TR EMERITUS

I appreciate Mr. Kunju’s reasoned response to my article, one of the few that I have seen on TR. After all the abuse and the vitriol that came earlier, this is a refreshing change. However, I don’t think my position has been accurately portrayed. Mr. Kunju’s own arguments themselves are also not very clear. (read Bhasakaran Kunju's article here) I do not have any issue with the fundamental point on foreign workers in the ESC’s report: The ESC said, as quoted by Mr. Kunju: “We recommend a progressive increase in worker levies to incentivise companies to improve productivity”(It also added “…giving companies time to adjust). What I said in my article was: “What this suggests is that (a) the goal is to avoid increasing the proportion of foreign workers in the workforce (b) this is a secular goal; and (c) companies will be given time to adjust. The intent was to clarify that the policy goal is not cutting back the number of foreign workers per se, but reducing the dependence on them over time. There is a difference. With regard to the point on incentives to retain foreign workers, let me explain: ESC indicated that companies need to improve skills of ALL their workers. On page 9, para 27, the report says. “Companies…have to rely more on technology and innovtion and improve skills among both their local and foreign employees as a basis for competitiveness and growth.” This is only common sense. If you run a company containing both local and foreign workers, you would want to send them all for training to improve their skills, not just some of them. However, in some industries, foreign workers are transient. In the construction and marine sectors for example, many of they stay on short term contracts. Then they go home sometimes only after a few months and are replaced by another cohort of foreign workers. In such industries, it makes no sense for employers to do much training or automation, which contributes to their low productivity. So it’s only logical to incentivise these companies to reduce the turnover of foreign workers (that is, retain those that they need for longer) while at the same time reducing their dependence on foreign workers over time. That way, these companies will have more incentives to provide more training to the workers they have, and do more automation. Eventually, Singapore’s construction industry will be more like say, Australia’s – higher productivity and a lower proportion of foreign workers, but both the local and foreign workers that it has will be more productive. That is the way to go. On the ERC of 2003: It is true that the Economic Review Committee was seven years ago, but contrary to what Mr. Kunju suggests, that doesn’t make everything it said obsolete. The logic is still valid in the 2003 statement: “‘Without foreign workers manning the night-shifts, there would be no day-shift jobs for Singaporeans. Production costs would go up and companies would be forced to move elsewhere, where workers are cheaper and more readily available.’ Even seven years later, there are industries where getting rid of foreign workers would lead to LESS jobs for Singaporeans, not more jobs. It’s important to grasp this point. Many people have the idea that the labour market is zero-sum game – that any job done by a foreign worker is a job taken away from a local worker. This is not correct. Remember, a lot of industries face fierce global competition. Supposing (to put it in stark terms) they were severely restricted from hiring foreign workers, what would happen? The labour market for those industries would tighten and wages would rise. And while local workers would get nearly all the jobs that on, the companies would soon find themselves at a severe competitive disadvantage because of their higher wage bills: they would either have to close down or move to places like malaysia and China. And they would end up laying off their local staff. For a lot of companies therefore, the choice is not between hiring local workers and hiring foreign workers, it is between hiring SOME foreign workers and being forced out of Singapore, or closing down. Fortunately, severe restrictions on foreign workers are not being contemplated; rather the aim is to reduce dependence on them gradually. That’s a sound policy. I am glad Mr. Kunju also agrees that mass culling of foreign workers will amount to economic suicide. On Japan: Mr. Kunju says: My example of Japan “is severely generalized and dangerously irresponsible in its own right. This is a puzzling comment. Of course he is right to say that “Japan’s economical problems run deeper than that of a lack of foreign workers” – I hardly suggested otherwise. The high yen, industrial hollowing out, the unwillingness of consumers to spend, the high fiscal deficit and government debt and frequent changes in leadership- all of these have been among Japan’s problems. But I am not aware of any economist who says that Japan has been wise to keep foreign workers largely out of its workforce. Japan’s net immigration has been almost zero, despite falling birth rates a shrinking of the population and rising longevity. The result has been rapidly ageing workforce. 22 percent of Japan’s population is now over 65 years old. By 2055, the proportion is projected to increase to 40 percent. The high ratio of older workers (which more immigration could have corrected) has severely hurt Japan’s economic growth. Paul Hewitt in the journal International Politics and Society estimates that Japan will lose 0.7 percentage points of growth every year till 2025.(http://www.globalaging.org/health/world/depopulationeuropejapan.htm) So the issue here is more about producTION than productivity. My point is that while Japan’s productivity may be high, it has a serious problem with production – namely economic growth. And if economic growth does not grow, incomes cannot grow. And there is a direct link between Japan’s lack of immigration and its low economic growth. Mr. Kunju’s statement that in Japan,:”the addition of foreign workers will only further lower wage rate and hence reduce consumption as well as incapacitate a work force that is already lacking in efficiency,” ignores the impact of foreign workers on production and economic growth. Nor is Japan’s workforce “lacking in efficiency” as Kunju suggests. As the productivity numbers show, it IS efficient. There are just not enough productive workers. Singapore is also ageing although it is not in Japan’s league in terms of age profile. But Singapore’s relatively liberal immigration policy has helped boost its growth. And this has helped increase incomes and is also positive for productivity. I cannot see anything “dangerously irresponsible” in what I said. What IS dangerously irresponsible: it is the call by the editors of TR for a mass consumer boycott of “companies/shops/stalls whose staff are mainly foreigners” (see their post “Temasek Review Helps Singaporean find a job at local IT startup” on Feb 4) As “Sanevoice” noted in the comments to that post, this is is a mad idea. Sanevoice’s quote is worth repeating: “Suppose people support your harebrained proposal and boycott companies/shops/stalls “whose staff are mainly foreigners”. What would happen to the Singaporean staff of those companies/shops/stalls? What would happen to the Singaporean staff of companies that supply these companies, or who need to buy components or inputs from them? A modern economy like Singapore’s is interrelated. It works like the engine of a car. Do you think if you remove some components of a car engine, the rest of the engine will work fine? Do you not realise that by calling for a boycott in your xenophobic zeal, YOU WILL BE CREATING JOB LOSSES FOR SINGAPOREANS??” (emphasis as in original).” If Mr. Kunju thinks my comments on Japan were “dangerously irresponsible,” I wonder what he makes of this boycott call by TR’s editors. Finally, I am glad Mr. Kunju addressed the issue of ettiquette. I agree that comments posted by readers – even personal attacks – “shouldn’t be taken personally.” – that’s how it is on the net. However, when most comments take the form of personal abuse rather than arguments, when even racist insults appear to be allowed, you begin to wonder what kind of site this is. I also wish TR would stop its ad-hominem attacks – the idea that an argument is wrong not because of what it says, but because of who says it. I’d therefore like to reiterate that I respect the spirit and tone of Mr. Kunju’s comment. He did not indulge in personal attacks like so many others, but addressed the issues. We do not have to agree, but at least we can disagree in a way that enables people to learn something from the discussion, no matter what view they may lean towards. EDITORS' NOTE: The above was initially posted as a comment on TR and reposted as an article.  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent An anonymous Singaporean has paid vocal PAP critic Alex Tan $1,000 to post a message on his blog. Alex is selling space on his blog at a minimum of $1 to raise funds for his election campaign: Alex is currently a member of the Singapore People's Party under the leadership of Mr Chiam See Tong and he has indicated his wish to participate in the next general election due to be called soon. All election candidates need to put a deposit of about $15,000 with the Elections Department in order to stand for elections and they need to obtain more than 12.5 per cent of the valid votes or their deposits will be forfeited. The amount of the election deposit has been increased gradually over the years, thereby preventing ordinary Singaporeans who are unable to cough out the money to stand for elections. The Election Department is under the purview of the Prime Minister's Office. There are no independent election commissions in Singapore. Since Alex joined politics, he has received a lot of support from netizens, many of whom praised him for his courage, dedication and passion. His "Vote PAP out" Facebook started only two months ago has garnered more than 3,300 members so far, many of whom are in their 20s and 30s. Despite his youth, some Singaporeans still have no qualms lending support to him, an indication of how frustrated they are against the ruling party. Another anonymous Singaporean donated $200 to Alex with the following message: Though the PAP leaders are all elites of the nation, an increasing number of Singaporeans are getting fed up with their arrogance, insensitivity and callousness. As they belong to the upper strata in society, may are unable to empathize with the suffering of ordinary Singaporeans. A view is gaining ground among Singaporeans that they need MPs who genuinely understand their concerns, worries and fears rather than those who hitch a free ride into parliament without a fight or by clinging on the coat-tails of heavyweight ministers. With the winds of change blowing Singapore, we need more young Singaporeans like Alex to step forward to reclaim the ownership of their nation before it is too late.  Read More →

I’ve always heard that the jobs that Singaporeans don’t want to do go to foreigners. And for a few years I actually bought that story. That was till I found these foreigners slowly moving from the so-called “dirty” jobs to more advanced professions in the lot of industries and starting to replace us “highly expectant” Singaporeans. The cost of living is rising year after year, but our wages have been getting lower. The reason given by the Government and companies is that its to make Singapore attractive for foreign investors. Now, lowering the wages of locals makes it difficult for them to survive based on the cost of living in Singapore. But the hiring of foreigners is cheaper in all aspects because they only expect a pay based on the cost of living in their homeland. Companies don’t care about the welfare of workers, they only care about the profit. Neither the government nor so-called trade unions like NTUC care either. As a result, these foreigners have indirectly pissed in our rice bowl and they garnish it with excrement when they leave this country for another like Australia, US, Canada and so on for better standards of living – while we have to put up with the job market they have spoilt and carry on with our miserable lives. A recent development at my workplace is a good example of what I mean. Apparently there is going to be an “elite squad” of foreigners who will be the high techincians in our department. Let me tell you, I work in a GLC and I’m not in the rocket science department. Before I got this job hokkein speaking uncles have been working in my job scope for donkey years. Every Singaporean in my department knows that we don’t need foreign talent for this! There are these 2 guys attached to one of my colleagues for the past few weeks getting trained in my department. Aren’t foreign talents supposed to have “talents” from the start? Why do we have to train them to become talents? If we took Ahmad, Yong Heng and Ramesh off the streets and gave them the special training these foreigners are getting, I’m sure they would be talents too! Why isn’t this happening and why wasn’t the job vacancy in my department made known to the public? Why are more foreigners getting employed in a huge Singapore-based GLC? From what I gather, this is not the only company in which such things are happening. If it’s a Singapore-based GLC then the government surely has shares in it. Why isn’t anything being done? While we give up 2 years of our precious youth in the name of National Service, the Singapore government is pimping this country, making Singapore spread its legs for foreigners who care nothing for Singapore or Singaporeans. Well, the pimp gets paid, but Singapore and its citizens just have to get used day in and day out by these foreigners. Giving them jobs and special training so that they can use Singapore as a stepping stone. The country I had once sworn to protect is now nothing but a cheap whore. Doesn’t it feel good about your place as a citizen of Singapore? NS FOR SINGAPOREANS! JOBS FOR FOREIGNERS! From A.L.  Read More →