most likely I’m going to bookmark your site . You really have superb article content. Thanks a lot for sharing your web-site.
I want to express some thanks to the writer just for rescuing me from this scenario. After looking through the world-wide-web and coming across tricks that were not productive, I was thinking my life was well over. Being alive minus the answers to the issues you have sorted out by way of your main review is a crucial case, as well as the kind that could have badly affected my entire career if I had not noticed your web blog. Your personal knowledge and kindness in touching every item was helpful. I’m not sure what I would’ve done if I had not encountered such a thing like this. I’m able to at this time look ahead to my future. Thanks for your time so much for the high quality and effective help. I won’t think twice to refer your web page to anybody who should receive guidance about this subject.
Good day! Would you mind if I share your blog with my twitter group? There’s a lot of people that I think would really appreciate your content. Please let me know. Thank you
I can’t thank you more than enough for the discussions on your web page. I know you place a lot of time and energy into these and really hope you know how deeply I enjoy it. I hope I will do exactly the same person sometime.
Thank you for all your valuable labor on this web site. Kim takes pleasure in making time for internet research and it’s really simple to grasp why. A lot of people learn all regarding the compelling form you present sensible thoughts via your website and recommend contribution from others on the article then our girl is now understanding a lot. Take pleasure in the rest of the year. Your conducting a tremendous job.
What would most people do without the wonderful suggestions you discuss on this web site? Who else has the tolerance to deal with critical topics for the sake of common readers like me? My spouse and i and my girlfriends are very blessed to have your blog among the ones we often visit. We hope you know how significantly we take pleasure in your hard work! Best wishes coming from us all.
I used to be more than happy to seek out this web-site.I needed to thanks for your time for this excellent learn!! I positively enjoying each little little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you blog post.