Hello folks, I'm moving on to wordpress.com which seems faster.
Thank you
Saturday, March 24, 2007
6.5 million
There was a discussion recently on Channel U's Crossfire programme about Singapore's imminent population explosion to 6.5 million. The four panelists were MP Josephine Teo, a person called Da Ming, a young professional and a professor.
Increased market size
Da Ming started off by saying the increased maket size from 4.5 million to 6.5 million will immediately benefit the local food and service industries. He gave an example of how difficult it was when he started off as a laser disc producer to even hit a sales figure of 3,000.
There are many ways to increase the market size, increasing the population may not be the best way. The professor illustrated this very well with the example of how if he currently sells 2,000 books, increasing the population from 4.5 million to 6.5 million will not boost his sales to 5,000 books. If his exhibition now draws 100 visitors, increasing the population will not boost the figure to 3,000. As a little red dot on this planet, there can only be that many people we can comfortably squeeze into our tiny island. We should therfore be looking to expand overseas rather than self-implode.
Josephine pointed out that books can be sold online, whereas Yakun cannot sell its coffee online and therefore needs a big enough local market. The professor countered by saying Yakun can and did venture overseas. But Josephine insisted that Yakun had to succeed locally first before it could venture overseas. This may be valid but the fact that Yakun did succeed goes to show you don't need 6.5 million to succeed.
Da Ming then claimed that at the very least, 6.5 million allows some local businesses to survive which 4.5 million wouldn't. You wonder which food / service industry business will suddenly collapse and go bankrupt when the population falls from 6.5 million to 4.5 million. In any case, there are many more millions of tourists arriving each year that ought to more than make up for that coveted 2 million addition to our population.
The prime minister just said last week that the government wouldn't protect the SMEs for fear of sapping their vitality and dampening their entrepreneurial spirits. So wouldn't enlarging the local market to benefit the local SMEs do just the opposite of what our PM advised?
Quality of life, infrastructure
The professor also reminded us that a burgeoning population would drastically lower the quality of our lives as traffic congestion would worsen and queues everywhere would get longer. There are already complains about our current public transportation infrastructure, what more with another 2 million people?
But Da Ming is confident that the government will have absolutely no problems handling the additional hardware / facilities / housing requirements for the additional 2 million people.
The professor advised however, that the additional infrastructure isn't free and comes at a cost that would in all likelihood fall upon the shoulders of the people. The peoples' lives are already hard enough as it is and shouldn't be emburden even more.
Da Ming then conveniently swept away the cost issue with a rather irresponsible, off-the-cuff remark that it only costs $5 per head to build these additional infrastructures. $5 multiplied by 4.5 million people = $22.5 million. What can you build with $22.5 million? One pedestrian overhead bridge?
The young professional pointed out an apparent dilemma Singaporeans are facing. On the one hand, the government is encouraging us to stay with our parents and have more kids but at the same time, flats are getting smaller. With more people living in the same space and a limit to how high buildings can go, surely something has to give and it'll be what precious little living space we still have.
Josephine pointed out that there is another dimension to quality of life - culture. New York may be crowded but it is also a city of culture. But there are so many sleepy European cities steeped in history and culture but with populations less than 3 million, like Vienna and Helsinki. Culture is the product of a long gestation period of shared experiences that cannot be bought or imported in an instant.
Competition for jobs
The host mentioned about the increased competition for jobs, to which Josephine happily announced that job opportunities have never been better as the government created 173,000 new job opportunities last year against 33,000 new job seekers and 60,000 plus unemployed. This leaves a shortfall of 80,000 workers even if all new job seekers and unemployed took up those jobs.
It's funny how when the world economy (US in particular) is down and jobs are lost, the government doesn't say they've lost jobs. But when the world economy recovers and jobs return, the government says they've created jobs. You must be wondering why if these jobs are so wonderful, 60,000 of us would rather stay unemployed than rush to take them up?
Foreign talent and sense of belonging
Josephine emphasised the need to embrace foreign talents with open arms and give them time to prove themselves. The young professional asked how much time. 10 years, 20 years? Josephine reassured him by saying only proven foreign talents will be given PRs. The young professional then shared how some of his foreigner friends returned home the moment they received their PRs for they now possessed the passport to freely enter the country as and when they please. So proving themselves worthy enough for PR doesn't necessarily prove their loyalty to this country.
Furthermore, said the young professional, most new immigrants would undoubtedly come from China and India and given the rapidly rising status and prosperity of these two nations, even if we were to embrace them with open arms, it is doubtful they wouldn't feel more proud of their motherlands now. Japanese wherever they go would always say with pride they are Japanese.
To this, Josephine remarked that Japan is currently facing a declining birthrate and if things were to persist, Japan may one day cease to exist. But can a Japan comprising more foreigners than Japanese still be called Japan? At least Japan has more than 2000 years of history and culture to bind them together. What have we? In fact, the young professional pointed out that it took three generations to create a shared Singapore identity. Opening the flood gates to immigrants would erode this paintstakingly assembled shared identity.
But Josephine is of the opinion that our identity should always be evolving. But evolution is by definition a gradual and natural process. Here, we are artificially and suddenly altering our identity against nature and against evolution.
Josephine shared how her grandma used to tell her aunts not to marry outside their own dialect group. So what is Josephine trying to tell us? That the foreign talents are not merely here to take away our jobs but also our women? And we should encourage them to do so?
Planning, not target
Elsewhere Josephine reiterated that 6.5 million is a planning figure, not a target, as if this figure is so inevitable that we have no choice but to plan for. But is this figure inevitable? Isn't it ultimately determined by how many citizenships / PRs / work permits the government actually grants? What she probably meant is that we're planning to boost the population to 6.5 million.
Increased market size
Da Ming started off by saying the increased maket size from 4.5 million to 6.5 million will immediately benefit the local food and service industries. He gave an example of how difficult it was when he started off as a laser disc producer to even hit a sales figure of 3,000.
There are many ways to increase the market size, increasing the population may not be the best way. The professor illustrated this very well with the example of how if he currently sells 2,000 books, increasing the population from 4.5 million to 6.5 million will not boost his sales to 5,000 books. If his exhibition now draws 100 visitors, increasing the population will not boost the figure to 3,000. As a little red dot on this planet, there can only be that many people we can comfortably squeeze into our tiny island. We should therfore be looking to expand overseas rather than self-implode.
Josephine pointed out that books can be sold online, whereas Yakun cannot sell its coffee online and therefore needs a big enough local market. The professor countered by saying Yakun can and did venture overseas. But Josephine insisted that Yakun had to succeed locally first before it could venture overseas. This may be valid but the fact that Yakun did succeed goes to show you don't need 6.5 million to succeed.
Da Ming then claimed that at the very least, 6.5 million allows some local businesses to survive which 4.5 million wouldn't. You wonder which food / service industry business will suddenly collapse and go bankrupt when the population falls from 6.5 million to 4.5 million. In any case, there are many more millions of tourists arriving each year that ought to more than make up for that coveted 2 million addition to our population.
The prime minister just said last week that the government wouldn't protect the SMEs for fear of sapping their vitality and dampening their entrepreneurial spirits. So wouldn't enlarging the local market to benefit the local SMEs do just the opposite of what our PM advised?
Quality of life, infrastructure
The professor also reminded us that a burgeoning population would drastically lower the quality of our lives as traffic congestion would worsen and queues everywhere would get longer. There are already complains about our current public transportation infrastructure, what more with another 2 million people?
But Da Ming is confident that the government will have absolutely no problems handling the additional hardware / facilities / housing requirements for the additional 2 million people.
The professor advised however, that the additional infrastructure isn't free and comes at a cost that would in all likelihood fall upon the shoulders of the people. The peoples' lives are already hard enough as it is and shouldn't be emburden even more.
Da Ming then conveniently swept away the cost issue with a rather irresponsible, off-the-cuff remark that it only costs $5 per head to build these additional infrastructures. $5 multiplied by 4.5 million people = $22.5 million. What can you build with $22.5 million? One pedestrian overhead bridge?
The young professional pointed out an apparent dilemma Singaporeans are facing. On the one hand, the government is encouraging us to stay with our parents and have more kids but at the same time, flats are getting smaller. With more people living in the same space and a limit to how high buildings can go, surely something has to give and it'll be what precious little living space we still have.
Josephine pointed out that there is another dimension to quality of life - culture. New York may be crowded but it is also a city of culture. But there are so many sleepy European cities steeped in history and culture but with populations less than 3 million, like Vienna and Helsinki. Culture is the product of a long gestation period of shared experiences that cannot be bought or imported in an instant.
Competition for jobs
The host mentioned about the increased competition for jobs, to which Josephine happily announced that job opportunities have never been better as the government created 173,000 new job opportunities last year against 33,000 new job seekers and 60,000 plus unemployed. This leaves a shortfall of 80,000 workers even if all new job seekers and unemployed took up those jobs.
It's funny how when the world economy (US in particular) is down and jobs are lost, the government doesn't say they've lost jobs. But when the world economy recovers and jobs return, the government says they've created jobs. You must be wondering why if these jobs are so wonderful, 60,000 of us would rather stay unemployed than rush to take them up?
Foreign talent and sense of belonging
Josephine emphasised the need to embrace foreign talents with open arms and give them time to prove themselves. The young professional asked how much time. 10 years, 20 years? Josephine reassured him by saying only proven foreign talents will be given PRs. The young professional then shared how some of his foreigner friends returned home the moment they received their PRs for they now possessed the passport to freely enter the country as and when they please. So proving themselves worthy enough for PR doesn't necessarily prove their loyalty to this country.
Furthermore, said the young professional, most new immigrants would undoubtedly come from China and India and given the rapidly rising status and prosperity of these two nations, even if we were to embrace them with open arms, it is doubtful they wouldn't feel more proud of their motherlands now. Japanese wherever they go would always say with pride they are Japanese.
To this, Josephine remarked that Japan is currently facing a declining birthrate and if things were to persist, Japan may one day cease to exist. But can a Japan comprising more foreigners than Japanese still be called Japan? At least Japan has more than 2000 years of history and culture to bind them together. What have we? In fact, the young professional pointed out that it took three generations to create a shared Singapore identity. Opening the flood gates to immigrants would erode this paintstakingly assembled shared identity.
But Josephine is of the opinion that our identity should always be evolving. But evolution is by definition a gradual and natural process. Here, we are artificially and suddenly altering our identity against nature and against evolution.
Josephine shared how her grandma used to tell her aunts not to marry outside their own dialect group. So what is Josephine trying to tell us? That the foreign talents are not merely here to take away our jobs but also our women? And we should encourage them to do so?
Planning, not target
Elsewhere Josephine reiterated that 6.5 million is a planning figure, not a target, as if this figure is so inevitable that we have no choice but to plan for. But is this figure inevitable? Isn't it ultimately determined by how many citizenships / PRs / work permits the government actually grants? What she probably meant is that we're planning to boost the population to 6.5 million.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Budget 2007 Essay Competition
I refer to extracts from the Budget 2007 Essay Competition, published in the Straits Times on 12th Mar 2007.
Category 1 (TERTIARY), First prize by Mr Cheong Poh Kwan
Mr Cheong wrote of "a need to plant the seed of entrepreneurship in the citizens, so that they will be able to breed strong corporations that can spontaneously respond to changing market trends, instead of blindly flocking to where the government investment vehicles are moving towards."
This statement is self-contradicting. The government has been vigorously promoting entrepreneurship amongst youngsters of late, even organising entrepreneurship activities amongst primary school kids. So if we were to not blindly follow the government's lead, then we should not reinforce the government's direction towards entrepreneurship. So while Mr Cheong is right on the one hand in saying that we shouldn't blindly follow in the footsteps of the government into money losing investments, he contradicts himself on the other hand by saying we should actively promote entrepreneurship, which strongly echoes the direction of the government. In fact, I believe the whole notion of entrepreneurship has been over hyped and over emphasized.
Bill Gates didn't write MS DOS out of conviction that it would one day lead to the most successful corporations ever. Steve Jobs didn't build the Macintosh with the aim of becoming a multi-millionaire. While they are both outstanding entrepreneurs in their own right, they were never motivated by entrepreneurship to begin with. All they did was to simply pursue their respective passions to the fullest, and I think that should be the lesson we ought to learn from them. If we only see their entrepreneurial outcomes without seeing the source of their inspirations, we risk imbiding the wrong values in our children and setting them off on the wrong foot. When they're motivated by money as opposed to passion, they may in all likelihood, not find fulfillment at the end of the day. For the millions and billions that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs amassed are but by-products of their respective pursuits of their passions.
Category 2 (JC, Polytechnics and secondary schools), Second prize by Mr Chew Zhi Wen
Mr Chew wrote "progressive personal income tax affects work incentive, discouraging people from moving into the higher-income brackets"
There is no reason why Mr Jackson Tai, who earns millions from DBS every year should prefer to trade his position with me just because I pay so much less tax. The idea that a person should feel disincentivised from rising through the ranks because he doesn't wish to pay more tax simply doesn't make sense.
Mr Chew also wrote "Together with an ageing population, the income tax burden will weigh increasingly on the shrinking workforce"
It doesn't make sense that indirect taxes would benefit an aging population more than direct taxes would. If I have four parents to feed, lowering my income tax will not help me as much as emburdening me with four times as much GST.
The notion that indirect as opposed to direct taxes better motivate people to work doesn't sound right. It only makes sense if people keep their hard earned money under their pillows and never spend it. What really matters to him at the end of the day, whether he is taxed directly or indirectly, is how much he can buy (affected by GST) with the salary he takes home (affected by income tax). He may even find himself worse off for the taxable income is only 20% of his total income whereas the GST eats sooner of later into his other 80% depending on when he chooses to spend it.
Ironically indirect taxes may indirectly 'motivate' the worker to work harder. The GST is like inflation, causing goods and services to become more expensive without a corresponding increase in income. So the average worker probably has to work harder because prices around him have gone up.
Category 1 (TERTIARY), First prize by Mr Cheong Poh Kwan
Mr Cheong wrote of "a need to plant the seed of entrepreneurship in the citizens, so that they will be able to breed strong corporations that can spontaneously respond to changing market trends, instead of blindly flocking to where the government investment vehicles are moving towards."
This statement is self-contradicting. The government has been vigorously promoting entrepreneurship amongst youngsters of late, even organising entrepreneurship activities amongst primary school kids. So if we were to not blindly follow the government's lead, then we should not reinforce the government's direction towards entrepreneurship. So while Mr Cheong is right on the one hand in saying that we shouldn't blindly follow in the footsteps of the government into money losing investments, he contradicts himself on the other hand by saying we should actively promote entrepreneurship, which strongly echoes the direction of the government. In fact, I believe the whole notion of entrepreneurship has been over hyped and over emphasized.
Bill Gates didn't write MS DOS out of conviction that it would one day lead to the most successful corporations ever. Steve Jobs didn't build the Macintosh with the aim of becoming a multi-millionaire. While they are both outstanding entrepreneurs in their own right, they were never motivated by entrepreneurship to begin with. All they did was to simply pursue their respective passions to the fullest, and I think that should be the lesson we ought to learn from them. If we only see their entrepreneurial outcomes without seeing the source of their inspirations, we risk imbiding the wrong values in our children and setting them off on the wrong foot. When they're motivated by money as opposed to passion, they may in all likelihood, not find fulfillment at the end of the day. For the millions and billions that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs amassed are but by-products of their respective pursuits of their passions.
Category 2 (JC, Polytechnics and secondary schools), Second prize by Mr Chew Zhi Wen
Mr Chew wrote "progressive personal income tax affects work incentive, discouraging people from moving into the higher-income brackets"
There is no reason why Mr Jackson Tai, who earns millions from DBS every year should prefer to trade his position with me just because I pay so much less tax. The idea that a person should feel disincentivised from rising through the ranks because he doesn't wish to pay more tax simply doesn't make sense.
Mr Chew also wrote "Together with an ageing population, the income tax burden will weigh increasingly on the shrinking workforce"
It doesn't make sense that indirect taxes would benefit an aging population more than direct taxes would. If I have four parents to feed, lowering my income tax will not help me as much as emburdening me with four times as much GST.
The notion that indirect as opposed to direct taxes better motivate people to work doesn't sound right. It only makes sense if people keep their hard earned money under their pillows and never spend it. What really matters to him at the end of the day, whether he is taxed directly or indirectly, is how much he can buy (affected by GST) with the salary he takes home (affected by income tax). He may even find himself worse off for the taxable income is only 20% of his total income whereas the GST eats sooner of later into his other 80% depending on when he chooses to spend it.
Ironically indirect taxes may indirectly 'motivate' the worker to work harder. The GST is like inflation, causing goods and services to become more expensive without a corresponding increase in income. So the average worker probably has to work harder because prices around him have gone up.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Budget 2007
The following are my comments on the series of budget debates reported in the Straits Times over the last two weeks:
28 Feb 2007
"Low Thia Khiang praises Workfare, slams GST hike" by Lynn Lee
It was reported that Mr Hri Kumar finds the idea of not raising GST during good times illogical as it implied that taxes should be raised when the economy was plummeting. He is mistaken. To use the analogy of a robber, the fact that times are better doesn't give the robber more reason to rob the people. The fact that times are better and that the robber is better off means he should let the people off instead.
1 Mar 2007
"Sylvia Lim ignoring offsets in generous budget: PAP MPs" by Ken Kwek
Miss Lee Bee Wah was reported to have been congratulated by old friends in Malaysia for "going to get rich very soon". Ms Lee attributed their comments to their mistaken belief that Singapore politics, like those of Malaysian politics, is all about fattening one's own pockets. But I'm sure her Malaysian friends aren't as ill informed as Miss Lee deems them to be. Their comments may be sincere acknowledgement of the fact that Miss Lee would be pocketing $10,000 monthly for the next 5 years, which is a cool "peanut" sum of $600,000.
Miss Lee also said it was better to raise the tax now while the economy was doing well rather than when things took a turn for the worse and rationalised it with the Hokkien phrase "looking for a toilet only when one needs to pass motion". I think a better illustration of the actual situation now is "not using one's own marbled toilet with golden taps but going instead to the commoners' homes to use their toilets."
2 Mar 2007
"More funds needed to pay for the future" by Sue-Ann Chia
Tharman argued that revenue from the integrated resorts would be miniscule compared to the budget that its ministry requires. This is in stark contrast to the perception the government gave when it was justifying the opening up of gambling in Singapore. The rhetoric then as I recall was that the casino was integral to our very survival as a nation.
Mr Tharman also said that the top 20% pays four times as much tax as the bottom 40% even as its share of household income is merely double those of the latter group. This seems to suggest that the rich is twice as generous as the poor but what it really shows is just how un-egalitarian our society has become.
He also mentioned that middle incomers here paid less tax than their counterparts in cities like Dublin, Sydney and Tokyo and comparable to those of Hong Kong. However, the wages in these cities are much higher than those in Singapore that more than compensates for their higher taxes so that on the whole, their citizens have more disposable income than ours.
3 Mar 2007
"Attracting new citizens: Integration is key, plus a dose of love" by Ong Soh Chin
Ms Indranee Rajah said that "being Singaporean is not a matter of ancestry, but of conviction and choice". This is too simplistic a definition to being a Singaporean. When a person makes a purposeful choice to take up Singapore citizenship out of conviction that his material gains here will be much better than back home, does that make him a true Singaporean or a mercenary? Doesn't sound like there's much love except for money, does it?
"Spotlight cast on Temasek" by Leong Chan Teik
Ms Lim Hwee Hua says that "It's important to note that Temasek was set up as an independent investment vehicle so as not to confuse the issue of what's strategic and national with what's commercial." There is nothing confusing about the role of Temasek. It's role is to grow the nation's reserves and not squander them on ill considered investments so it ultimately answers to the nation.
"Citizenship Day to mark shared national identity?" by Peh Shing Huei
Mr Wong Kan Seng said that it is because our immigrant forefathers weren't dissuaded from sinking roots here that is why we are here today and so therefore we should not dissuade new immigrants from sinking roots too. This is too simplistic a view. When our forefathers came, Singapore was still a colony, not a nation yet. Now that we are a nation, should we continue to be wanton towards immigration?
Mr Wong also cited the fact that there were more jobs in US states where immigration levels are high as proof that locals do indeed benefit from immigration. Mr Wong may have gotten his cause and effect the other way round. It doesn't make sense to say that because many immigrants are coming into my country, therefore many jobs are created to cater for them. It is because there are many jobs available here that is why many immigrants come.
It is because places like silicon valley are prosperous and present much opportunities that they attract many new immigrants. Rather than say that immigration brought a net benefit of US$10 billion to US economy, it would be more apt to say that US$10 billion worth of job opportunities were available but were taken up by foreigners.
Our ability to absorb new immigrants depends on the opportunities we can create here. If we currently have a glut of professionals retrenched or re-employed to less desirable positions, surely it shows how acute our lack of opportunities here is? In that case, how can we still be wanton towards immigration?
Elsewhere, Mr Wong has also been emphasizing that the 6.5 million population figure is a forecast, not a target. How can this figure merely be a forecast if the actual number is determined by who the government actually grants citizenship, permanent residency or work permit to?
10 Mar 2007
"Downtown MRT line in final stage of planning" by Christopher Tan
Mr Raymond Lim said that the morning peak MRT occupancy at Toa Payoh or Kallang is only 80% of train's capacity. He should try the evening peak at Raffles Place or City Hall.
Mr Lim also said that Tokyo, with a population of 12.5 million has a peak hour train ridership of 8 commuters per sq m against our 4 commuters per sq m. This suggests that Singaporeans are overly pampered as they have twice as much space around them as their doubly squashed counterparts in Tokyo. But Mr Lim failed to point out that Tokyo's population is three times ours so their trains should be three times as crowded. But their trains are only twice as crowded, so their system is actually more efficient than ours. In proportion to the population, we should have 2.8 commuters per sq m instead of the current 4.
More importantly, the fact that Mr Lim has chosen, of all cities, to compare us with one of the most congested just goes to show what he thinks we ordinary citizens deserve. He gives the impression that we deserve the most congested trains there is in this world. Shouldn't it be more apt to compare us with cities of similar size and development, like Taipei and Hong Kong?
He also attributed the low pay of taxi drivers in Hong Kong to oversupply and used that as reason for not increasing the cab pool here. However, I don't see how much more highly paid our taxi drivers are even with our shortage. So we are being short changed on either ends, no abundance of cab pool and no decent cabby salaries and I wonder if our ever greedy cab companies have anything to do with our predicament.
"Exchange pits head against heart" by Chua Mui Hoong
Mr Balakrishnan was quoted as saying "Singapore ... as a free-market capitalist country ... has done better than socialist countries looking after the poor". What is so proud about doing better than Russia? Why not compare with social democracies like Germany, Finland or Sweden? Even the mother of all capitalist societies - USA has done better than us in social welfare.
28 Feb 2007
"Low Thia Khiang praises Workfare, slams GST hike" by Lynn Lee
It was reported that Mr Hri Kumar finds the idea of not raising GST during good times illogical as it implied that taxes should be raised when the economy was plummeting. He is mistaken. To use the analogy of a robber, the fact that times are better doesn't give the robber more reason to rob the people. The fact that times are better and that the robber is better off means he should let the people off instead.
1 Mar 2007
"Sylvia Lim ignoring offsets in generous budget: PAP MPs" by Ken Kwek
Miss Lee Bee Wah was reported to have been congratulated by old friends in Malaysia for "going to get rich very soon". Ms Lee attributed their comments to their mistaken belief that Singapore politics, like those of Malaysian politics, is all about fattening one's own pockets. But I'm sure her Malaysian friends aren't as ill informed as Miss Lee deems them to be. Their comments may be sincere acknowledgement of the fact that Miss Lee would be pocketing $10,000 monthly for the next 5 years, which is a cool "peanut" sum of $600,000.
Miss Lee also said it was better to raise the tax now while the economy was doing well rather than when things took a turn for the worse and rationalised it with the Hokkien phrase "looking for a toilet only when one needs to pass motion". I think a better illustration of the actual situation now is "not using one's own marbled toilet with golden taps but going instead to the commoners' homes to use their toilets."
2 Mar 2007
"More funds needed to pay for the future" by Sue-Ann Chia
Tharman argued that revenue from the integrated resorts would be miniscule compared to the budget that its ministry requires. This is in stark contrast to the perception the government gave when it was justifying the opening up of gambling in Singapore. The rhetoric then as I recall was that the casino was integral to our very survival as a nation.
Mr Tharman also said that the top 20% pays four times as much tax as the bottom 40% even as its share of household income is merely double those of the latter group. This seems to suggest that the rich is twice as generous as the poor but what it really shows is just how un-egalitarian our society has become.
He also mentioned that middle incomers here paid less tax than their counterparts in cities like Dublin, Sydney and Tokyo and comparable to those of Hong Kong. However, the wages in these cities are much higher than those in Singapore that more than compensates for their higher taxes so that on the whole, their citizens have more disposable income than ours.
3 Mar 2007
"Attracting new citizens: Integration is key, plus a dose of love" by Ong Soh Chin
Ms Indranee Rajah said that "being Singaporean is not a matter of ancestry, but of conviction and choice". This is too simplistic a definition to being a Singaporean. When a person makes a purposeful choice to take up Singapore citizenship out of conviction that his material gains here will be much better than back home, does that make him a true Singaporean or a mercenary? Doesn't sound like there's much love except for money, does it?
"Spotlight cast on Temasek" by Leong Chan Teik
Ms Lim Hwee Hua says that "It's important to note that Temasek was set up as an independent investment vehicle so as not to confuse the issue of what's strategic and national with what's commercial." There is nothing confusing about the role of Temasek. It's role is to grow the nation's reserves and not squander them on ill considered investments so it ultimately answers to the nation.
"Citizenship Day to mark shared national identity?" by Peh Shing Huei
Mr Wong Kan Seng said that it is because our immigrant forefathers weren't dissuaded from sinking roots here that is why we are here today and so therefore we should not dissuade new immigrants from sinking roots too. This is too simplistic a view. When our forefathers came, Singapore was still a colony, not a nation yet. Now that we are a nation, should we continue to be wanton towards immigration?
Mr Wong also cited the fact that there were more jobs in US states where immigration levels are high as proof that locals do indeed benefit from immigration. Mr Wong may have gotten his cause and effect the other way round. It doesn't make sense to say that because many immigrants are coming into my country, therefore many jobs are created to cater for them. It is because there are many jobs available here that is why many immigrants come.
It is because places like silicon valley are prosperous and present much opportunities that they attract many new immigrants. Rather than say that immigration brought a net benefit of US$10 billion to US economy, it would be more apt to say that US$10 billion worth of job opportunities were available but were taken up by foreigners.
Our ability to absorb new immigrants depends on the opportunities we can create here. If we currently have a glut of professionals retrenched or re-employed to less desirable positions, surely it shows how acute our lack of opportunities here is? In that case, how can we still be wanton towards immigration?
Elsewhere, Mr Wong has also been emphasizing that the 6.5 million population figure is a forecast, not a target. How can this figure merely be a forecast if the actual number is determined by who the government actually grants citizenship, permanent residency or work permit to?
10 Mar 2007
"Downtown MRT line in final stage of planning" by Christopher Tan
Mr Raymond Lim said that the morning peak MRT occupancy at Toa Payoh or Kallang is only 80% of train's capacity. He should try the evening peak at Raffles Place or City Hall.
Mr Lim also said that Tokyo, with a population of 12.5 million has a peak hour train ridership of 8 commuters per sq m against our 4 commuters per sq m. This suggests that Singaporeans are overly pampered as they have twice as much space around them as their doubly squashed counterparts in Tokyo. But Mr Lim failed to point out that Tokyo's population is three times ours so their trains should be three times as crowded. But their trains are only twice as crowded, so their system is actually more efficient than ours. In proportion to the population, we should have 2.8 commuters per sq m instead of the current 4.
More importantly, the fact that Mr Lim has chosen, of all cities, to compare us with one of the most congested just goes to show what he thinks we ordinary citizens deserve. He gives the impression that we deserve the most congested trains there is in this world. Shouldn't it be more apt to compare us with cities of similar size and development, like Taipei and Hong Kong?
He also attributed the low pay of taxi drivers in Hong Kong to oversupply and used that as reason for not increasing the cab pool here. However, I don't see how much more highly paid our taxi drivers are even with our shortage. So we are being short changed on either ends, no abundance of cab pool and no decent cabby salaries and I wonder if our ever greedy cab companies have anything to do with our predicament.
"Exchange pits head against heart" by Chua Mui Hoong
Mr Balakrishnan was quoted as saying "Singapore ... as a free-market capitalist country ... has done better than socialist countries looking after the poor". What is so proud about doing better than Russia? Why not compare with social democracies like Germany, Finland or Sweden? Even the mother of all capitalist societies - USA has done better than us in social welfare.
Govt gives citizens every reason to elect it
This is my reply to MM Lee's comments on Singapore's brand of democracy reported in the Straits Times on the 7 Mar 2007.
According to the MM, the Government solved the housing problem by using the CPF to build flats that are sold to Singaporeans at cost price. This runs contrary to our common understanding of what really happens. While the Government may have solved the housing problem, it remains to be seen if our people, if left to our own devices wouldn't have been able to find ways and means to house ourselves. One only has to look at Hong Kong and Taiwan to understand how people can house themselves in the absence of an all encompassing provider. The only difference we might say is the regularity and cleanliness of our housing environment compared to the haphazardness of other countries because of the precise planning and control in the housing development we have here. Furthermore, the CPF is like a cheap way for the government to borrow money from the people while the average citizen probably pays more than five times what it costs the HDB to build his flat.
But the MM is right on one account. The flat is indeed 'substantial' so that the average citizen is forced to slave for decades just to earn the right to hold it for 99 years. But he rarely gets to own it for 99 years and will be forced to relinquish his highly 'substantial' possession, only to be given another flat and as yet another debt.
Likewise the overnight increase in property value due to upgrading is only on paper, which cannot be realised unless the owner sells his flat. But where is he going to stay after he sells his flat? Unless he chooses to move to Hougang or Potong Pasir, chances are he would end up buying some other 'upgraded' flat at a premium that cancels out his earlier 'windfall'.
Similarly, there is no reason why a change of government should result in having no jobs. There may be transition periods but when the dust settles, the experience of Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Hong Kong and even the recent coup-led government change in Thailand shows just how resilient the people and their jobs are to government changes.
Behind every reason the MM has given to its citizens for voting it lies another reason for not voting it. At least one out of every three citizens sees this and is brave enough to choose not to.
According to the MM, the Government solved the housing problem by using the CPF to build flats that are sold to Singaporeans at cost price. This runs contrary to our common understanding of what really happens. While the Government may have solved the housing problem, it remains to be seen if our people, if left to our own devices wouldn't have been able to find ways and means to house ourselves. One only has to look at Hong Kong and Taiwan to understand how people can house themselves in the absence of an all encompassing provider. The only difference we might say is the regularity and cleanliness of our housing environment compared to the haphazardness of other countries because of the precise planning and control in the housing development we have here. Furthermore, the CPF is like a cheap way for the government to borrow money from the people while the average citizen probably pays more than five times what it costs the HDB to build his flat.
But the MM is right on one account. The flat is indeed 'substantial' so that the average citizen is forced to slave for decades just to earn the right to hold it for 99 years. But he rarely gets to own it for 99 years and will be forced to relinquish his highly 'substantial' possession, only to be given another flat and as yet another debt.
Likewise the overnight increase in property value due to upgrading is only on paper, which cannot be realised unless the owner sells his flat. But where is he going to stay after he sells his flat? Unless he chooses to move to Hougang or Potong Pasir, chances are he would end up buying some other 'upgraded' flat at a premium that cancels out his earlier 'windfall'.
Similarly, there is no reason why a change of government should result in having no jobs. There may be transition periods but when the dust settles, the experience of Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Hong Kong and even the recent coup-led government change in Thailand shows just how resilient the people and their jobs are to government changes.
Behind every reason the MM has given to its citizens for voting it lies another reason for not voting it. At least one out of every three citizens sees this and is brave enough to choose not to.
Confessions of a Singaporean
These are my comments for an excerpt from the book "Confessons Of An American Media Man" published in the Straits Times on the 15th Jan 2007.
Statement 1: "... Lee had built a top government team that single-handedly transformed impoverished Singapore, which was abandoned half a century ago as a lost cause by the ever-pragmatic British"
This statement is inaccurate because Lee did not inherit an impoverished Singapore. On the contrary, he inherited a Singapore that has fluorished since 1819 when Sir Stamford Raffles established a trading port here. It was Raffles who first saw Singapore as the natural stop-over point in the trade route between the Far East and Europe from which Singapore derived and continues to derive much of its prosperity.
While the impoverishment caused by World War II may have destroyed buildings and infrastructures, these were easily rebuilt. What could not be destroyed and which Lee inherited was a population of industrious workers and resourceful merchants who have been building businesses from scratch for more than a century already. So World War II was really just a blip in an otherwise continuous history of prosperity.
World War II impoverished Japan and Germany too and they too rose from their ashes achieving economic miracles that do not pale in comparison to ours. Yet, we do not find any of their leaders so obsessed with crediting themselves to having "single-handedly" transforming their nations.
The British didn't abandon us as much they were compelled to release us in the wake of the wave of nationalism sweeping across Asia. They certainly did not abandon the Falklands islands which were far less useful than Singapore.
Statement 2: "The city state has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world"
There are many poor people in oil rich nations. The same is true in Singapore. Much of the city's wealth lies in the hands of the government, which squanders on ill-conceived investments while leaving little for its citizens.
Statement 3: "The Singapore Cabinet invariably fields a team whose collective IQ is at least equal to that of its neighbours' Cabinets combined"
If all that it takes is 'smart' government for a nation's success, never mind the quality of its people, then surely Philippines, which have seen American leadership for more than fifty years ought to be prosperous by now? But Philippines is still struggling today. Was American leadership in Phillipines not quite as 'smart' then? What happens when 'smart' Singapore leadership gets parachuted into Suzhou, China? The Suzhou experience suggests that 'smart' government just might not be what you tout them to be.
Statement 4: "Its civil servants are paid well"
Yes, our prime minister is paid nearly ten times as much as what your president receives and he says the amount is necessary for him to stay incorruptible and the reason why George Bush doesn't receive as much is because he is receiving a lot more from 'kickbacks'. You wonder what is it that he is assinuating.
Statement 5: " ... not sensationalising frictions and counts as one world-class daily newspaper, The Straits Times"
Not when its own credibility is at stake, such as in the recent NKF case when it was being sued for libel, you get pages and pages of frontpage news on the misgivings of NKF.
What good is a newspaper that reports the good about the govt all the time? The lack of negativity in a newspaper doesn't make it positive. It certainly doesn't make Singapore a paradise.
Statement 6: "omni-present, oppressive, lawless, marauding drug gangs who roamed the streets and terrorised the citizenry ... The British had largely ignored the gangsters during their reign ... problem mushroomed into a living nightmare. ... We had the army arrest them and put them in jail ... We didn't have trials ..."
The period you described existed in the 19th century in the early days of Singapore as a Straits settlement. By the time Lee came about, the 'marauding' gangs and secret societies have already faded into history. What Lee put in jail were student activists and opposing political factions, including former comrades. These were hardly the diehard criminals you've portrayed them to be (or have been led to).
Statement 7: "Mr Plate, haven't you noticed? The streets of Singapore are safe."
It is one thing to say that Singapore streets are safe and another altogether to say that it is the direct result of jailing harmless socialists. No such punitive actions happened in Japan, Taiwan or Hong Kong. Are their streets any more unsafe?
It is nearly always safe to walk in a place where everyone else is reasonably well off so that they do not have to resort to crime for a living.
Statement 8: "He does not care that much what the Western press thought about him, unless Singapore's overall image was hurt."
On the contrary, he does care very much about what the West thought of him as exemplified by the numerous law suits such as those brought against the Far East Economic Review on comments that were directed squarely on his family.
Statement 9a: "Gwendoline Yeo ... suggested that I visit Singapore ... I scoffed at the idea. I'd only been to China once ... why should I waste a trip on tiny little Singapore? ... I decided to call on the government of Singapore ... I'll stay 5.0 days ... I'll write one column ..."
Statement 9b: "... Bill Safire had not only gotten the Singapore story wrong ... the brilliant columnist had never visited Singapore. I had, many times. This was the difference"
Your opening statements (9a) suggests that you've never been to Singapore, even likened it to a place in China, and the column in LA Times was the result of just 5.0 days visit to Singapore. Yet, your later statement (9b) suggests that the column in LA Times was the result of many visits to Singapore, which seems to contradict your earlier statements.
I shall assume the opening statements (9a) are correct and that the column in LA Times was the result of '5.0' days visit to Singapore, which in your opinion made all the 'difference' as compared to Bill Safire. My question is, what difference does 5.0 days make apart from giving you a tourist's perspective of our country?
Statement 10: "Well, a balanced perspective doesn't fly very long in the American political press"
You refer to your own perspective as balanced. I find that strange as seldom do writers make judgements about their own perspectives (especially in a positive way). Self-praise is no praise and whether or not we have been balanced rather than biased can only be judged by others.
Do you seriously believe that a mere 5.0 days gives you a geniune understanding of Singapore, let alone allow you to form a 'balanced' perspective? What other perspective can you possibly have, other than those you were fed in the 5.0 days you were in Singapore?
From the people you spoke to, it is apparent that your 5.0 days were spent largely with Lee and his team. That hardly entitles you to a balanced view does it? Did you speak to anyone from the opposition?
Statement 11: "Yes, he did things the Singaporean way ... it works."
Your writings betray a commonly held impression that Singapore works today largely as a result of what Lee did for us. I beg to differ. If indeed it was his 'genius' alone that brought us prosperity, then there ought to have been just one East Asian dragon instead of four, for Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea didn't have Lee Kuan Yew but have succeeded all the same. Hong Kong, given its similar size and historical background, serves as a good mirror for us. If there had been no Lee, then more likely than not, the Singapore of today may more closely resemble the Hong Kong of today. And the Hong Kong way worked too.
Statement 1: "... Lee had built a top government team that single-handedly transformed impoverished Singapore, which was abandoned half a century ago as a lost cause by the ever-pragmatic British"
This statement is inaccurate because Lee did not inherit an impoverished Singapore. On the contrary, he inherited a Singapore that has fluorished since 1819 when Sir Stamford Raffles established a trading port here. It was Raffles who first saw Singapore as the natural stop-over point in the trade route between the Far East and Europe from which Singapore derived and continues to derive much of its prosperity.
While the impoverishment caused by World War II may have destroyed buildings and infrastructures, these were easily rebuilt. What could not be destroyed and which Lee inherited was a population of industrious workers and resourceful merchants who have been building businesses from scratch for more than a century already. So World War II was really just a blip in an otherwise continuous history of prosperity.
World War II impoverished Japan and Germany too and they too rose from their ashes achieving economic miracles that do not pale in comparison to ours. Yet, we do not find any of their leaders so obsessed with crediting themselves to having "single-handedly" transforming their nations.
The British didn't abandon us as much they were compelled to release us in the wake of the wave of nationalism sweeping across Asia. They certainly did not abandon the Falklands islands which were far less useful than Singapore.
Statement 2: "The city state has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world"
There are many poor people in oil rich nations. The same is true in Singapore. Much of the city's wealth lies in the hands of the government, which squanders on ill-conceived investments while leaving little for its citizens.
Statement 3: "The Singapore Cabinet invariably fields a team whose collective IQ is at least equal to that of its neighbours' Cabinets combined"
If all that it takes is 'smart' government for a nation's success, never mind the quality of its people, then surely Philippines, which have seen American leadership for more than fifty years ought to be prosperous by now? But Philippines is still struggling today. Was American leadership in Phillipines not quite as 'smart' then? What happens when 'smart' Singapore leadership gets parachuted into Suzhou, China? The Suzhou experience suggests that 'smart' government just might not be what you tout them to be.
Statement 4: "Its civil servants are paid well"
Yes, our prime minister is paid nearly ten times as much as what your president receives and he says the amount is necessary for him to stay incorruptible and the reason why George Bush doesn't receive as much is because he is receiving a lot more from 'kickbacks'. You wonder what is it that he is assinuating.
Statement 5: " ... not sensationalising frictions and counts as one world-class daily newspaper, The Straits Times"
Not when its own credibility is at stake, such as in the recent NKF case when it was being sued for libel, you get pages and pages of frontpage news on the misgivings of NKF.
What good is a newspaper that reports the good about the govt all the time? The lack of negativity in a newspaper doesn't make it positive. It certainly doesn't make Singapore a paradise.
Statement 6: "omni-present, oppressive, lawless, marauding drug gangs who roamed the streets and terrorised the citizenry ... The British had largely ignored the gangsters during their reign ... problem mushroomed into a living nightmare. ... We had the army arrest them and put them in jail ... We didn't have trials ..."
The period you described existed in the 19th century in the early days of Singapore as a Straits settlement. By the time Lee came about, the 'marauding' gangs and secret societies have already faded into history. What Lee put in jail were student activists and opposing political factions, including former comrades. These were hardly the diehard criminals you've portrayed them to be (or have been led to).
Statement 7: "Mr Plate, haven't you noticed? The streets of Singapore are safe."
It is one thing to say that Singapore streets are safe and another altogether to say that it is the direct result of jailing harmless socialists. No such punitive actions happened in Japan, Taiwan or Hong Kong. Are their streets any more unsafe?
It is nearly always safe to walk in a place where everyone else is reasonably well off so that they do not have to resort to crime for a living.
Statement 8: "He does not care that much what the Western press thought about him, unless Singapore's overall image was hurt."
On the contrary, he does care very much about what the West thought of him as exemplified by the numerous law suits such as those brought against the Far East Economic Review on comments that were directed squarely on his family.
Statement 9a: "Gwendoline Yeo ... suggested that I visit Singapore ... I scoffed at the idea. I'd only been to China once ... why should I waste a trip on tiny little Singapore? ... I decided to call on the government of Singapore ... I'll stay 5.0 days ... I'll write one column ..."
Statement 9b: "... Bill Safire had not only gotten the Singapore story wrong ... the brilliant columnist had never visited Singapore. I had, many times. This was the difference"
Your opening statements (9a) suggests that you've never been to Singapore, even likened it to a place in China, and the column in LA Times was the result of just 5.0 days visit to Singapore. Yet, your later statement (9b) suggests that the column in LA Times was the result of many visits to Singapore, which seems to contradict your earlier statements.
I shall assume the opening statements (9a) are correct and that the column in LA Times was the result of '5.0' days visit to Singapore, which in your opinion made all the 'difference' as compared to Bill Safire. My question is, what difference does 5.0 days make apart from giving you a tourist's perspective of our country?
Statement 10: "Well, a balanced perspective doesn't fly very long in the American political press"
You refer to your own perspective as balanced. I find that strange as seldom do writers make judgements about their own perspectives (especially in a positive way). Self-praise is no praise and whether or not we have been balanced rather than biased can only be judged by others.
Do you seriously believe that a mere 5.0 days gives you a geniune understanding of Singapore, let alone allow you to form a 'balanced' perspective? What other perspective can you possibly have, other than those you were fed in the 5.0 days you were in Singapore?
From the people you spoke to, it is apparent that your 5.0 days were spent largely with Lee and his team. That hardly entitles you to a balanced view does it? Did you speak to anyone from the opposition?
Statement 11: "Yes, he did things the Singaporean way ... it works."
Your writings betray a commonly held impression that Singapore works today largely as a result of what Lee did for us. I beg to differ. If indeed it was his 'genius' alone that brought us prosperity, then there ought to have been just one East Asian dragon instead of four, for Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea didn't have Lee Kuan Yew but have succeeded all the same. Hong Kong, given its similar size and historical background, serves as a good mirror for us. If there had been no Lee, then more likely than not, the Singapore of today may more closely resemble the Hong Kong of today. And the Hong Kong way worked too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)