Wednesday, February 3, 2010 21:37
The Reform Party responds to the Economic Strategies Committee Report
In Economics, Main Stories, The Singapore Model • 3,320 views • 64 Comments
Kenneth Jeyaretnam
The Reform Party
The Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) finally released its report yesterday after over eight months of deliberation. The ESC is supposed to include the best brains from the private and public sectors yet all it could come up with as key recommendations were what the Reform Party and its Secretary-General, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, has been saying since at least April of last year.
In our previous press release, “Work Smarter NOT Harder”, dated 25th January 2010, we said that we were delighted that one of our core messages had been taken up by the Government. This was that economic growth had to be driven by productivity growth and not as has happened over the last ten years largely through expansion of the foreign labour force and that we had to improve our dismal productivity record, We have been saying for over a year that the Government’s target should be focusing on raising the majority of Singaporeans’ living standards rather than just maximizing economic growth.
Now, as expected, the ESC has said exactly the same. Further they have said that this can only be achieved by a substantial increase in investment in education and training. The Reform Party, at its Education Seminar on 23rd January 2010, called for a considerable increase in the percentage of GDP spent by the Government on education and that it should rise from an average of 2.8% of GDP over the last five years to between 5 and 6%, in line with other advanced countries. We are glad the ESC, after a considerable period of time, has reached the same conclusions as the Reform Party, but feel that considerable resources could have been saved and the time of some very highly talented and busy people better spent, if they had consulted us earlier and in particular if they had attended our Education Seminar which was free. To save the government much time and expense the Reform Party is prepared to offer the services of its SG, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, as a consultant on economic strategy for free.
We discuss below the key strategies outlined by the ESC:
1. Growing through skills and innovation
The Reform Party has for some time been pointing out the need for us to raise substantially our investment in education. In addition over investment for an extended period will be necessary to compensate for decades of under-investment. As the ESC report points out over 60% of our workers only have secondary education which is much higher than levels in other comparable countries. Other countries’ rates of tertiary enrollment have been rising for some time so even if we substantially boost our current rate of around 33% we will still be playing catch-up. And the quality of our degrees has to be questioned when so many MNCs, and even GLCs, seem to prefer foreign graduates.
Otherwise the Reform Party supports in principle the idea of a high-level national council to boost productivity but worries that this will be just an excuse to create another layer of highly paid bureaucracy without tangible results. We call in our draft manifesto (circulated at our dinner in September 2009) for a considerable rise in the resources devoted to worker retraining as well as raising the level of investment in education. The ESC’s recommendations also carry the worrying implication that the money spent on programmes like SPUR, touted in the last budget as evidence of the government’s commitment to worker retraining, has been wasted or was just a means of keeping the unemployment statistics lower.
The Reform Party advocates a minimum wage as a means of forcing employers to use labour more productively. Raising foreign worker levies (effectively a tax) may be a means of achieving the same goal but does not directly raise or put a floor under the wages of less-skilled Singaporean workers. It may look more efficient on economic grounds but if employers go further afield in search of cheaper and cheaper labour it may nullify the effects of the increased levy and not boost productivity or the wages of low-income Singaporeans. So the Reform Party still prefers a minimum wage on balance though it could be combined with higher foreign worker levies.
2. Anchor Singapore as a Global-Asia Hub
Surely it did not take this long and require so many talented individuals to produce something that any mid-level PR executive could have produced in an afternoon? These have been the government’s aims for some time and it is difficult to see how we are going to be more successful at them just because they have been regurgitated as part of the ESC’s report.
The Reform Party feels that a target of 20-25% for the manufacturing sector as a proportion of the economy is probably neither realistic nor desirable in the medium to long term given Singapore’s limited land and other resources. Instead we should aim for high value-added activities whether in services or manufacturing. The concentration on manufacturing is just part and parcel of this government’s mercantilist obsession which sees exports (saving) as good and imports (consumption) as bad and explains their preference for a low level of domestic consumption (spending by Singaporeans) and such a high level of net exports (fuelling the unproductive growth of our external assets in Temasek and GIC).
3. Build a Vibrant and Diverse Corporate Ecosystem
In our draft manifesto we called for much greater help for Singaporean SMEs and start-ups so the Reform Party would support these aims while worrying over how well this will be implemented and how much will be wasted. $1.5 billion over ten years is “peanuts” in the context of Singapore’s GDP of some $257 billion (about 0.06%) so it is hard to see how it will make much difference. Temasek and GIC have probably been investing much greater sums than this in foreign private equity and venture capital funds.
The Reform Party would go much further though in dismantling or privatizing the whole GLC structure starting with the privatization of GIC and Temasek and giving Singaporean citizens a direct stake, whether through shares, deferred shares or quasi-equity, in their assets. We would seek to sell off or break-up most of the GLCs which control such a substantial portion of economic activity (up to 60% according to some estimates) which has in our view a detrimental effect on the growth of a vibrant private sector in Singapore.
There must be lessons we can learn from countries with a far superior track record in starting new businesses, such as Israel, yet the committee does not seem to have considered how we can best learn from others.
4. Make Innovation Pervasive, and Strengthen Commercialization of R&D
The Singapore government has been a late convert to the game of boosting R&D given that most of our competitors have been aiming to do this for years, with mixed results. Given that China is massively boosting its R&D spending, as are the US and EU, it must be doubtful whether Singapore can achieve the necessary economies of scale or whether we just end up giving wasteful subsidies to foreign MNCs. The Reform Party is still in favour of increasing R&D spending but we also want to see the dismantling of the GLC structure which is out of step with a modern economy, has held back our private sector and has probably had a stifling effect on innovation, not least through the diversion of talent into secure, well-paid employment rather than into more entrepreneurial roles.
5. Become a Smart Energy Economy
In the Reform Party’s draft manifesto which was circulated to journalists at our dinner in September 2009 but had been written in May of 2009, we called for a massive increase in investment in energy-saving and green technologies. So we are glad that the ESC also thinks alike.
However the Reform Party has serious doubts over the advisability of nuclear energy as an option for Singapore given our limited land area and highly concentrated population. Not only terrorism but the risk of a catastrophic accident like Chernobyl probably rules out the nuclear option. Even if the risk is small (and experience has taught us that extreme events are always underpriced by the market), its actualization would be likely to end Singapore’s existence.
6. Enhance Land Productivity to Secure Future Growth
The Reform Party calls in its draft manifesto for a review of the government’s role as the owner of approximately 79% of the land in Singapore so our policies in this area are likely to be much more radical than anything the committee proposes. We have written about this in relation to increasing the efficiency of the provision of public housing and the need to inject more competition into this sector and would extend the same principles to the question of how best to promote economic efficiency and increase productivity.
7. Build a Distinctive Global City and an Endearing Home
The second part of this phrase suspiciously echoes the title of the Reform Party’s National Day Speech, “We have built a house but not a home.” There is little in this part or indeed in the government’s track record to suggest that it is committed to building an endearing home for Singaporeans.
The consequences of the last ten years of focusing on economic growth by the import of cheap labour while not investing enough in education and training have been dire for the majority of Singaporeans. The full report states that the “majority of households have seen significantly higher real incomes over the decade, with median incomes rising by over 20%”. This is contradicted by the Household Expenditure Survey 2007/08 released in December 2009. This shows that the Average Monthly Household Income of the 1st – 20th, 21st – 40th and 41st – 60th Quintiles increased from $1,309 to $1,274, $2,778 to $3,476 and $4,207 to $5,480, respectively, from 1997/98 to 2007/08.
This is a per annum increase of – 0.3, 2.3 and 2.7% respectively for the above mentioned three quintiles.
After adjusting for inflation at 1.4% per annum, the real increase was – 1.7, 0.9 and 1.3% respectively. So real incomes of the bottom 20% fell by nearly 20% (much more if one uses a CPI weighted by the consumption patterns of the lowest quintile) over ten years while that of the next 20% increased by just 9% and the average income of the median quintile rose by only a little more, 14%.
Conclusion
The government’s high-powered ESC has labored for nearly nine months and produced very little that is very different from what the Reform Party has been saying since last year.
While it is good to see that the ESC is thinking along the same lines as the Reform Party, it is difficult to see how many of the recommendations which essentially are ‘more of the same’ will make a radical difference to productivity growth and produce a more innovative economy. We want to see much more radical reform of key sectors of the economy and of our educational system which we feel are necessary if we are to move permanently on to a higher productivity growth path. It is also good that the government and the ESC have come round to the Reform Party’s view that their primary goal is to raise the living standards of Singaporeans. However there must be serious doubts about the government’s ability to deliver given that the track record in this regard of the last ten years has been so poor and whether anything more than lip service is being paid to weaning the economy off its dependence on cheap foreign labour.
Related posts:
64 Comments
fpc
fpc
There is nothing sincere that solves the productivity problem from the ESC report.
It is NEVER going to take off with the content in the ESC report.
probably another flash in the pan that the pigs are going to wayang before the elections.
fpc
ESC basically suggest throwing some monies to the problems again.
As if productivity is just a monies problem.
standard setting and checking is completely absent.
fpc
All the talk about expansion overseas has been around since 2002 after the renaming of trade development board.
However, we have not seen anything substantial from the sporadic effort.
skulumbong
“The Reform Party would go much further though in dismantling or privatizing the whole GLC structure starting with the privatization of GIC and Temasek and giving Singaporean citizens a direct stake, whether through shares, deferred shares or quasi-equity, in their assets.”
wow, that sounds great! Like this there will be millions of business opportunities for more singaporeans. More can get a piece of the pie.
I hope RP reform the country.
money and power
How does one join the Reform Party? I feel this Opposition party can reach great heights in future.
Teo Ho Chia aka Boomz
To Reform a country, you need Revolutionarists, Visonaries , and most importantly the People standing behind you.
Sadly, sgaporeans are famous for being Unique. Unique in a world of around 195 countries. This must mean it is very very unique.
While its not wrong to have Self Interest, singaporeans should not have no Society Interest in mind. This could lead to a society where people never know/learn why is there a need to have society interest in mind.
Mao Ze Dong was able to Lead his people and he was regarded like a God. We lack such people. We have rare few potentials. But the People cannot be rallied because they are not used to it.
Booooooomz!
Yong
If i only read the ST, I would have be brainwashed to think the ESC panel was some really WOW WOW thingie. It’s time to put an end to ST propagandal.
Strategist
The proposed changes by ESC seem similar to the economic policy used in the second half of the 80s. Improve productivity, stress on innovation. Remember we did have a National Productivity Board (NPB), now part of SPRING. We ought to have the perseverance from the 80s onward to pursue that policy. Just wonder why that policy lapsed or overtaken by the mass import of foreign workers to boost economic growth.
Singaporedaddy
Good Evening,
The main problem is no one really understands what is the head and tail of what the ESC is proposing.
We have looked at it and these are manufacturing experts that regularly consult fortune 500
companies and even they dont even understand what the main spearhead is – the general mood amongst these experts is there is a need for CLARITY, they are looking salient, they cant even find it; if these people cannot even make sense of it, how then do you expect the ordinary lay man to even digest all this in to make sense of it? I asked one of these experts and he just said, they are hitting too many points, they should focus on only two or three fronts and put all their chips there and that way they can break through.
Perhaps the mood can be summarize in this laconic essay:
http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/is-the-esc-report-as-clear-as-mud/
There is room for improvement.
SD
fpc
with the lehman thing coming to an end, I think it is time, LHL rushes to start an election. Who knows when LKy will kick the bucket?
We need to be ready.
Human Being
I agree with most point made by RP. Especially education, we need to be less dependent on academic excellence and more on knowledge excellence. The Apple company was started from a garage in the back of a house by two college drop-outs. The other is alternative energy, We should look at countries like Switzerland which has their local factories convert waste energy to power their towns and cities.
But what amazes me after 8 months, what the ESC came out with and just broad strokes with no depth or detail. The waterfront sketch was exactly what it is a sketch at best. No urban planning of any sorts. In 8 months you’d expect a blueprint of sorts for the space that they say will create a vibrant waterfront city. What I saw were white patches on a map and a sketch.
Seriously, we must be daft to think that our future is determined by this panel of well-paid ministers and corporate leaders. I do not see any clean energy expert, environmentalist or productivity Guru. Just the same old ideas by the same old people.
money and power
I re-read the RP response again and in an ideal business setting, with the higher foreign levy tied in with minimum wage, your idea may work. However, the government will never introduce a minimum wage system as they are already paying low-skilled Singaporeans peanuts. To introduce minimum wage, it incurs costs on the government.
And to make this point absolutely clear, higher foreign levies is never going to improve productivity. Let’s be honest with ourselves. This is a bunch of bs, simply put. It seems like every single thing implemented is to “improve productivity”.
A higher foreign worker levy will just compensate the government for all the well-known bad investments they have made; Temasek Holdings, flashback. 1/3 of our population consists of foreign workers. Increasing the foreign worker levy will bring in alot of money for the government – I hope not to make bad investments again. Higher levy incurs additional labour costs and those providing these workers to companies for projects will charge those companies for the additonal costs. This is unfavorable for businesses as a whole. But it has to go on. Companies still need to do business. So who stands to benefit from all of this? The government.
What should be done is to reduce the number of foreign workers coming in. However, the government will never do that because they stand to gain from all the foreign worker levy paid. If a reduction is there, companies will hire Singaporean low-skilled workers and create jobs for low-skilled Singaporean workers.
Linked under, ‘Economics’. Cheers TOC.
D Lee
Have a chuckle. A light-heated, biting take on the report.
http://atans1.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/cutting-and-pasting-the-esc-report/
Samples
“The civil servants must be glad that in the 80s, there was already software programmes that allowed docs to be cut and paste.”
“Another take is that the governing party are incompetent. They can’t solve issues that they flagged in the 1980s by 2003 and 2009, despite the chairman of two committees becoming PM. An example is the tinkering with the CPF system, not radical reform.”
Disgusted
Well done to the Reform Party. Kenneth has my vote to become the next Prime Minster. He has clearly shown that he has better foresight and intelligence that MM, the PAP forecaster, and the other ministers.
Why is the PAP govt so slow to re-act despite having all the data, the entire govt machinery to help them including the services of MM, 2SMs, 2 DPMs, Ministers without portfolios, etc, etc,?
The answer is simple. They are either incompetent or too bloody switched-off to even read reports , feedbacks, recommendations, etc, etc. They only wake up from their deep sleep during election year and then realize that everything has gone wrong. If not for the election year, they will not know that Singapore is slipping slowly but surely into total chaos and ruin.
This is totally unacceptable. The govt has to pay the price for this very serious blunder and many others and cannot be forgiven. We have been too tolerant and too forgiving of the PAP blunders for too long. Well. not this time, The dustbin of history is waiting for them come election day.
I think the Reform party should do more to offer a different angle rather than say they were ahead of the PAP in these ideas. These ideas are generally old and are now rehash in the ESC.
My main problem with the ESC is it starts of with the wrong goal of trying to “sustain growth” rather than look at the economic challenges faced by Singaporeans today and improve the quality of life in Singapore. The economic well being of Singaporeans should be at the center of this strategy – and that should be the overarching goal rather than more economic growth.
Unless we think out of the box, break out of our old models Singaporeans will be better off in 10 years time than they are today.
Champagne have to wait
Dear Reform Party Leadership,
While your message and articles and proposals are great and all, these can reach the minority only.
TOC’s mandatory videos proved Apathy exists in many post 65′ers.
These were brought up without the IQ to question on political and social issues. They always think “does it affect me? if not , i Dont Really Care! ” or “Get out of my uncaring face!”
Lets face it, you cannot reach these people.
This means Reform will not happen.
TOC and TR readers already have decided who to vote for. Spend more effort and time reaching out to those who relied on MSM-only. those non-english educated elders. The Oblivious youths and post-65′ers (refer to that Change Alley boy).
Meanwhile, we wait for the most interesting events( there are a few, u know?) to happen for singaporeans and Champagne stays in the fridge for now.
Cheeze Off
Dear Champagne have to wait,
I agree with your views. I also think there is nothing better that doing house- to- house calls. I know the biggest source of unhappiness among most Singaporeans is the need for a living income (not meager salaries) and a significant lowering of the escalating costs of living.
In an election, every vote counts. The Reform Party should just promise a significant lower cost of living if voted in. It should just promise, promise and promise to lower the cost of living if voted in. Get this message in strongly and also itself into power first and then implement their proposals in stages. Sure to win. People are just sick and tired of paying and paying to a govt that pays itself millions of dollars while doing nothing to help its people.
The proposal to lower the cost of living will also attract votes from the new citizens who are currently leaning towards the govt. The latter’s votes may be the decisive factor on who will be in power.
The reform Party need not be too cerebral to win votes. Just promise a higher quality of life for all citizens No need to over-justify the lowering of cost. Just promise. Good enough. Votes will flow in like wine.
Frustrated
I agree that lowering the cost of living is the best strategy for winning votes. The govt cannot promise a lower cost of living because they have not done it for 44 years and nobody will believe them. Besides, they are parasites and need to suck the blood of every Singaporean until the latter goes pale and drops dead on the street only to have its carcase cleared by a foreign cleaner in a way that dead dogs and rats are cleaned up in the streets.
The reform party should focus on getting this message of lowing cost to every voting citizen. Sure win.
Shandong Peanuts
Let look at the main cost component of a business. These are mainly manpower cost, rental of premises and utilities charges. The high cost of rental resulting from governmental land pricing policy using ‘reserve price’ has created an inflexible market pricing model. We have allowed Singapore to become a nation of landlord rather than a nation where SME can strive to support economy. With SME having to pay a fixed high premium in rentals, the only way to stay afloat is to cut the other costs that is significant. This has got to be replacing the local manpower with cheaper manpower or some sort of mechanisation.
If you were to look at the foodcourt business, individuals food stall owners are making money just to pay high rentals. The owner would either do the work themselves or employ foreigners to help them stay afloat. The high rentals is the result of the ‘over the top’ high price that landlord bidded to secure the ownership because of the reserve land price policy instituted by goverment. These high cost at a tender stage will cascade down to the high cost of doing business in Sg. So how high is high? If businesses need to pay 30% or more of its revenue to pay rent then this is deemed excessive unless this is a super luxury services where the clientele are super rich.
The land cost is the apex of all other cost as businesses need space. If a high percentage of business cost is fixed (cost arising from most rentals of premises are fixed cost), then in difficult times business is more likely to fail as it is not able to respond with a high fixed cost structure. Land cost contribute significantly to the fixed cost of all businesses either directly through long term leases or rental and indirectly through other service cost eg utilities etc.
SG Gov should seriously review how to reduce overall cost other than manpower or manpower productivity intiaitives. Do we want to become just a nation of landlord, collecting high rentals from tenant or do we want to build SME to significantly support the economy. Need to go back to 101 economics for overall cost reduction
People Arrogant Party
Shit Times will never publish alternative parties idealogy. By doing so, it shows PAP has a lot to learn and think outside the box. It makes me feel more comfortable to vote for alternative parites now.
smallvoice585
While the Reform Party congratulates itself for having apparently pre-empted many of the recommendations of the ESC, it condemns these very same recommendations as being nothing more than “more of the same”. Isn’t there a contradiction here?
Pouring scorn on these recmmendations is not exactly the smartest thing to do because these measures, though not new, are the obvious common sense things to do; which even a fresh Economics graduate can tell you.
Finally, the sarcastic and belittling tone of this piece betrays a severe case of unwarranted “I told you so”. It is not politically savvy to appear arrogant and hubristic.
On the positive side, the Reform Party should be credited for impressing us with being constructive, serious and resourceful. They are worth having in our Parliament.
Frustrated
Shandong Peanuts ,
Good information. Sadly, the govt has stopped thinking for a long time. They are not leaders or strategists but mere fire fighters, just re-acting to ground problems and feedbacks on election year. They have been too switched-off ever since they started to pay themselves obscene salaries. With millions in their pockets, they have stopped working, just doing enough to please their political masters. Their incompetence is becoming too glaring and cannot escape the eye of most Singaporeans. Time for change.
Cheeze Off
Many Singaporeans are living from hand to mouth. In bad times, the hand does not even reach the mouth. This is the crux of the matter. The PAP govt while paying itself astronomical salaries has failed to improve the lives of ordinary citizens.
Any opposition party, if it wants to seriously to form the government, must address this problem. It is morally wrong for any government to pay itself outrageous salaries and yet do nothing to provide its citizens with the basics.
The Reform Party has a moral responsibility to set this right. Its challenge is to convince Singaporeans that there is a viable alternative govt that can improve their quality of life much better than what the PAP as to offer. It is long overdue. Singaporeans have suffered in silence long enough. Time for change has come. Hopefully, we will see a new govt come the next election.
angry_one
Notice that the papers report from the angle ‘opposition parties generally agree with these recommendations’, as if it’s the PAP that has come up with them. But these are obvious ideas that have been mooted by the opposition and in cyberspace for ages!
Clueless
Very Good article. I agree the ESC report contains nothing new. Much of its recommendations were stuff from the late 80s and 90s.
It is surprising that it took so many top level talents a full 8 months!! Yet it is basically a rehash of the old.
The government needs a new injection of new blood. It is not coming out with new ideas.
Netizen
The Reform Party should review its election strategy to win votes. A cheap and effective way to pass their messages to the citizens is to mobilize the help of the thousands of unhappy netizens through e-mails and websites. These E-mails can be forwarded to other netizens or downloaded for distribution to friends, relatives and neighbors. The force-multiplying effect will be tremendous.
The internet will level the playing field. Truth will prevail.
smallvoice585
Dear Shandong Peanuts
Feb 4, 2010 11:47
Your analysis of the high business costs caused by the high fixed rental cost as a result of Govt land pricing policies may sound convincing. But if no reserve price was established, there may be instability and unpredictability in the property market. This will have economic ramifications beyond your control.
Yamamoto
Well Well….yet again….we are paying extraordinary salary for below ordinary performance….only in singapore
Koenigxione
I just have 2 hum-ble points to share:
1. Market Pricing of Talents is Inaccurate and often too much is given to them. Case in point Wall Street. Obama have said so. Should people use Market Price to peg salaries. There is no need for discussion, really.
2. Its a no brainer that there is a healthy population size of opposition voters even as far back as the last 3 elections. It is no brainer that if Opposition can encourage and rope in similarly qualified talents, they will win more votes. I say again, They WILL win more votes. This is based on historical data. The current population size , however has changed drastically even in the years just after the last election. Why? Of course i don’t know why!. So, the result will be less than 33.3% unless more have been disenchanted or disillusioned to even out the influx.
Long story cut short, it would be Logical to Expect that a parliament with 15% to 33% seats going to the Opposition is welcomed by many people. The ball is really in the Opposition Leader’s court. They have the prime responsibility to recruit talents. If they fail, they will bring failure to the 33.3% .
The Opposition leaders are now responsible for recruitment. Get the number of talents needed, you get that many seats, 33.3%. That will be enough for Change.
Netizen
The mind boggles why the ESC is headed by Tharman and not MM, SMs or even the DPMs. It looks liked these so called Senior Ministers do nothing but cross their legs and shake their balls, drink coffee while giving their 2 cents worth of opinions. Wow, best job on the island. Take our hard earned money by the millions and do nothing worthwhile.
We have been cheated.
Shandong Peanuts
small voices
All services and goods have an optimum price in which market can bear. Pricing level reflect the economic reality unless the services are of luxury type where it then commands a premium. Gov by insisting on a reserve price, has created a tendency for bidders to over-bid higher than what economic reality can bear. If in a tender, the highest bidding price is still below the reserve price, it means that the reserve price has been set too high. Can market mechanism be wrong then?
Reserved Pricing acts like an artificial floor and at a second tender exercise, (since the first tender exercise was unsuccessful, highest tender price < reserve price) subsequent bidder will tend to over bid in their next bidding of the recalled tender. This is good for the government since they are the owner but for the business it means the additional cost will have to cascade down from the developer to the new owner to the business operator that use the land, and finally to the end consumer). Factor input prices from use of land is not as easily controllable and divisible like labour, from an entrepreneur perspective. So a high fixed cost structure will reduce the flexibilities of businesses to ride the economic storm. Labour cost on the other hand can be managed by reducing bonus, reducing variable component and other flexi components etc.
The tender exercise basically reflect what would be a fair price to bid. Dismissing the highest bid price that is below reserve price is expressing to the market that the price is not good enough to generate the required return despite the current market condition and expectations.There are always other alternative means of ensuring orderliness in any tender process eg pre-qualification.
It all boils down to what the government want as the end results, being the owner of most land in Sg. Sadly Singapore is a nation of landlords and SME suffer because of price structure inflexibility. Land cost is a significant input cost in any services or goods. To put simply the highest bidding price bring with it certain added inflexibility. All land cost cascade down either as leases, rental or other input price eg utilities, maintenance rates etc. Land cost is then cascaded down to consumers in terms of inflationary trends of prices.
sweeney 38
KJ, you are our choice for the next Prime Minister of Singapore.
For sure, you are able to perform well, without “forcaster”. 2 SMs,
2 DPMs and Ministers(3 or 4), to assist you. Wow! What a waste
of taxpayers’ hard earned money.
Good Luck!
fpc
Now, let be a little bit more analytical.
PAP claims they need to optimise land use and would probably drive out some industry.
They would also raise productivity.
Somehow, I don’t think these proposal is coherent in the form that they state. In fact, it is a pretext to take away land from certain industries that PAP doesn’t want to sell or something.
Usually, when people raise productivity, they start with something that is already there. Invest in machinery and train those workers who are already there to take on more responsibilities.
However, if you drive those industries away, by taking their land, then what are you going to do with the singaporean staff who were working there. Afterall, this productivity talk is primarily about raising singaporean income by making them more productive.
I don’t believe it is exclusively those low value add places where FT is employed that they will touch because these pigs just rent out bedok flats to fts. They must think these fts have some value to do that. (they don’t even treat Singaporeans that well).
One must always read proposals from PAP very carefully.
their standard trick is to package something that everyone (or the ground) seems to agree, making themselves look nice or good.
But then, they would add some measures into the package that would cause you to unknowingly pay/fund for the programme. For example, the new flat programme seems like a generous idea. However, we all know, only the first few who got it benefited. The subsequent buyers will pay for the first few buyers’ profits and drive the property price of nearby property higher which the govt can then sell at a higher price.
I really think they are not doing Singapore any good. They are just serving themselves.
If you compare their report with the HK govt report, the hk one made a lot more sense.
smallvoice585
Dear Shandong Peanuts,
Thanks for your lengthy reply.
Your assertion that there is an optimum price in which the market can bear and that the bidded price level reflects the current economic reality owes much to your subscription to the “The Law of One Price”. However, this economic law only works in an EFFICIENT market. As you have stated, the Govt is by far the biggest landowner and the bidders’ market is dominated by only a few big players. So, that in no way constitute an efficient market.
Further, the belief in market forces finding its own fair level had taken a huge beating since the credit crisis of ‘08.
So, putting a reserve price as a regulatory mechanism for the property market should not be viewed as improper. In any case, in the event of a re-tender, why should any bidder overbid if everyone thinks that the reserve price is set too high? All bidders do their own calculations. The fact is that successful bidders of re-tenders must have thought their higher bids to be “fair” in that context.
fpc
http://was.nl.sg/details/www.singaporekindness.org.sg.html
Goh CT said in this speech that “Considerate social behaviour supported by a strong economy and good government would make Singapore the best home for its people.”
our economy is not strong.
The ft we took in are not considerate.
Our government is not good but self serving.
No wonder our home is the not the best and ESC need to make proposals to make our home good.
Shandong Peanuts
Market participant must be free and truly independent from land owner. One just need to look around Sg and note the preponderance of GLC and government bodies in choice. Has there been any tender being called in the first place? Tender could also be a close one and the tender process managed to preselect preferred paricipants. Granted that optimum market prices work in efficient market, market mechanism should not be overmanaged. How reserve price is being view can only be decided by the market participants and the public. When a recall of tender is carried out a few years later, market conditions and business dynamics would have moved. I have expressed enough of my view already and do not wish to indulge further response.
Shandong Peanuts
Market participant must be free and truly independent from land owner. One just need to look around Sg and note the preponderance of GLC and government bodies in choice locations. Has there been any tender being called in the first place? Tender could also be a close one and the tender process managed to preselect preferred participants. Granted that optimum market prices work in efficient market, market mechanism should not be over managed. How reserve price is being view can only be decided by the market participants and the public. When a recall of tender is carried out a few years later, market conditions and business dynamics would have moved. I have expressed enough of my view already and do not wish to indulge further response.
maverick
To Reform Party,
Your arguments made sense and your recommendations are commendable. I will definitely vote for you in the upcoming GE, not becoz of protest but simply you guys are more credible than all the MILLION DOLLARS brains combined.
However, please do include the abolishment of the million dollars salaries as one of your key agenda. To pay a leader 6X that of Obama’s salary while running a country that most americans think is part of China, and yet aided by a multitude of deputies and ministers who are just as underserving, is grossly out of context.
money and power
Reform Party, just make a promise you will cut your ministers’ salaries if you win and peg them to acceptable standards and use the rest of the money to help homeless people in Singapore and I will vote for you each election. This, I promise you.
Steve Wu
I have not had the opportunity to read the ESC recommendations first hand. However, based on the various reports and commentaries (both unfavorable and favorable) which I did read, I am surprised that the ESC members did not consider a relatively simple component to the overall economic strategy.
I would call it the Singapore 24/7 initiative. It is good for increased employment, increased utilization of resources, and certainly increased productivity. In fact, if done right, it will be by a large margin.
At the present, there are many businesses are already operating 24/7 to maximize their OPEX. For example, supermarkets use the wee hours of the morning for re-stocking and other activities. Likewise for food outlets like McDs. When demands are strong, many production lines also operate 24/7. Hospitals have practiced that for years, indeed why not for the specialist clinics as well as the polyclinics?
The idea is to extend these ad hoc arrangements to a fully functional economy 24/7 gradually to achieve a more symmetric production and consumption of goods/services regardless of the time of the day. In this way, we may be even more plugged in to the part of the globe which may be traditionally more active (e.g. it may be broad daylight in the US). Wouldn’t it be a lot better to video conference for work with US counterparts during work hours instead of sacrificing sleep hours?
While some people are already doing it in isolation, with proper planning and execution, we may gradually have a segment of the population which may prefer to be “permanently” night shifted. This is not a disadvantage if all segments of the economy are also available, e.g. train/bus services, banks, medical, and the rest. Shops shall have good reasons to be opened for business. Why can’t teachers meet students in an otherwise empty school to conduct lessons?
It does not mean that folks do not sleep nor have to work longer hours; they shall enjoy the sleep/work/leisure cycles in their time, all the time. In other words, the dual economy at night can be equally vibrant. It is Singapore that doesn’t need to sleep.
This used to be a Fun House....now its full of Evil Clowns
I wonder if the ESC has used this idea which i thought of and shared on the net BEFORE the report was released :
1. Using submarine nuclear generator to power electric cars where Kiosks are installed at petrol kiosks or standalone kiosks around the island for electric cars.
To me, ideas are easy. It does not cost a million.
Anytime, i have an idea.
Its so easy especially when its from the west basically.
Sorry, i just know how to say only. I don’t know how to built a nuclear power station nor electric cars nor kiosks. Westerners will do it. I can be the manager lah and i manage them lah.
“This used to be a Fun House….but now its full of Evil Clowns….Its time to start the Count-Down”
MIT
Due respect to the reform party. But they dont have any subject matter experts on this area. Same goes for the ESC. This is a classic case of a group of people who have no experience in dog fighting, but they have the rank. But if you happen to be a fighter pilot and its circa WW 2 and you have to beat off the German airforce. Who would you rather have as a wingman, a four star general leading you or a fighter ace with a loads of kill flags on his fuselage. This is the crux of the matter. Experience counts. We should only listen to people who have gone through one end and come out of the other as they are really the ones who understand what it takes to remake Singapore.
The question is will there ever be a Singaporean Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, that is what the ESC and RF party should look at.
http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/can-esc-produce-another-singapore-bill-gates-et-al/
As this fellow rightly pointed out. Instead everyone is so painting with so broad a brush, even when I read it, I cannot seem to relate to it at a working level and I happen to hold 3 patents. I hate to say this, but do try to take it positively, both ESC and the RF party may have lost the plot here.
Foookinabass
MIT, to secure a patent is not difficult.
The real challenge is whether the patent is worth anything.
tiredsingaporean
Reform Party just have to do a few simple things to win over big time in the GE, if they should take over as the next ruling govt, 1) returning all the cpf money to all folks age 55 and above 2) all local bred singaporeans are entitled to cost-to-cost hdb housing, new citizens less than 3 years are not eligible 3) NS salary must be adjusted justificably to meet their 2.5 yrs of sacrifice by leaving their family to serve the nation and all $million civil servants and ministers must be fully justified and redress, its just so corrupted now. Can’t you people see whatever policies coming out from the ruling party whether it hurts the citizens or not are nothing other than benefiting themselves than the nation itself.
spirited-centred
All of the ESC proposals have been asking the government to step in to promote this and to fund that. I believe they have to push forward the increase of GST to 10% to fund all these proposal that is giving money to SME employers and MNC. They are not going to pay out of their own pocket but to squeeze from the people.
Based on SM Goh sounding, they are not going to increase foreign workers drastically while doing away with the foreign worker to local quota opening the flood-gates for employer to easily recruit more foreign workers in the short term.
So the government are just paying lip-service to calm down the peoples’ discontentment.
tiredsingaporean
1) returning all the cpf money to all folks age 55 and above
***provided all our $$$ are still intact in the nation reserve cos up to date nobody will ever know the truth even when MM kicks the bucket soon, nothing will still be made known to the people, mind you its the peoples lifesavings OK, what can happen to the ruling party should the people found out one day that all their lifesavings are gone, I think whoever are responsible will just have to disappear from the island for good.
temasick
tiredsingaporean ,Feb 6, 2010 14:20
“Reform Party just have to do a few simple things to win over big time in the GE, if they should take over as the next ruling govt, 1) returning all the cpf money to all folks age 55 and above 2) all local bred singaporeans are entitled to cost-to-cost hdb housing, new citizens less than 3 years are not eligible 3) NS salary must be adjusted justificably to meet their 2.5 yrs of sacrifice by leaving their family to serve the nation and all $million civil servants and ministers must be fully justified and redress, its just so corrupted now.”
I totally support and second your suggestions, esp on the $MILLIONS salaries. No diff from the imperial emperors who wash their mouth with bird nest soup while the peasants catch roddents for food during famine times.
Time for Reformation, Time for Reform Party.
temasick
tiredsingaporean , Feb 6, 2010 14:40
“1) returning all the cpf money to all folks age 55 and above
***provided all our $$$ are still intact in the nation reserve cos up to date nobody will ever know the truth even when MM kicks the bucket soon, nothing will still be made known to the people, mind you its the peoples lifesavings OK, what can happen to the ruling party should the people found out one day that all their lifesavings are gone, I think whoever are responsible will just have to disappear from the island for good.”
Agree as well. Totally sickening. Why can’t pap/govt just reveal how our CPF monies are being kept? Who is managing it ? How much of it has been diverted to GIC/TH for investment ? How much of that has been gained or lost ? A simple dose of transparency will be good. Doesn’t matter gain or lost, we are all immune to that after the TH/GIC mega catastrophic loss. Please dun “siam” anymore. The longer you hide, the larger the resentment.
tiredsingaporean
I just can’t wait to see what will happen coming GE should there be a freak issue and the military are called in, just wondering its not a bad thing after all someone had recent passed insulted our military that he dare not even dare to lead the soldiers should he be their PC, and thats too good enough to let these soldiers start thinking . . .
Chua Mui Looong
If army called in would the STI be affected?
Chua Mui Looong
Can someone clarify what the fish is MIT mumbling about ?
1. Singaporedaddy : what is it?
2. ASDF?
Thanks for reading.
3rd brigade
MIT’s frustration @ 14:00 is understandable. At times like these when we are hit so badly, the last thing anyone wants is to be humored with platitudes, many who know industry well are not satisfied with the ESC write up/ They feel rightly or wrongly it is too general and lacks a clear direction. They cannot be dismissed either as they know it not on the level of a student, but most of them are probably speaking from a commercial angle. Perhaps the liason officer of the brotherhood should do us all the courtesy of relaying this general sentiment upstairs for further action, if that is not possible, I can relay this message via the Liason officer in the Saffron route based in Malaysia, either way the message will be get through.
Nothing MIT can be gained by lashing out TOC, RF and SD. We should try to be polite and courteous to each other.
The Jackal
MIT
Thomson Edison discovered 2000 ways how not to make a light bulb OR did he fail 2000 times ?
Is the government prepared to accept that failure is the mother of all success? If there is no attempts, there can be no chance of success (creativity) which will of course comes with chance of failure.
But until the government is prepared to remove the stigma of failure, then whatever the government is saying are just “empty talks”.
Let the government prove that by firstly allowing those who had become bankrupts due to failed businesses be gainfully employed .
A Tan
Qn for RP?
Why are you trying to rewrite history even before you get into power?
Your response to the report is VV gd but did you have to imply RP was solely responsible for the ideas “stolen” by govmin? Many of the points that RP raised have been in the past raised by academics and the WP. And I’m sure other opposition parties.
Were these “clothes stealing” the idea of the scholars? They are tot this in govin.
Will RP turn its rewriting history efforts into making JBJ the greatest economist known to the universe?
Waiting for TRex to go down naturally
If RP wins, i hope they walk the talk and de-monopolise the monopolies so that the jobless middle-aged intellectuals can start a business and earn some money.
Audit firms should be joint-venture to do the auditing project that was sized to take DECADES to complete. This could translate into Billions of dollars of projects. More projects can spin-off from these audits if found necessary.
So which audit firms RP fancy?
Goranisovich
in my view, Our late JBJ, the father of Liberation.
KJ, the Prince of Liberation.
Viva la Liberation!
Chua Mui Looong
ASDF is no an acronym, it refers to the left keys of a key board, they came into existence circa 2002 / the whole idea is the left hand is supposed to complement the right hand. So they are the thinkers of the brotherhood. Nothing moves without the ASDF.
For example, they come out with reports like this -
Most of the time their postings are couched in secrecy. But they are the brains behind the brotherhood. Nothing moves without the ASDF. ASDF advisory was pivotal in averting the economic crisis. Without them, they would have been wiped out. But their forward radar enable most of the brotherhood for the melt down, so damage was significantly mitigated. Maybe I was too hasty in my criticism, I did not mean to be rude to Singaporedaddy per se and others here. Do accept my sincere apology. Only we all just cannot understand why if the elements are still there, that is to say the people who once made up this unit are very much still around, why then is there so much trouble to get them up and running again?
Peace out
I Give Up
To-date, Singaporeans have been sentenced to 44 years of imprisonment , hard labor and low pay. Our crime: voted in the PAP. This govt takes everything and pays nothing. Words cannot describe how stupid we are. We believe in every promise that this govt makes, not knowing that it accounts to no one.
The next election is crucial. If we foolishly believe in their goodies, we will be further imprisoned, this time without parole.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Concerned Citizen
Specifically with regards to the minimum wage, the truth is that so long as EDB is allowed to have a substantial say in the economy, it will never be implemented. The agency’s single minded and myopic drive towards securing investments for the sake of investments, with nary a thought for the actual project’s worth, necessitates an approach where the companies whims and fancies must be accommodated at all costs. This is unacceptable. Clearly I may have over simplified the issue but EDB’s influence must be necessarily reduced or even removed for progress to take place. I am not being a radical in saying this, but many academics and opinion leaders share my take too (for eg Professor Linda Lim of UMichigan).
Solaris
Linda Lim. We happen to know her work intimately. We would rather reserve comment. As for MIT 1 or 2 comments, these are not so much individuals as they are groups who are regular BP readers and they run into the hundreds. And I do have sympathy for them, as they are clearly in the thick of it. All they seem to be asking for is a clear and coherent strategy, not a text book recitation of what needs to be done. If we wanted that, we can just get it off the shelf in borders or Amazon.
It’s good that 3rd brigade and his gang has decided to highlight this matter directly to the Liaison officer Kadjal who is assigned for the new Malaysian gaming hub. Good on you. This will only mean we will get something meaningful instead of nothing trying to pass itself off as something.
kindle
Great! So the ASDF is going to roll it out!
Zambon Garudia
I hope Alternative parties help us get a Referendum on the the Nuclear thing.
Nuclear is no joke. They people are the stakeholders. They should have a say if it should be built.
This is leadership!
PAP is just a follower, not to say a copy cat.
It is always cheaper and lazier to copy.
What to do? PAP ministers are paid what successful people are paid and this list of successful people is not fixed.
Whether you fall out of the list (being replaced by another successful guy) doesn’t change the pap ministers pay a bit.
That’s why they are lazy.