TR EMERITUS

Written by Our Correspondent After opening the floodgates and allow Singapore to be swarmed by foreigners without any proper screening or planning, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng is now urging "Singaporeans to be realistic and more tolerant of foreign workers." During his speech on the Budget, Mr Wong said: "Singaporeans need to be realistic and fair-minded. While we want foreign workers to do the less pleasant jobs and contribute to our economy, we cannot also expect them to stay away, during their off days, from public places and shopping malls where we frequent, or not to take public transport to work." The foreign talent and immigration issues have become hot topics of late with many Singaporeans voicing their unhappiness and anger against the ruling party for its misguided policies. Though Singapore needs foreign workers to take up jobs shunned by locals, the onus is on the government to beef up the infrastructure to ensure that it is adequate to accommodate the increase in population. Due to poor planning and lack of foresight, too many foreigners are allowed into Singapore within too short a period of time, leading to overcrowding at public spaces and transport. Mr Wong claimed that foreigners contribute to Singapore's economic growth "which have raised the quality of life for all Singaporeans." According to a UBS report released last year, Singapore has the lowest domestic purchasing power and wages among the Asian Tigers and have a standard of living comparable to Russia. (read article here) It is ranked by the Economist Unit as the 53th best place to live in the world below the likes of Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Australia and Canada. "Economic growth has also enabled us to accumulate reserves in good times, which we have been able to rely on to sustain and support Singaporeans during lean and tough times," he added. Singapore's two sovereign wealth funds Temasek Holdings and GIC was reported to have lost billions of dollars of reserves in failed overseas investments, the exact amount loss remains a mystery to this very day. Mr Wong ended his speech by reminding Singaporeans that "the integration of foreigners and new immigrants is an ongoing journey and takes a long time." "It cannot be rushed. It needs the directive and active involvement of both Singaporeans and new immigrants," he was quoted as saying in the Straits Times. Since this is so, why then did the PAP accept so many foreigners at the same time which makes it even more difficult to integrate them now as they tend to congregate within their own communities? Mr Wong should be more realistic and not expect Singaporeans who are one of the most tolerant people in the world to make unnecessary sacrifices anymore to pay for the juvenile mistakes made by the PAP.  Read More →

By Martha Lagace from Harvard Business School Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is often lauded for bringing economic growth and know-how to developing countries. The conventional wisdom is not necessarily wrong, but the real story is much more nuanced than is commonly believed, says HBS professor Yasheng Huang. As he is discovering in new research, the relationship that exists between FDI and local entrepreneurship in Asia may be one important reason why certain Asian countries developed differently from others, despite surface similarities. This angle on FDI may offer a window into why Singapore and Malaysia, for instance, seem to be worried about the ascendance of China, while firms in Taiwan and Hong Kong have reaped enormous benefits from Chinese economic expansion, according to Huang. He presented his new research proposal to an audience of faculty and doctoral students at an HBS International Seminar on May 17. According to Barron's Business Terms, FDI is "investment in a country by foreign citizens, often involving majority stock ownership of an enterprise." Huang is looking deeper into how and why FDI played quite different roles in these four economies in Asia. While cautioning that this research is just getting underway and is not conclusive, Huang believes that the study of FDI in the context of local entrepreneurship in Asia deserves a closer look. "I'm not claiming local entrepreneurship is the only determinant of FDI," he said, "but it could be an important determinant that is often ignored." Read rest of article here  Read More →

Dear Madam Halimah,   I refer to your comments in parliament as reported by Straits Times on 4 Mar 2010.   Despite the 'puzzling' decrease in Singapore's gross wages from 2006 to 2009 as you have pointed out, the ball part figure is largely correct so the picture of relative income vis-a-vis other countries is still valid.  Adopting the government's hourly wage estimate of $14 an hour instead of $10.85 an hour would merely boost Singapore's gross hourly wage from 32.7% that of New York's to 42.2% that of New York's.  Are we that much more proud that our gross hourly wage is 42.2% that of New York's instead of 32.7%?  Or should we be asking ourselves why our gross hourly wage is not even half that of New York's?   You said professionals, managers and executives accounted for only 9% of the workforce in the UBS figures whereas they actually make up 52% of Singapore's workforce.  But most of the first world cities ahead of us in the list also have large percentages of professionals, managers and executives in their workforces so any disadvantage that we suffer due to percentage discrepancies would likely be suffered by them as well.  So this does not explain why our gross hourly wage is not even half that of New York's.  Hence, your assertion of significant underestimation due to flawed assumptions does not hold water.   You said the UBS comparisons omitted CPF payments which can amount to 20% of our income and can be used to pay for our homes.  But Singaporeans have no social security to depend on and must pay for our medical and retirement needs out of our own pockets.  It's the same whether we use 20% of our income to pay for homes and use the rest of our disposable income to pay for medical and retirement needs or in the case of the Western nations, use 20% of their income to pay for medical and retirement needs and use the rest of their disposable income to pay for homes.  There is no difference, so again, this is a non-issue.   Finally, you argue that expensive Western goods like steak and frozen pizza are not part of the average Singaporean's expenditure and so should not count towards the calculation of price levels.  Going by your logic, it would be all the more better if Singaporeans can afford to buy only the cheapest of goods.  If we can't even afford the same quality goods that people in Western nations enjoy, how can we profess to have achieved the same standard of living as they have?  So it makes sense comparing ourselves against the Western nations on how well we can afford the same basket of goods.   Hence, despite the issues you have brought up, the study's conclusion is fundamentally sound and that the UBS figures do reflect the actual situation to a high degree.     Thank you     Ng Kok Lim  Read More →