TR EMERITUS

OPINION Two weeks ago, Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd finally succumbed to growing public pressure to appoint a population minister Mr Tony Burke to better evaluate the number of immigrants the nation can sustain. Mr Burke told ABC Radio that he plans not just to tweak immigration levels, but to examine all areas of government and how population could be spread into the regions as well to reduce congestion in the cities. If a big country like Australia is getting cold feet about the increasing number of migrants flooding the nation, what about Singapore? In 2003, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced his ambitious plan to increase Singapore's population to 6.5 million people via immigration by 2030. All of sudden without warning, the floodgates were flung open to immigrants with far-reaching repercussions to Singaporeans. According to a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, the relentless influx of foreigners into Singapore has depressed the wages of ordinary Singapore workers, increased the cost of living and led to an overall decline in the standards of living. There are rising complaints from the ground especially the vocal youth on the increased congestion in buses and trains, finding themselves strangers in Singapore and unfair competition posed by foreigners in a limited job market. The PAP has made some cosmetic changes to its disastrous immigration policies to better "differentiate" citizens from foreigners in order to placate angry voters, but there was no debate on the issue. Neither did Prime Minister Lee clarify if his population target is still on track. Are we accepting too many immigrants over the last few years? Are Singaporeans comfortable with the large number of immigrants living in our midst? Are the immigrants integrating well into our society? Should we change the population target to a more feasible and sustainable number? Who should take charge of Singapore's immigration policy in the future? These questions remain unanswered to this day. We seriously need a national debate on the PAP's immigration policy involving not only the PAP ministers, but members of the public, academia and opposition as well. Serious questions need to be raised on whether too many immigrants are being brought into Singapore within too short a period of time and if we have the necessary infrastructure in place to accommodate all of them. Since citizens are the ultimate stakeholders of the nation, their views should be sought after actively as well. Instead of a National Integration Council, a National Population Council should be convened immediately to revamp the PAP's immigration policy and to chart a new direction for our nation. While we cannot turn back the clock, we must ensure that the same mistake cannot be repeated again. Singaporeans have already paid a high price for the PAP's recklessness and lack of foresight in planning for the expected increase in population. For example, only about 3,000 HDB flats were built between the years 2006 - 2008 when there were an estimated 100,000 PRs and new citizens each year leading to the glut in public housing and astronomical prices right now. PRs are given too liberally to undeserving foreigners without a minimal period of residency. The state media reported last year of one China National working as a language teacher here who obtained her PR within two months. Wholesale changes need to be made not only to the immigration policy, but to the housing, labor, education and healthcare policies as well to ensure that Singaporeans do not lose out to the newcomers. The opposition parties should consider starting a shadow population council of their own and exert pressure on the PAP by proposing alternative policies for Singapore at part of its manifesto in the next general election. With public sentiment against the PAP at an all-time high, the opposition should strike while the iron is hot and offer a viable alternative vision for Singapore. Immigration is likely to be the hottest issue in the election which will put the PAP on a defensive because there is nothing it can do to justify the relentless inflow of foreigners over the last few years. It is a fallacy that foreigners are employed only in sectors shunned by Singaporeans and the PAP has been "strict" on its immigration policy. The Home Ministry admitted that two out of every three PR applicants are successful, some of whom are masseurs, cleaners, construction workers and even freelance prostitutes. Foreigners are allowed to compete directly with Singaporeans for jobs which can otherwise be taken up by them. Contact Singapore, a government agency, has sent a team to Taiwan last week to recruit thousands of Taiwanese PMETs to work in Singapore. Nobody can deny the fact that immigration is necessary to boost Singapore's flagging birth rates and sluggish economic growth, but we must first put in adequate safeguards to ensure that Singaporeans do not lose out in the rat-race. The lax immigration policies have already taken a toll on a fatigued citizenry over the last few years. We seriously need an urgent comprehensive debate on the matter in and out of parliament.   EDITORS’ NOTE: Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans.   The UBS Series: >> Part 1: Singapore has lowest wages and domestic purchasing power among Asian Tigers >> Part 2: Moving towards a Russian standard of living >> Part 3: Why Singaporeans are paupers in a first world economy   Related articles: >> The fallacy of using lax immigration policies to solve low fertility and aging population issues >> PAP mass-recruiting Taiwanese PMETs to compete with Singaporeans >> Halimah Yacob: Not true that employers hiring foreigners over Singaporeans >> Conversation with a PRC prostitute given Singapore PR by the PAP >> Teo Chee Hean: PAP’s immigration policy has always been “strict” >> How the PAP allows foreigners into Singapore to compete with locals for jobs >> Why Singaporeans ‘fear’ of new immigrants is absolutely rational >> SM Goh reassures immigrants that they are still welcomed in Singapore >> Singaporean working in China lashed out at grouses of Singapore PRs >> Eight reasons why foreign workers will be preferred over local ones >> Declining wages of Singaporeans and the continued denial by PAP leaders >> Halimah Yacob refutes UBS study findings >> Halimah Yacob: Productivity drive will be derailed if foreign worker challenge not addressed  >> Exposing the six major flaws in the PAP’s immigration policies >> Wong Kan Seng promises to tighten immigration policies >> SM Goh: Foreign workers numbers may still rise >> Malaysian car mechanic applying for Singapore citizenship >> PAP launches Singapore Citizenship Journey to help new citizens integrate >> Compulsory for new citizens to attend “sharing sessions” with grassroots leaders >> Wong Kan Seng urged Singaporeans to be more tolerant of foreign workers >> Tharman: Foreign workers increase income of low-income families >> Sylvia Lim: Pace and influx of foreigners over last few years is wrong >> Amy Khor urges Singaporeans to welcome foreigners >> PAP MP wants more money to be spent to make new citizens feel welcomed in Singapore >> Shanmugam: Foreigners generate jobs for Singaporeans >> Vivian happy there are 4,500 new citizens serving as grassroots leaders >> Cosmetic changes made to immigration policy >> SM Goh: New immigrants needed to make up population shortfall >> PAP ministers hailed contributions of foreigners >> SM Goh expressed support for Zhang Yuanyuan >> State media: citizens have more rights over PRs >> Zhang Yuanyuan got her Singapore PR in only 2 months >> Official reply from government on the Zhang Yuanyuan fiasco >> Singapore PRC PR proclaimed loyalty to China publicly >> PRC resident hung China flag to celebrate its National Day >> PRC student in Singapore wants more scholarships for foreigners >> PRC prostitutes solicit for customers on Singapore’s cyberspace >> ERA: 40 per cent of resale flats buyers are PRs  Read More →

作者/来源：吉莲•邰蒂 《金融时报》16/04/2010 强悍的新加坡政府投资公司（Government Investment Corporation of Singapore，简称GIC）并不常成为异端思想的滋生地。不过，最近在GIC沸沸扬扬的一场辩论，其深层意义却吸引了世界各地投资者的关注。 辩论的中心议题，是围绕所谓的哈佛(Harvard)或耶鲁(Yale)投资模式展开的。从其近期历史来看，一如全球其它众多的主权财富基金，大部分时间 GIC都对资产庞大的大学捐赠基金充满嫉妒与艳羡。原因是，对于任何希望摆脱呆滞守旧养老基金状态的长期投资集团，哈佛或耶鲁模式似乎提供了一幅令人兴奋 的远景。毕竟，20年来，耶鲁等高校通过开拓一种独特的投资风格赚取了丰厚的回报。这在本质上讲是在支持一种多样投资理念，即在投资主流证券的同时，也将资产分散到非流动性资产及另类资产类别（诸如私人股本）。 然而，同众多美国金融品牌一样，哈佛和耶鲁的名字如今在亚洲等地似乎已 失去了往日的光芒。或许正如GIC副主席陈庆炎 (Tony Tan) 解释的那样：“整个‘捐赠模式‘的概念（曾经）非常具有影响力。但是，（如今）任何理性的投资者都会对此重新审视一番。”或者，更具体地说，重新思考是否要照搬。 数据是导致这种结果的部分原因。截至2009年6月的一年里，哈佛和耶鲁捐赠基金所持有的资产价值缩水25%。同期，全美所有高校的平均损失为23%（与GIC模式类似，截至2009年3月，GIC的年度损失也达到了20%）。 哈佛模式的支持者坚持表示，未来几年这种衰退局面有可能在一定程度上得到扭转。此外，正是由于亏损如此普遍，一些投资经理对此满不在乎，认为这是一种自然的力量。 但事实上，并非所有人都遭遇了同样的损失。例如，在截至2009年6月的一年里，牛津大学(Oxford University)捐赠基金“仅仅”损失了10%。而且，据牛津大学基金主管桑德拉•罗伯逊(Sandra Robertson)表示，那正是因为几年前牛津大学在经过深思熟虑后决定不效仿哈佛模式。 不过，这种失去光芒——抑或不安——的感觉，，不只是损失所带来的。近期，对业绩数据进行仔细核查后，一些GIC的高管开始得出结论：自己公司内部经理近些年的业绩，就算不是更好，也和外聘投资经理不相上下。由此，他们不禁要提出一个在过去看来有些离经叛道的问题，即：为什么会有人自找麻烦，向对冲基金或私人股本等机构支付高额的费用呢？ 流动性风险依然是更为重要的问题。直到2007年，GIC还一直认为自己永远不会被迫贱卖资产，或者以不体面的方式退出投资。毕竟，主权财富基金（或捐赠基金）的全部意义就在于它应具有长远眼光，且这种眼光应当能助其安然度过任何短暂的风暴。 然而，在过去两年里，主权基金发现，这种“长期福咒”所能提供的保护远比之前想象的要少。因为在投资私人股本和对冲基金之后，GIC（和其他主权基金）最终往往会受制于共同投资者的变幻莫测——而这些共同投资者有一些目光短浅，或者实行逐日盯市制度。因此，会给GIC等集团造成伤害的，不仅有资产相关性问 题，还有投资风格的延续。 这对于 GIC（和其他基金）应当如何运作，提出了一些重要的问题。未来他们是否只应该与类似的投资机构共同投资呢？他们现在可以要求共同投资者提供详细资产目录吗（即便他们自己并不愿意提供这些数据）？他们能够因为预想中的非流动性风险而要求赔偿吗？或者，他们是不是应该辞掉所有的外聘经理，完全通过“内部力 量”来完成投资？ 坦率的讲，这场辩论的结局还不甚明朗，因为在像GIC这样的集团里，论战还处于初期阶段。此外，正如陈庆炎所承 认的那样，他们以前几乎没有就流动性问题进行过任何思考，且大多数亚洲基金在努力打造一片全新天地方面都经验有限。相反，近几十年来，在某种程度上他们都 普遍在试图追随美国模式（最突出的原因是许多亚洲国家的投资官员都拥有……呃……哈佛或者耶鲁的学位）。 但是，随着全球更多财富从美国流出，向新兴市场国家转移，未来投资业的才智领袖将出现在哪里，这个问题越来越引人注目。投资者应当继续关注GIC下一步的动向，更不用说其他新兴市场国家——例如中国 ——更为低调的主权基金了。 来源：http://www.ftchinese.com  Read More →

Reuters, 16 April 2010 The likelihood North Korea sank a South Korean naval ship near their disputed border rose when Seoul said today an external explosion probably caused the ship to split in two, killing dozens. South Korea’s defence minister said this month the 1,200-tonne Cheonan may have been hit by a torpedo, immediately putting suspicion on North Korea and stoking concerns that the incident could start a conflict on the long divided peninsula. “Conclusively, after a visual inspection, there is a higher chance of an outer explosion than an internal one,” Yoon Duk-yong, a top investigation official, told a news conference. Local media is increasingly pinning the blame on North Korea, in the absence of any other likely reasons for the explosion which sank the corvette late last month, thought to have killed 46 sailors. Yoon said the twisting of metal from the salvaged stern that was raised yesterday indicated the blast had come from outside but the team will wait until the rest of the ship was raised and other evidence gathered before reaching a final conclusion. “The Cheonan was also halved in the middle. Therefore, it is highly likely that a torpedo fired from a submarine or mine destroyed the ship,” military expert and former submarine captain Jung Sung wrote in the JoongAng Ilbo daily. The threat of triggering a major conflict, and so hurting its own rapid economic recovery, means South Korea is unlikely to take military action against the North if it does turn out to have deliberately sunk the ship, analysts said. Relations between the two have already turned frosty since President Lee Myung-bak came to power in Seoul over two years ago, angering Pyongyang by ending the financial largesse that had for years been a lifeline for the broken North Korean economy. In a fit of pique, the North this week froze assets of a South Korean firm at a joint tourism project north of the border once hailed as a symbol of co-operation. The North has made no public mention of the ship sinking. Uncertainty over North Korea’s behaviour and the health of its iron leader have become a major risk for the South. Ratings agency Standard & Poor’s said yesterday it did not plan to raise the South’s sovereign rating — which would normally make it cheaper for South Korean borrowers overseas — while risks involving Pyongyang’s leadership persist. Thirty-six of the 46 sailors who went missing were recovered from the ship’s stern, the Defence Ministry said. The bodies of two other sailors were found before the salvage operation, and 58 were rescued alive. South Korea expects to raise the front part of the ship in the next few days as it searches for clues to one if its deadliest naval disasters since the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a cease fire. The sinking could also complicate the resumption of stalled international talks on ending North Korea’s atomic arms programme in return for aid to prop up its broken economy, experts said. — Reuters  Read More →