The Foreign Talent debate: A Foreign Talent’s perspective
November 11th, 2009 | 
Author: By Siva, Guest Columnist
Not a single day in Singapore passes by without some debate on the huge influx of foreigners that Singapore is witnessing. If my memory serves me right, this trend started a few years ago and has steadily been gaining momentum.
Accusations emanating from both camps such as ‘Singaporeans are xenophobic’ and ‘foreigners stealing jobs’ are being thrown around so often that they are in danger of turning banal.
The Singapore government has been trying its best to maintain calm by assuring its citizens that foreigners are essential for Singapore’s future (or was it GDP?). Being a foreigner myself and having stayed in Singapore for a significant portion of my life I would like to bring my thoughts to the table.
But before that some background about me. I am an Indian from India living in Singapore for the past 11 years. I came to this beautiful country at a tender age of 17 for my education and have been staying here ever since.
I am proud to say that I have experienced Singapore and most importantly Singaporeans across a wide spectrum of its society. Something that I doubt many foreign residents can claim.
During the course of my career I have worked with people from a variety of profession. Technicians, Engineers, Managers, Scientists, Professors Etc. I have also had the unique chance of experiencing Singapore’s tertiary education from polytechnic level all the way to post graduate level. I have more local friends than friends from my own land.
It is from this extensive experience and exposure that I am saying this; Singaporeans are not xenophobic. And lately if they have been displaying what might be construed as signs of xenophobia then they are doing so rightfully!
Singapore has always been a melting pot of people of different origins and its multi-cultural setting dates far beyond its independence period. Many Singaporeans are glad that foreigners like me have made Singapore our homes and are contributing actively to the country.
I have come across many individuals who have lauded us Indians for being ‘clever’ in IT and bringing specialized expertise which is unavailable locally.
But, as I had mentioned earlier, things have changed in the past few years. From being viewed as contributors of the society foreigners are now viewed as competitors in the society. The reason though being obvious to me seems lost among certain entities trying to justify the huge influx of foreigners.
Traditionally Singapore has welcomed foreigners for two reasons. The first would be to fill positions in fields that Singaporeans shun. Examples would be construction, ship building and other labor intensive jobs that do not pay enough to maintain a decent lifestyle in Singapore.
The second would be to fill positions where there is a dearth of locally available talent. Examples would be CEOs, scientists, professionals and other specialized jobs. These reasons are fully justified and have played a huge role in the Singapore miracle that has held the entire world in awe.
However Singapore has now adopted a third reason and it is this third reason that is causing so much resentment among the local population. And that reason being to make up for a population shortage prognosticated to occur in 10 years time.
Thousands of foreigners are brought in every month because Singaporeans are not producing enough babies to replace themselves. The question to be asked is this; are enough jobs being created for this influx in the present?
If not then we have a situation where an increased number of people are competing for a fixed number of jobs. Artificial and rapid population boosts without an accompanying and proportional increase in jobs will lead to detrimental side effects such as depressed wages, lowered quality of life, lack of social well being etc. And this precisely what is happening in Singapore.
The majority of the foreigners who are brought into Singapore do not create jobs per se, they are here to work. Essentially this means you have fixed number of jobs in the pool which is being contended for by an ever increasing pool of people brought about by rapid population boosts.
Foreigners who are semi-skilled, semi-professional and non-specialized do not bring anything extraordinary to Singapore that can’t be found locally. These foreigners end up competing with the local Singaporeans on what has traditionally been their economic turf.
Is there a lack of Singaporeans with fresh-mid IT skills? Or semi-specialized mechanical engineers or electrical & electronics engineers? Or is it that enough Singaporeans can’t be trained in these areas?
Many bright and talented local graduates have now resorted to selling insurance or property or are wasting their valuable hard-earned skills in unrelated fields because their traditional economic means is now being challenged by a huge number of foreigners who if not for the forecasted population shortage have no reason to be here.
It is no wonder that Singaporeans have been expressing their displeasure and they have every reason to be so. Their earnings have steadily diminished, competition has steady risen, the cost of living has risen, they don’t have a place to fall back on unlike us foreigners and they have a minimum lifestyle to maintain.
The Singapore government’s policy of artificial population boosts is a brave and proactive one. But unless the influx is accompanied by a proportional increase in the relevant job sectors I am afraid the policy will do more harm than good and could seriously undermine the social apparatus of Singapore.
What would ensure Singapore’s continued success into the next decade is not just a population of 6.5 million but a population of gainfully employed, happy and hopeful 6.5 million people.
It is high time relevant entities realize this and work towards preserving a society that has always been proud of its multi-cultural and multi-national structure.
Posted in Opinion
Coz it’s true to character of...
nice objective article to voice the laments of Singaporeans.
However, I disagree that we do not have enough talents to fill CEO jobs.
A sudden outbreak of common sense. Thank you.
thanks for speaking up for us
I believe the ‘problem’ we have filling specialized positions stem not from a lack of dearth of people capable of doing so, but a reluctance to give Singaporeans a chance to do so.
While we can speculate on the reasons why this is happening, in the meantime this continues a vicious cycle where people do not get the chance to shine, then the lack of positive results is being used to justify the current practice.
Try injecting ‘foreign talents’ into any organization (schools, police force, company) at the national rate and complaining that the stakeholders are xenophobic. Uniquely Singapore!
Zing!
Now if only our leadership could have the same sense.
Anyone heard of the two wrongs dont make a right?
Harebrained “Stop at 2″
is being compounded by
Poorly implemented “FTs FTW”
this is one wise,compassionate and GRATEFUL foreigner.
thank you for telling hte truth about singaporeans.
finally,a piece of CONSTRUCTIVE “CRITICISM”!
“If not then we have a situation where an increased number of people are competing for a fixed number of jobs.” There are no fixed numbers of jobs in an economy… More people means more consumption demand means more jobs needed to supply. This is basic economics.
We should not respond like an ostrich, parrot, lap dog, or unthinking robot. We should examine the problems deeply.
The answer is not to agree or disagree with SM Goh. Those who are having a steady job, earning a reasonable fat pay and have not been affected by this issue yet, of course, may agree with SM Goh.
The answer should be how serious this issue will impact and affect local/native Singaporeans who are already suffering, and 20 to 30 years down the road.
Not too long ago, Singapore’s population was only 3 millions or so. Now it is 5 millions and increasing at a tremendous rate. If this is not check, the consequences will be unimaginable.
Since the govt had wanted the population to increase to 6 or 7 millions, it should have planned and catered for the infrastructures, housing, roads and transportation, health care and health facilities, public utilities facilities, shopping facilities, markets, schools, universities, water and electricity supplies, etc to at least doubled, if not tripled.
This doubling or tripling cannot materialise within a short period of few years. They take much more time. Otherwise, the influx of foreigners would strain and overwhelm the existing infrastructures and facilities which were constructed to cater for a population of 3 to 4 millions.
It looks like the government had not thought about it deep enough to cater and provide for all necessary resources, facilities, infrastructures, etc. Otherwise the problems would not be so serious now. Our MRTs are fully packed up to almost midnigth! That is terrible.
Is there a central committee, like the National Security Coordination Committee headed by SM Jayakuma, to co-ordinate all the various ministries affected by this foreigner import policy?
If there is one, I have not heard of it. If there is none, then one has to be set up on an urgent basis.
Who should head this so very important committee? Cannot be the PM himself, right?
The PM has one MM, two SMs, two DPMs, two Minister-with-no-responsibilities (i.e. without portfolios) to assist him, a very luxurious set up that no other countries in the whole wide world has. I am sure one of these highly-paid ministers can and should head this Committee.
I suggest Mr Lim Boon Heng, because he does not seem to have much to do at all, though drawing the same pay as other ministers every month.
Next, since the resources, infrastructures, facilities, housing, etc cannot magically materialised overnight, the inflow of the foreigners should be gradually phased in, in stages – e.g. 120,000 per year over 20 to 30 years.
Looks like the present foreigner inflow rate is not properly co-ordinate, monitored and controlled. It looks more like a free for all. Why must this situation arise?
Why is the govt rushing in so many foreigners in a hurry? I am sure they would have done a proper in-depth study to ascertain the probable impacts and consequences upon our resources, infrastructures, facilities, housing , medical, etc. There are also possible serious social problems such as crimes, disputes, unhappiness; and cultural problems such as adaptation, integration, assimilation and national education, etc.
In Canada, new migrants have to go for compulsory English classes and have to become proficient in English within the 1st year. Is Singapore having something like this? I met many foreigners who are sales and counter service staff who can’t even speak a word of English! Why are such people give employment over native Singaporeans? Is there no control at all?
Sometimes, when a new policy comes out, the implementation phase always screwed it up. Why?
My observation is that we have very good top-brain scholars who can think and plan very well, but we do not have top brain scholars who can execute and implement the plans properly and successfully. That is the main cause of most the serious problems in Singapore – good policies being screwed up by bad implementations.
It looks like this present foreigner import policy is another case in point!
My suggestions (solution):
1. PM must get one minister who has nothing much to do, to head a committee to revise the existing plans, if any. If there is none, then one has to be formulated urgently.
2. Do a thorough study and examination on all the likely repercussions and consequences for a time period of 30 to 50 years, using projections and extrapolations, and war gaming.
3. Schedule or reschedule the execution in several phases for the inflow (per year) to a more manageable and socially acceptable and undisruptive level, say not more than 100,000 each year.
4. At the same time, all the other ministries and statutory boards should also start catering for the long-term requirements in their respective areas of responsibilities to support this population expansion overall plan. Each ministry and statutory should come out with their own sub-plans in minute details.
5. There should be a monitoring chart and a time-table.
6. Monthly meetings should be held to co-ordinate the overall plan and examine problematic areas and provide immediate remedial solutions or adjustments.
OK, I will stop here. I don’t want to teach grand mothers to suck eggs. I don’t get paid a single cent for providing solutions.
As MM Lee once said, “Nothing is free in this world … even the air we breathe is not free.”
Those so-called capable visionary ministers in their air-con 6-star ivory towers must crack their own brains to provide the solutions.
And please stop asking citizens to provide solutions. That is shameful, insolent and disgraceful behavior!
Walau! this SIVA bot bad ,ah?
also more “cher-tong” leh,some more can speak out
for his friends and neighbours…not like some of our
own people,ah,they “chuchok”(sabotage) and condemn us until
macham(like) lima sen(five cents)..cannot even buy kachang-puteh leh!
i like you..you so “crever”leh.
BUT,hor,like suosuke said ah, you cannot say we no have CEO
talent,leh?
look hor,wee chor yaw father,hor,he built UOB you know he also
“local” only what..almost like never study one.This WEE CHOR YAW also not so crever like oour scholars,he only study quite little onlt lal.Hs son,yes that wee ee chiao got education,not like his grand-father who was one who built the bank.leh.
Very sad,leh,don’t know why after so many FT ang-moh and american-chinese CEOs ,they boo-boo,hor at one mini-bond local
bank and they still insist that FT CEO “betterer’.So now like mr siva said-but i don’t agree,leh-they recruit indian one but also from america leh.CAN OR NOT! that citibank,hor,their top-men not so good leh..lose money until”thng-kor”(lose pants) but
never mind lah,we “sai-boey-chow,leh(incapable),so let FT get the big fat job and money leh.
actually,hoe,since i worked foreign banks before,ah,i think i
got good chance to try but i search and search for ST classified,ah,but still cannot find vacancy for CEO advert leh>
Never mind,since i will still stay here ,now no money,all PAP
ALREADY,So i sit tightly,hor,and pray “hardly” that the new indian ceo boo-boo like the ones before,then this time,hor,i must surely go and apply…shhh,shhh,don’t tell anyone,hor,
in case they also want to compete leh,then i still continue sit
‘tight,tight’ and “tang-koo” leh…
anyway,hor,siva,thankyou you,okay?
A balance view from a FT. Thank you.
Well done..kudos to you Mr Siva! You should really consider sending this article to the Straits Times forum! It’s a fair and objective piece!
Now Local universities produce good number of degree holders,who are talented enough to be easily trained / oriented to do job required in manufacturing or service Industry, hence flow of foreigners need to be scaled down to fill only GAP created by shortage of babies.Even if it results in 1 or 2 percent lower growth in GDP. Excessive flow has already caused housing prices & rents to be high,which is causing hardship to new households, whether local or foreigners.
Nigeria, Philippines and Poland got huge population increase in the last few decades – WHAT AN ABSOLUTE ECONOMIC F$@KING MESS THEY ARE NOW IN??
Poverty and hopelessness inside their countries and Philippines exports maid to half the globe that will take their services.
All three countries got huge land and in some instances rich in resources. Singapore is just one rock to dump your poo on, basically.
We are heading that way with 6.5 millions without the relevant sustaining jobs in the enduring economy.
THE KEY WORDS ARE “SUSTAINING JOBS AND ENDURING ECONOMY”
They won’t come. Vote PAP and wait for hell!!!
FT,
please take look at this website
http://www.alliedmanpower.com/joblist.php
Jobs for your guys, Singaporean need not apply
1. Foreigners are welcomed (PR, WP or Citizens) – if they ADD VALUE against our own locals – otherwise, they really is no strong argument to open the flood doors.
2. Local Birth rate is too low – OK, for the sake of argument, the local birth rates goes up tremendously and to the satisfaction of MOM – it merely means that we will get Qty and not Quality – We still cannot win the silver table tennis medal in BJ if we had not Li Jiawei and the entire table tennis team.
My point is that Low Birth rate is not a very good argument when u analyze this issue in depth. MOM will still make open our doors EVEN IF our birth rates goes up…
3. We need to think about increasing birth rates and encourgaing locals to take mid level jobs – singaporeans cannot just complain and complain – we need to do something as well….if nothing, to shut the mouth of MOM.
I simply do not see any reasons to bring in mid level people to work at petrol kioks, hawker centres and 7-11, white collar jobs such as electronics and mechanical engineers…lawyers and doctors are also foreigners as well…seriously, it stops being funny after a while….
With all the articles online about the whole foreigner influx, I am just wondering how widespread Singaporean’s feelings are against this influx of foreigners. The online world seems to be dead against it, the people I know seem to be upset by it as well.
But how about the rest of Singaporean who don’t read news online and accept the trashy propaganda fed to them by the state propanganda machine? And most importantly, will Singaporeans show their displeasure at the ballot box?
So I would encourage each and every reader online who is pissed off about the situation to go talk to their parents, grandparents or whoever who is entitle to vote about it. If not, I fear that all this ranting online will not go anywhere and it will be business as usual again for the next five years after the next elections.
FINALLY a well written article.
@ Man on the street on Wed, 11th Nov 2009 4:31 pm
If SINGAPOREANS explodes, what will be the outcome or circumvention?
Very easy! All qualified applications are welcome BUT THE INTERVIEWING AND SELECTION WILL BE RESERVED ONLY FOR FOREIGNERS.
What is the MIW say? They look the other way. Singaporeans can be given up for dead.
STAND UP FOR SINGAPORE ON NATIONAL DAY – ALL SINGAPOREANS.
Lamentation.
Even a foreigner understands our predicament far better than some of our locals do.
The question is who should be responsible for this predicament, is it the people fault , the foreign workers, the government or nobody.
One thing for sure it is not my fault but I can’t speak for those who embrace PAP. I have little choice but let things be, wait till the general election, then lets see.
@ xx on Wed, 11th Nov 2009 5:01 pm
…….every reader online who is pissed off about the situation to go talk to their parents, grandparents or whoever who is entitle to vote about it…
YES, ABSOLUTELY.
For the good of this country.
>The question to be asked is this; are enough jobs being created for this influx in the present?
not only jobs, but housing and other resources our little red dot have.
TR,THOUGH GOOD INDEED A FORUM IS STILL MORE OF A LITERARY
PLATFORM TO SHARE OUR GRIEVANCES,THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS.
WE NEED AS SOME HAVE POINTED TO PUT OUR EFFORTS HERE INTO
MORE MEANINGFUL ACTION AND THAT IS TO VOTE WITH OUR CONSCIENCE
NOT WITH ‘kiasi-ism”
‘STAND UP FOR SINGAPORE!’,DESPITE ALL THE SH@TS,WE ARE STIL
PROUD SINAGPOREANS!LET ALL THE LIONS ROAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually Singapore in the past decade had a steady population incresingly. Just because LKY has made a CRITICAL mistake. implement the policy “STOP AT TWO” slaughter 1/2 million of the “INNOCENT & DEFENCLESS” foetus.(Our Brother & Sister)it causes decline in our population. This is what U can seen in today Singapore.(Labour Shortage), so now for urgent need just pump in foreigner to solve the problem.
Just give them citizenship for free. So cheap style of PAP Goverment.
I know of a local couple who wanted to open a cafe in new marina financial center, but was rejected because they want branded cafes. Branded means most prob those we know like Sta.. or the new swnaky one at Ion Orchard or… the list goes on.. but conclusion?
It’s hard to be another Mr sim wong hoo. So ask govt to shut up and dont keep using Mr Sim as an achievement as if they made it happen for him…
If we’re so ugly even our mum doesn’t wana look at us, where do we go?…. sigh… kuku ah..
Everyone here should explain to their relatives, friends and acquaintance the consequence of over importing of foreigners and their right as the citizens. Don’t let PAP government continues to fool us and eventually our life will be screwed-up by them !!!!
I wish to point out (like John did) that the number of jobs in Singapore is not fixed. This is the “lump of labour” fallacy. The truth (backed up by economics theory and empirical observation) is that in Singapore, the flexibility and cost advantage afforded by the availability of foreign labour actually increases the number of jobs available to locals. See the following 2004 study by MTI and MOM economists: http://bit.ly/414jUb (PDF file).
Using foreign labour has pros (increases economic competitiveness) and cons (social costs, effects on vulnerable workers). We still need foreign labour (both FW and FT), but the process must be managed well. That, I hope, everyone can agree on.
//indexer
Yeah the policy “might” increase the number of jobs available for locals but those are jobs that don’t pay well.
As simple as that.
the reasons why there is a lack of CEO talents is not because the locals are not talented.
It is because PAP doesn’t want CEO people to challenge against them.
Therefore they hand pick these people.
This kind of thing doesn’t happen in the states.
The practice of discrimination in air pilots in SIA is a case in point.
Actually, it could have been more appropriate to emphasis “Talent” rather than Foreign Talent, which seems to imply that foreign is talent, while local is less so.
If there is a foreigner who can do the job better and contribute to the Singapore society; surely many locals would have no objections.
But as it seems to me, we have attracting foreigners, talent or not and overlooking the local talent.
That’s a pretty well written article. But I am afraid that the views from a commoner’s like us will never be considered.
Let alone be heard. Its not the fault of the FTs, if I have got talent and some other countries think highly of that, of course I would go. That’s the natural choice. The problem lies in those who let them in, not those who are coming.
There is just not enough done to ensure the balance within the society. There is just far to many issues arising these few years to make many the locals unhappy.
What can be done? I am sure after 10 years there wont be much change…. Those in charged can still do whatever they want. After all those above have seen what we are really capable of..
COMPLAINING.. that’s all we are thats why we are never taken seriously…
Increasing the numbers to make up for the shortfall is simply a quickfix and short term solution! In 20 years, the current influx of foreigners would have left or aged! So, by then, do we increase even more of the foreigners? And, if so, how many times, can we do it over and over again?
@ Mainstreetcitizen on Wed, 11th Nov 2009 7:57 pm
Gentlemen, please do NOT be brainwashed by Shitty Pappies Propaganda Times by repeating the illusion of “talent”. It is rubbish talk same like the word “meritocracy”
If we ever had “meritocracy” in Singapore, we WOULD NOT have GRC, unelected MPs approved by those who are WITH so-called “merit” as well, and plenty of deadwoods hosting toxic mushroom in all the right places.
Remember we have two graduates in the same field, the local one got first class honour and the foreign one got second-class lower. YOU KNOW HOW THE SHITTY PAPPIES PROPAGANDA TIMES will address these two graduates receiving university medals of achievements?
A FOREIGN TALENT and a Singaporean recieved medals of achievements. Why?
There is TALENT because it is FOREIGNERS who got 2nd class lower and there NO TALENT because the first class honour graduate is Singaporean.
So you got this pyschological INDOCTRINATION that talent is extrinsic to Singaporean by reason of his/her birth and TALENT IS NATURAL TO FOREIGNER BY REASON OF HIS/HER NATIONALITY
Nationality either = talent for foreigners and
Nationality NOT EQUAL to talent for UNIQUELY SINGAPOREANS.
If you start enchoing this stupid VULGARITY called “talent” Singaporeans will NEVER GET A JOB and if you start echoing this sexy rubbish called meritocracy, OPPOSITION CAN NEVER GET ELECTED.
So every Singaporeans should refrain from using these expletives called “talent” and “meritocracy” too liberally.
IT IS BRAINWASHING AND INDOCTRINATION like confiker worms in computers hard drives.
A good singlish to displace talent is to spelt it as foreign “thallium” (poison killer) and replace meritocracy in Singapore with Singapore-style “mafia-crazy” ( GRC thuggery)
Siva,
I like your honesty in calling a spade a spade.
The reality is that having a sudden influx of foreigners into tiny S’pore is the WRONG policy. But our ministers will NEVER admit their mistake because they want to safe “face”.
Don’t be fooled by the apparent softening of stance by ministers as diligently reported by the lap-dog Straits Times. This is merely a pre-election ploy. After election, the floodgate will open widely again for foreigners.
Having read what Siva said and then reading the replies-quite frankly I am scared out of my mind.
As a born and bred singaporean should I extend my roots or uproot entirely.
Should I get married? Should I ballot for a HDB?
Will my neighborhood be as balanced as it was when I was growing up-where my neighbours, chinese,malay,indian were all warm friendly some hot, some fiesty, some downright lame-but the true red singaporeans.
Will I be happy or will I be driven out by the same people who have come for a better life – as did my grandfather-will i have to run for cover–run away in the opposite direction back to where my grandfather was from-will they remember who he was and reserve a place for his grandsons who sweated blood tears and time in the green of another republic—
Loyalty a made up politicians word —it served its time got the results and in the process institutionalized us all…– sold us dreams made us hope—
I just feel hopeless..
I’m working in IT industry. I notice nowadays high-paying SAP jobs are going to Indians and other FTs. Are Singaporeans shunning SAP jobs? Nope! Singaporeans are priced out of SAP job market in Singapore. The SAP systems integrators are exploiting the PAP suicidal FT policy to bring in lot of cheaper foreign labour, leaving very few opportunities for Singaporeans to do SAP implementation. PAP is digging graves for Singaporeans.
Well said, Siva.
Unfortunately, the elitist PAP doesn’t think this way.
If they can replace unhappy, migrating Singaporeans with cheaper foreigners who are “easier to please”, they will continue to do so. GDP will continue to grow, and so will their pay packages.
The only risk for them is that of being voted out of power by native Singaporeans. But rest assured they’ll do their best to calibrate electoral rules, and brainwash the gullible citizenry to their advantage. And they’ll continue to suck in more new citizens, who are more than likely to ensure PAP stay in power for a long time to come.
PM Lee should be voted out as he is the one who started the aggressive import of foreigners!!!
you think the Lee Dynasty wanna listen to you?
The only way that will ever happen if Singaporeans start a holocaust of FT. It worked for the Nazis, keeping Jews away. Maybe thats what S’poreans need to do to keep the foreigners away.
too bad, the only dictator we have is LKY…
Primary weapon: Lawsuits
Secondary weapon: ISA
Ultimate weapon: PAP
Primary defense: Grandpa’s long bull-story to avoid unwanted questions.
Secondary defense: 3 million dollars/yr to overpower smaller-earning S’poreans.
Ultimate defense: Singapore courts.
Think the third point highlight on this article is accurate.
Once again it shows that our leaders are not deserving the millions they are paid as they have implemented a policy without being prepared for its consequences
When I first came here in 1996 we were generally welcomed by the local population as we filled jobs that were not being filled by the locals. Then Singapore was an Asian Tiger and the Singaporeans understood that if these jobs were not filled at a reasonable wage the companies would move elsewhere and everybody would loose jobs.
The current issue stems from the combination of two factors i.e a super successful population control policy in the past along with a super successful economic growth policy. Resulting in a country that cannot sustain its economic might based on its local population growth (-ve in this case)
If this issue is explained to Singaporeans then the hostility towards foreigners would go down.It does require an admission of some planning errors but this is unfortunately not done.
Even if somebody is born today he enters the work force only after 20 years but to the planners Singapore needs the people now. However having let the person in the person is then free to compete with the locals as the objective is to increase the population instantly.
This is the cause of the current resentment towards foreigners like us. I understand the plight of Singaporeans, being in logistics I work with the not so well off in warehouses and cargo complexes far away from the steel glass towers. The need is to explain the objective of letting in the foreigners.. its not one of just foreign talent.
looks like its another policy that is not properly implemented and consulted and communicated to the people with regards to its long term objectives and consequences.
I wonder how some of the real foreign ‘talents’ feel about the overwhelming numbers of mediocre foreigners let into this island. It actually makes the place LESS ATTRACTIVE to real talent. Real talent wants to settle down in a place of ample breathing spaces, well-mannered people, clean environment and sophistication. Importing cheap foreigners from 3rd world cuntries is a step in the other direction.
Bemused
I aready explained that one in my earlier postings in one of the pages.
@ angry_one on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 4:32 pm
GOOD POINT, Real foreign talent is unlikely to be very impressed to be crowded out on the public facilities by those toxic foreign “thallium”
Guys, fellow Singaporeans, I think we should not go overboard on our criticism of the government’s handling of the influx of foreigners.
We must look at the issue from a wider perspective and not at the micro level involving each individual. It’s for the greater good, and I must give credit to the government for this (the very rare occasion I agree with them).
I have explained this in some other postings on other pages (if you haven’t read them yet).
Basically the issue stamps around the monster of CPF which has become a gigantic liability of the government in meeting its obligations to us citizens. The demographic trend of a declining population at a time when the average withdrawal sum for our retirees are increasing is already causing some problems, what with situation further down the road?
The CPF thing is a real life “ponzi” scheme – they take from the present generation to pay off previous generation, and vice versa form the future generation to pay off our generation. We are, in fact, living at the expense of our future generations in this respect.
Although the call has been made for you guys to produce more babies, our offspring will not be employable in the immediate future and therefore cannot contribute to the CPF kitty. The stop gap measure during this gestation period is to invite foreigners to take up citizenship here to effect an immediate impact on the CPF coffers. Simple as that. So foreigners who are naturalised citizens are actually doing us good (although they may “rob” some of our jobs).
We should not fret about them but treat them as relevant competitors for whatever jobs we may be applying and accord them the same respect as we would our own Singaporean competitors. I mean look at it from another perspective : if 10 persons apply for a job and there are all Singaporeans it’s ok, but if 2 of them are foreigners then it’s not ok ? That’s having double standards isn’t it. We must take each and every opportunity to improve ourselves and treat each and every competitor (whether Singaporean or foreigner) with a positive attitude, and not wallow in self pity or blame others for our plight.
I still believe in meritocracy and like the saying “water will find its own mark”. So work hard and continue to look jobs (for those who are out of work). As they say, when the going gets tough the tough gets going! And remember to make more babies in the process…we need them 20 years from now !
Foreigners like yourself are welcome in Singapore. But please take up citizenship.
Time
You are grossly mistaken. I am not a foreigner but a true bred Singaporean. My work experience over the years involved cross dealings with the people in government who set policies and those who carry them out and, as such, I have gained valuable insight into how they act and think. This is in as much as I can tell you about myself.
Regards.
Let’s give Siva credit and call a Singaporean, already. If he doesn’t mind.
Aye, I second thoughtful. Siva is an honorable Singaporean in my eyes. And thank you very much for your compassion, Siva.
@Jim
no doubt you are fair to view competition as good and that it is up to the individual to seek to improve.
but i cannot agree fully with you on the current influx of
FTs when there is a worldwdie recession and employment problem.
The FT poilcy in itself and by itself alreay makes it more
advantageuos for the FTs vis-a-vis the local applicants(talents) as first and foremost,like you mentioned,it is THE POLICY and secondly,employers besides trying to suck up to the
Authorities,also find it beneficial for them to replace more
costly older(but loyal) workers with cheaper labour.
And, on top of that,the FTs do not have to worry as much as
a local on the cost of living and maintaining his home and family.The FTs can split costs on rentals and an array of other
things,not so ourown locals!FTs working here convert their sgd salary and send home monies many times over as we still have astronger sgd!
Yes,by all means,do what they(govt) must do but i don’t agreewith you nor them that it must NOW or NEVER?!
As we are in the midst of a global recession,our older workers who are retrenched cannot easily find suitable jobs in the region for our neighbours are also sufferring the same predicament;that’s why FTs are flocking here anyway!!!
If for some reasons.their home countries have better economic
seasons.they would very likely(in my opinion) pack and go as quickly as they rushed in?So,where is the logic that they,the FTs,are going to be that “stop-gap’ your policy-making ex-colleagues propound anyway?
Whether,FTs-made-PRs will stay as that “stop-gap” as antiicipated is anyone’s guess.Even,if they take up citizenship,they may still decide to pack and go home once
there is more opportunities there…so how does that leave us?
By then,many unemployed singaporeans would have gron older and become even more “irrelevant”!
PLEASE,please when you guys hwo are still doing well make
comments like this,do consider the plight of your fellow
counteymen…many were mere average salaried workers ad they don’t have unending vast resources to last a whole life-time!
i am still agreeable,very much so,to this MAD rush for FTs as htis is a lousy TIME to do so nad there is no guarantee they
will stay on and fight the battle side by side with us.
CORRECTION TO MY LAST POST:
i am still disagreeable,very much so,to this MAS rush for FTs as this is a lousy TIME TO DO SO AND THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THEY WILL STAY ON AND FIGHT SIDE BY SIDE WITH US.
THANK YOU
why can’t these great PRs do NS if they love this country so much.
in fact why can’t our women also do NS, since the media is ramming down our throats how great they are.
lan .
To Jim on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 5:54 pm,
I feel really sad after reading your post, if you are not a foreigner, pro-PAP or someone being instructed to write this piece
Competition is welcome, but let there be a fair playing ground. I do not wish to repeat myself or what many others had already, about the extra responsibilities of being a true pink Singaporean. If you are indeed a true pink Singaporean and have a fair mind then you should already understand these yourself
And what’s with the CPF? Are you implying that, after ever increasing the minimum retirement sum in our accounts, CPF board is still facing potential shortage? It may suggest that a big chunk has been spent (wasted?) and un-recoverable… this sure sounds bad. What about the many many folds of returns from those so-called government investment branches? Are those numbers fabricated then?
At this rate, I really fear from my children
While having to fulfill their extra national responsibilities, first they need to compete with foreigners during school enrollment, then compete for exam results (when a large number of foreigners are here to study with allowance paid out of taxpayers’ pocket) and when they step into the work force, compete with foreigners for the little pool of available job openings, next when they want to start a family, with the little pool of available new HDB units, they need to compete in the resale market… and in the end, CPF board might not have anything left to pay them as monthly retirement payout
@antipap on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 11:17 pm
Yes PR’s can do NS but they cannot do the full two years simply because a person in his mid thirties cannot have the endurance of a twenty year old neither does NS provide financial means to support a PR who has no roots to fall back on in Singapore.
Alternatives can be found, i.e. short versions, taking over ancillary activities etc . In fact PR’s are huge source of potential allies to Singaporeans. How can a PR who’s life savings, home, children are all in Singapore simply run away? Why do Singaporeans think the PR’s won’t fight for Singapore?
Remember in WWII most of the Chinese conscripts who defended Singapore were born in China and didn’t think of this city as their homeland. Why did the stand up and fight? because they invested their life’s work in this place.
Many of you ask why PRs don’t take up citizenship. True there are many who want the best of both worlds. But other reasons to..
- Sometimes our applications for passes for parents stay or extensions are arbitrarily rejected. If we become citizens and our old parents are not guaranteed to stay with us can we just abandon them?
- I for one am waiting in a queue to adopt and who I fully intend to bring over and do NS. If we change citizenship we will drop to the bottom of the queue.
You guys have a right to be upset with your Governments policies but why blame it on PR’s ?
Singaporean parent on Fri, 13th Nov 2009 10:00 am
…While having to fulfill their extra national responsibilities, first they need to compete with foreigners during school enrollment, then compete for exam results (when a large number of foreigners are here to study with allowance paid out of taxpayers’ pocket) and when they step into the work force, compete with foreigners for the little pool of available job openings, next when they want to start a family, with the little pool of available new HDB units, they need to compete in the resale market… and in the end, CPF board might not have anything left to pay them as monthly retirement payout…”
They are all the compelling reasons why we should appreciate Dr. Chee.
THEY ARE ALSO THE REASONS WHY WE MUST CHANGE NOW. THERE IS NO OPTION AVAILABLE.
@Singaporean parent
I share your concerns,they are genuine of of typical common
singaporean families.
i notice that there are many in this blogs who spin great ideas
but the way they sounded thus far make me wonder they are merely exhibiting their literary skills more so than deliberating on truths and substance?..OR are they trying to
seek to impress other earnest sincere bloggers of their
grand ideas and superfluos writings!
I notice too that some who sowed and painted one picture in a particular column contradict their own grand ideas they spin ealrier or dyas ago.
Come on,you better educated intellectuals,while you are seemingly speaking out for the citizens of this tiny economy-with LABOUR or you would eloquently call huamn capital,as the only resource- can you also sincerely SPEAK UP for them rather
than discoursing in high-sounding complicated “confusions” just so to prove your vast knowledge and intelligence?!!!!
Whatever those POLICIES taken by the GAHMEN are intended for is to the common men and women mere FANTASIES their stomachs are hungry and pockets EMPTY!
First things first and that should be THE POLICY!
Population growth is critcal for funding our social needs and expenditures; so immediate influx of foreigners to cushion the
shortfall of local population retardation?who cause such problem..great minds,indeed,some great minds!So,why “penalise”
the common people?It’s not their fault to wanna “stop at two” or what-have-you other high-sounding scholarly thought out
policies….Jim,tell your friends to THINK WISER and not merely SMARTER,for ‘SMARTER” DOES NOT IMPLY BETTER?!!!
I would encourage-if gahmen were to ask for my 2 cents worth-that we “STOP THIS INFLOW OF FOREIGNERS AT ONCE” especailly
when so many singaporean families are sufferring…which local here or other non-bbloggers don’t know of any relatives or friends or ex-colleagues who are retrenched and still searching desperately for survival?
It’s ironic thet many are too worried to even come into this
great platform to air their grievances,not just VIEWS or opinions!..they merely suffer in SILENCE for so many reasons.
So,i am sure these,our fellow sinagporeans,need your kind consideration and basic humane apprehension…no need of
excuse-manufacturing jargons.
Jim,are the people you have cross-delaings with-who make those
great policies- still MAKING more stunted policies in their
ivory towers?…if so,may ia sk why are they still on their
fat-pay jobs when they have SCREWED UP the livelihood of so many sinagporeans….they shoiuld probably hand over their cushy jobs to some SMARTER FTs for they may be more humane
and can solve our people’s problems?!!!!
So, dear Singapore Parent,i and countless other locals,share
your concerns…have no fear,CHANGE is near!
may you and your family have a blessed christmas.
Singaporean parent & fair and square
I sympthasise with the plight of Singaporeans who are presently unemployed and those on shoe-strings or hand-outs and understand their agony and frustrations with some of the government policies, especially those which directly threaten their livelihood.
It is not wrong to lament that we should not be looking at the horizon when we can’t even put food on the table for the next meal. But this is a problem at the level of the individual. And the government has made available a number of options for Singaporeans at the individual level to help them alleviate their plight, eg. through re-training, etc. But other than that the government must look at the greater picture, for the general well being of the country and the society as a whole, and not direct its entire focus on individuals as a unit.
If you look at the situation in its entirety maybe the picture will become clearer. Unemployment exists because job creation is insufficient to meet the demand. Too many unemployed chasing after too little jobs available. The problem, therefore, is lack of job creation opportunities. And one avenue, besides several others which the govenrnment are pursueing concurrently, is to bring in foreigners to prop up our economy. Let’s do the maths. Assuming for argument sake that 1 million foreigners are imported and half of them are working here to contribute to our economy. That’s 500,000 people who are economic active. The mathematics show that, if on the average, every one of them contributes to CPF a sum of say $250 every month, translated, it would mean this group is contributing $125m every month to our CPF coffers or $1.5bn annually. Now that’s a lot of money ploughed into our national savings fund. At the same time, this group of people will be spending money here just like you and me, and this consumerism of theirs will, through the multiplier effect translate into helping to drive up our GDP, which in turn means creating more jobs. Its a case of the horse and the cart (chicken and egg) – which comes first? Wahtever is the answer the net effect of this process is that society at large will benefit.
For those who may have some suspicious view on me I would like to stated emphatically that I am not a government minister, nor an officer in the top echelon of government. I am managing my own investment company and I am a Singaporean.
I wish every Singaporean well, and hope that we can pick ourselves up in such lean times and continue to persevere in our efforts and not let impediments obscure our view, just as our forefathers have gone through in the past.
fair and square
Sorry I did not touch on the point you raised regarding the reliability of the PRs, that there is no guarantee they will pack their bags at some point of time down the road.
Firstly, I think we shouldn’t be too duly concerned with this because it is a flow concept. That means while there are some who gave up and return to their homeland, there will be others who will come. We should only be concerned when a net outflow situation actually arises.
Secondly, it is precisely to nib this potential area of concern that an impediment has been placed to prevent them from making a quick buck and disappear back into their borders. The CPF has certain requirements and the tax authorities also have theirs (a policy called withholding tax). In the case of the CPF, they cannot withdraw their CPF money even though they return to their homeland, and for those who want to withdraw, they are allowed to do so but on the condition they will be de-barred from being able to work in Singapore again. Even at that there is a time limitation involved (moratorium of a few years) before they can actually lay their hands on their cash.
I hope the explanation above can put some of your doubts at rest.
Regards.
Jim on Fri, 13th Nov 2009 12:32 pm
Foreigners can come in to fill unsatisfied gaps in labour market BUT THEY SHOULD COME IN ON PEPs and NOT PRs.
The support in subsidy costs from Singapore tax-payer is too high. The costs of infrastructure pressures from MRT, to hospital, banking and dare I say sewage plants and waste dump refills is too HIGH AND IN MOST INSTANCE NOT MEASURABLE.
PRs also age like us Singaporeans. In 20 years time, what do we do with them as PRs and maybe like us as citizen?
THE CYCLE REPEATS but the land constraint and social and infrastructure support CANNOT EXPAND to cope. If we are Malaysia with so much space, then migration influx is much less of a problem.
The costs of living impact on Singaporean welfare who built up this place in unquantifiable in finite number but anecdoctal evidence of housing costs is telling of the ENORMOUS DAMAGE ALREADY CAUSING IRREVOCABLE HARM.
We must stop now and be practical. ONLY PEPs be given. No more PRs., anyone disagree???
Anonymous
Yes, I knew someone will soon pick up that issue and raise it on this forum, and I sort of expect it would be you.
Ya, you have raised a pertinent point, about the sum equals to the parts and that these PRs and what have you would also be adding on to the government’s liability in CPF pay-outs to them.
It shouldn’t be any issue when the whole exercise reaches equilibrium, that is to say the total input in any given year meets the total sum of current liability (payout). In such a state of equilibrium it doesn’t matter whther the total population is 10m or increased to 20m. What matters those is replacement rate. And that is where management of the demographic trend is important, that we should seek to obtain at least a level equivalent to the replacement rate (we are now in negatively territory as you are well aware).
The only issue I take against the government is that they should have kicked their arses earlier and not wait till now. They were awakened when they suddenly saw the spectre looming over Japan currently. The Japs are facing this problem now as they are supporting a very large population of elderly. I guess that is the price society has to pay for their citizens to enjoy longevity ironically. Having said that about our brains sitting so long on the arses on this one, they have nevertheless saw the problem and are taking corrective measures now.
We should be glad our government is not like the Malaysian one. They only get to work when the problem occurs.
@Anonynous
YOU MAKE MORE SENSE OUT OF ALL THE NONSENSE THAT POLICY-MAKERS
ATTEMPT TO SELL TO US,LOCALS, LIKE SOME KIMD OF “KO-YOKE”(aka
road-side shows selling chinese plasters).
enough is enough,we need more meaningful solutions to our existing problems as in any case no one can assure our PRs
would hang on to help solve our populations and related problems.
@bemused.
a 35 yo Chinese man does not have the endurance of a 20 something ?
are you on crack ? or maybe you are not of Chinese race or perhaps a brainwashed commie otherwise you would have noticed that Chinese men are in their peak 35 – 55.
Take a look at the physiques and the face of Loh Kah Leong , Miu Kiu Wah.
WE ARE not Europeans and have no wish to be, despite the view that your PAP-smear masters have imprinted in your brain.
Anyway, that is irrelevant.
Bottomline if you ” love ” SG so much then prove it , do the time .
What does falling back blah blah blah have anything to do with this issue.
it comes back to the same point , we don’t owe you no nothing , no one does. Do the NS or shut up and forever have the suspicion of parasite on your head.
Simple.
Most non citizens money is siphoned back to their homelands, the defense of SG with non local born people was a F’g disaster in case you bother to read your history.
Kuwait is another casepoint , 40% foreigners , Saddam one puff and they all die.
Yeah , we know you want to cover your tracks do us all a favour save the hypocrisy.
@Jim
I sincerely appreciate the validity and sensibility of most of your thoughts and opinions.
However,I must add that in this current state of the global
economy,the idea of MAXIMISATION needs to take a back-seat0at least for the time being-and the notion of OPTIMSATION should
tipped the balance of any macro policy decision or micro
business concerns.
What is lacking is truly humane compassion and gratitude.
Such virtues seem like “utter nonsense” to SMART policy
decision-makers and shrewd businessmen.
I say this because despite the financial crisis caused by the GREED of “greeis-is-good” Wallstreest,many companies are still
reporting humongous proftis!..i am not a wee bit jealous,honestly;just EXASPERATED!
On the one hand,these corporate chieftains voiced so innocently
about the UNSUSTAINABLE costs of doing business and so they
happily replaced older loyal but “expensive” locals with
foreigners in the HOLY name of COST-CUTTING for corporate survival….Ah,yes!it ALL SOUNDS VERY noble(?) until you see them dishing out BIG F A T bonuses to themselves and their closest lieutenants!!!…where is the prior “grave” concern of
sustainability?..gone for all eternity and who cares?! the poor
hardworkers who work so loyally and got an ignominous DISCHARGE
by their “captains’ who themselves are now rewarded ever so handsomely!..this is total BULLSHITS!!!
I will be honest with you;i am a graduate from humble NUS,NO GREAT SCHOLAR from afar but i am been laid off and doing my incognito ‘just get by’ survival stunt and i don’t even dare to dream of getting back “fruitful and meaningful” re-employment unless i”upgrade” myself through some NTUC-run course and work as a labourer…
All said,you are a worthy thinker for this small tiny island of very honest and industrious workers;the only fault to me is that you are curently tipped on the wrong side of the humble
wooden balance causing a bit of lop-sidedness…please adjust the fulcrum.
thanks my friend for sharing.
Jim on Fri, 13th Nov 2009 12:32 pm
Just looking at your set of numbers (it is appreciated least because no one else including me has so far come up with some ball park figures) quoted below
…The mathematics show that, if on the average, every one of them contributes to CPF a sum of say $250 every month, translated, it would mean this group is contributing $125m every month to our CPF coffers or $1.5bn annually…….
They are hardly impressive of contribution to GDP statistics. Let me extrapolate further from there. If employee & employer contribution is 25% of total wage, then the theoretical income of these foreigners would be $1.5 billion X 4 times or roughly $6 billion in their income earned (thus contribution to GDP) figures. We ignore for the moment the multiplier effect, the GDP contribution would be $6 billion annually. Taking 2008 base year GDP of 240 billion, that adds 2.5% to GDP growth BUT THIS 2.5% GOES ENTIRELY TO FOREIGN PRs. What do Singaporean gain? the GDP multiplier impact I guess.
BUT WHAT IS THE COSTS IN FINANCIAL TERMS OF INFRASTRUCTURAL SPENDING TERMS? Just the NE MRT line alone costs S$4.6 billion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_East_MRT_Line
If we have to escalate the costs of doubling of MRT lines by underground tunnelling now, 10 equivalent NE MRT line could consume $60 billion – THAT WIPED OUT 10 YEARS OF GDP CONTRIBUTIONS from 1 million PRs. What about costs of land use, housing infrastructure, hospital, underground express way, recreational facilities, utilities, even sewage plants. I have to come to the reasonable conclusion that in financial terms, the NEGATIVE BURDEN way exceeded the positive gains.
THAT IS ASSUMING ALL 500,000 PRs have jobs for 10 years. If there is a recession again like 2008/2009, our Government spent $20.4 billion on resilience package. If more unemployed with much enlarged population, one year’s resilience package could be $40 billion.
Where the the net gain at all to Singapore? Our infrastructure now is built over 44 years. If we have to add double that by reason of doubling in popoulation, HOW MUCH WOULD ALL THAT COSTS TO SINGAPOREANS’ ACCUMULATED SAVINGS spread over 44 years???
I SHUDDER TO THINK IN FEAR.
In in 10 years, no recession?? You must be joking if that person/persons disagree with me on this point. And ask what chances of these 500,000 PRs working uninterrupted for 10 years. I would say ZERO PROBABILITY. Why?
The vetting is so naked of quality control. Zhang Yuan Yuan got her PR with a diploma. In a very high competitive turbulent world of changes, how many of these new PRs would have skills relevant with such low quality intake? I say very low.
The Goverment will say, we will build new clusters? Hopeful or wishful thinking? Look at the life scienc cluster in the hopeful pharmaceutical industry. MOST LIFE SCIENCE GRADUATES UNABLE TO FIND JOBS IN THAT FIELD. The disk drive sector – disappearing or disappeared. The Government’s record of success in picking industry winners is abysmally POOR of success. And for those they did picked correctly, they predicted failure incorrectly. Remember ship-building and ship-repair sector, MM says nearly 30 years ago – SUNSET INDUSTRY!!! And look at it now – it is BOOMING!!!
We are bringing in millions of such low quality migrants without vetting for skill match to industry in a hurry, what chances of them remaining employable forward – next to nothing in a few years time.
So what remains is an overload of population. Singaporeans unemployed for many years while foreign PR took advantage of this temporary opportunity to reap harvest.
And when they want to return, our PONZI CPF will be bankrupt of payment to Singaporeans. The Government will further delay CPF withdrawal until death maybe??
If the Government wants to supplement skills shortage, PEP is the ONLY ROUTE OF MATCHING SKILLS ABILITY TO SKILL SHORTAGES -
WITHOUT THE FINANCIAL SUBSIDY COSTS OF PR SUPPORT. And it is good for PEPs as well, they know that their skills are in demand and if their skills are continued to be demand, they can apply for citizenship which is good for them and for us.
Singaporeans won’t have to live in a nightmare of joblessness and economic despair of supporting foreign PRs which they know is very costly of immediate financial subsidy support and LONG-TERM IRREOVOCABLE BURDEN WHILE DESTROYING OUR LIFELIHOOD AND OUR FUTURE.
What the Government has done in giving cheap PR is RECYCLING and ESCALATING the problems down the track using GDP statistic as an electoral bait and hoax.
Remember, MINISTERIAL PAY IS SAID TO BE TIED TO SOME EXTENT TO GDP GROWTH.
We all must NOT be deceived any longer.
Generating economic activity through demographic expansion is the laziest form of policy.
The question should be at what cost does such economic activity come with.
As other posters like Anon and fair & square have pointed out, massive immigration transitory or permanent has placed a severe strain on our both our physical infrastructure and social fabric.
It is like pumping more air into a balloon, at some point the balloon cant take it anymore and pops.
Why is the FT policy lazy?
Singapore’s problem is that we have climbed up the global economic pecking order by being the cost competitive alternative for business. This has worked extremely well before simply because we have started from a low base and had no problems chasing down those above us through
1. a mix of no labor bargaining power (NTUC being a quasi govt agency) and hence relatively competitive wages,
2. complete govt control over legal and physical infrastructure (a good thing for their development)
3. geographic location (our port and being smack in the middle of the largest global shipping lanes)
Our leaders are attempting to continue that policy by acquiescing to businesses demands to keep cost competitive.
This is where policy gets lazy, and POSSIBLY policy making has also be subverted by commercial interests.
Instead more effort should have been spent in building the “moat” as Warren Buffet describes it of a sustainable competitive advantage – through superior technology or design.
Why is such policy doomed to fail in our current situation?
We can continue to be the cost competitive provider no longer simply because we have followed that path to its conclusion.
We are already primarily a service driven economy with a proportionately large financial sector, manufacturing has been shrinking and continues to shrink because technology transfer has not happened and we are no longer cost competitive.
A economy built on cost competition CANNOT be expected to provide for its citizens desire for 1st world standards of living.
There have been many countries before us that have managed the transition from low cost producer to technology leadership.
Look at Japan where they rebuilt their economy post WW2 by being a cheap exporter, similarly South Korea, the difference is that they have now moved on to become both cost competitive and also technology leaders. Sure some may say Japan has a shrinking GDP but considering a shrinking workforce and aging population that is not exactly unexpected.
Other examples include Germany and curiously enough China in the green industry.
Rather than attempt to move our industry to actually ADD VALUE through technological innovation or design, policy blindly attempts to further depress costs through wage deflation. This cannot jibe with our government’s stated aim of a swiss standard of living for the citizens.
There is still hope as evidenced by Israel’s dramatic economic turnaround from a chaotic mess to one where economic growth is driven by technological innovation in the span of less than a decade.
Foreign “talent” has always been a part of the singaporean workforce since our nations formation so it is not a new issue, it is however the first time in our history that foreign talent has been allowed to and where policy explicitly encourages such talent to compete for “middle class” jobs.
By breaking the unspoken social contract that at in exchange for our labor bargaining rights, in return we workers are assured an at minimum equal work opportunities, labor will eventually turn against capital, it is just a matter of time.
It is exceedingly optimistic to expect that there will be no backlash when workers here are at a disadvantage for employment opportunities and a slap to the face when their tax dollars goes to fund the foreigner subsidy.
Our policy position stinks for citizen labor, but given our unique political landscape the govt clearly has the political capital to address the situation but oddly enough not the political will.
Jim on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 5:54 pm
“……The CPF thing is a real life “ponzi” scheme – they take from the present generation to pay off previous generation, and vice versa form the future generation to pay off our generation. We are, in fact, living at the expense of our future generations in this respect…..”
Let’s not confuse the CPF scheme with the Pension scheme. For CPF, we are not getting a single cent from the government. The money is deducted from our salary. As for pension scheme, the government pays you a fix amount of money from the state fund. See the different?
For the CPF scheme, as long as the government has not gamble and lost your money through whatever long term investment it claims to do, it will not have a problem paying out.
Now, those self-serving fat white cats even stop us from withdrawing our CPF money when we reach 55 years old. Hello! When I am 55 years old, I am old enough to know what to do with my hard earned money. To me what this government is doing is legalised daylight robbery.
Readers, check out this article from The Economist.
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14859345
@ Anonymous on Fri, 13th Nov 2009 10:51 am
“They are all the compelling reasons why we should appreciate Dr. Chee.”
Why the fcuk do we need to vote for Dr. Chee? There’s no point veering from one rotten apple to another. As far as I am concerned, Dr Chee has already damaged the reputation of the opposition substantially. Who knows, he may have been planted by the incumbents to make the opposition look bad. No way I am going to vote for SDP.
@ raxip on Fri, 13th Nov 2009 4:56 pm
You can keep your little niavety.
I see many others here who appreciates and positively commented my thoughts and contributions in TR bloggs.
The world is round and indeed NOT exactly round!!
raxip on Fri, 13th Nov 2009 4:56 pm
Dr Chee is a true patriot. He is fighting for Singaporeans and we love him. If SDP contest in my GRC, I will surely vote for them.
raxip on Fri, 13th Nov 2009 4:56 pm
For me at this moment, nobody is worst then those MIW. Anybody who is not wearing white contesting in my GRC will have at least 2 votes from my family of 3. The third person in my family is too young to vote. We are voting to safe guard his future otherwise in 10 years’ time, he would be a slave in his own country.
Cheese
You are grossly mistaken about the context of my comments regarding the CPF. Maybe you should read fully and digest them first. That way, it’ll be more meaningful to engage in any further conversation ?
I was referring to the manner in which the scheme is being operated. I wasn’t talking about the fiduciary ownership involved, or capital appreciation instruments applied by the CPF, etc. Stricly it was just to show readers here the sources of inflow and outflow of funds and how they are being applied, and linking it to great similarities to how a ponzi scheme actually works, that’s all. I hope you are clearer on this now.
In fact, I have written several pieces to explain further in details on this model, and highlighted the danger which it entails. If it is in your further interest, you may want to back-track a little and scroll through to locate some of these comments I made.
Regards.
@Anon, Jim and Fair & square
The debate on whether FTs should be here on PRs or PEPs, or that if net net they add to singapore is a VERY VALID ISSUE but ultimately does not address the crux of the problem.
My opinion (not fact) is that taken from a sovereign nation’s perspective we definitely NEED some immigration balance out the demographic trends and build some form of critical mass for a domestic economy.
However, it is clear that the current implementation of that policy has be inadequate to say the least. Whether the extent of the which our labor markets have been exposed is warranted – is another matter entirely.
Putting the immigration, fair labor competition and labor rights issues aside, why i believe we have all missed the point is that we why we find ourselves in this situation.
I believe that examining how policy making is influenced is key.
Economists, political scientists, sociologists will agree that at the end of the day its the individual incentives that drive human decision making, it is only when we look at WHY our policy is designed as such then can we address the HOW to extricate ourselves from the situation.
Humans are funny creatures, the more educated we become the more we would like to believe that there is some abstract moral compass/ethical standard that we all should aspire towards.
But when it comes to actual decision making we are almost always selfish to a fault.
Building on the assumption that decision making is inherently selfish, when you have a situation where decision makers know that they will not/cannot be held accountable it is reasonable to presume that this lack of accountability will be abused, perhaps not consciously – again we human are very good at creating justifications for our actions(in the same way i am now creating a justification for my assumption).
Take the recent banking crisis for example, the knowledge that bankers had that they were too big a risk to the greater economy to be allowed to failed created a massive moral hazard, where private risk taking was underwritten by public resources.
“Heads i win, tails you lose”
Now extrapolate that concept of moral hazard to policy making when the policy makers themselves have vested interests and no fear of political checks and balances.
As it stands the justification for high salaries is GDP growth, it is only reasonable that all other concerns will be secondary to that holy grail. There certainly isnt such a clear dichotomy in reality but to say that such a relationship does not exist is likely naive.
This is even before we consider how closely linked our beaurocracy, political participants and corporate interests are tied. I have no intention on impinging on anyone’s integrity but basic corporate governance principles, nay, common sense would set off alarm bells at the possibly of tremendous conflict of interests.
I realize that the above makes a number of generalizations, but in the interest of not exacerbating our already bad myopia problem i have tried to keep it as short as possible.
A fairer democracy is no certainty of a better situation as evidenced by the ludicrous lobbying situation in the states, but on our current trajectory it is a matter of time before the proletariat say enough.
Cheese
If you are accounting trained perhaps you would understand what I am saying better.
Balance Sheet and P&L statements are static data attested at a certain point in time – the financial year end (whichever the date may be). These statements are tools which enable people to assess the financial POSITION of a company (or institution, etc) at the given time. Cash Flow statements, however, athough having a likewise attested date, are financial tools used by analysts to assess the financial CONDITION of such a company. It goes to show that they are more important of the two because in-depth analysis of cash flow statements would throw up the current health of such an entity, as well as warn of impending liquidity problems which it is likely to face in the ensuing year(s). The “layman” looks at the balance sheets and P&L, while the investor/shareholder is more concerned about its cash flow status.
A company may appear to be profitable on paper, but if it is having cash flow problems, such liquidity squeeze, if occurring on a protracted basis, would bankrupt the company. On the other hand, a company may not be profitable, but if it has good cash flow it can continue to exist as long as positive cash flow is maintained year in and year out.
My allegory of linking CPF to the ponzi scheme is to show the fund’s cash flow management and highlight the potential danger that is involved with any ponzi scheme.
I hope that makes it very much clearer to you now.
Now, pension fund is a totally different thing from CPF. A pension fund is a sinking fund, an accrual accounting system only. The contributor is usually a single benefactor. And the money may either be actually there sitting pretty in the bank or it may rests elsewhere according to the policy of capital deployment of the benefactor. Again, as a cash flow management system, upon payment time, the benefactor may sell certain assets to pay out to its recipients or it may just draw down on its bank surplus to pay out. All these are part of money management according to the benefactor’s priorities.
One should not be confused with pension fund and CPF funds (which is a national savings institution) as they are very distinct in constitution.
Time for Change on Fri, 13th Nov 2009 5:23 pm
raxip on Fri, 13th Nov 2009 4:56 pm
Dr Chee is a true patriot. He is fighting for Singaporeans and we love him. If SDP contest in my GRC, I will surely vote for them.
You cannot use ‘we’ as you do not represent the whole of Singapore.
quss13
Very well said.
May I add that the physchology of the human species under the microscope is also very interesting.
Their behaviourial patterns are very different when acting as an individual as opposed to when they are in a group. If you are in the depth of organisational behaviourial (OB) studies you would instantly agree. The concept of “herd instinct” is very real. The people in the marketing line are aware of this and they use it to maximum effect. For example, if you see a group of people looking up to the sky and staring at it, undoubtedly your instinct will command you look up too. There you are! But if a single person would to do that, in all probability you wouldn’t even have bothered isn’t it? Marketing people make use of this herd mentality by getting people to crowd round a promotional item to draw in curious onlookers, etc. and such other tactics.
But getting to the core, the human specie is also an animal. The only difference is that we are higher up on the chain of intellectual consciousness. But the basic survival instinct is still latent in us, and self preservation is always the top priority. I mean if there is a fire in your neighbourhood you would want to ensure your own house is safe first before attending to your neighbours’ isn’t it ? That’s why to the power that be the ministers’ salaries comes first and then your salary next !
Jim
We herd like sheep i say
It is precisely because of our inability to exercise objective decision making that institutions separate from the the beaurocracy, body corporate and political parties need to be created to ensure that the constitution is respected.
Of course this presumes that the constitution reflects the citizens desires and places their interests at the forefront in the first place.
The harsh reality such a situation is just a utopian ideal that does not exist and will likely have its own issues, but to look towards it as an framework for accountability is realistic.
This is not a modern problem, I’m no expert but I’m certain such issues have been discussed before in the ancient greek republics.
@ qussl3 on Fri, 13th Nov 2009 6:02 pm
Your thoughts from a decision-analysis viewpoint is appreciated. I see our problems stems from what Charles Lindblom criticised nearly 40 years ago – it is “the science of muddling through” that is no longer appropriate in today’s context of turbulent environment of nearly incomprensible change and near total environmental illiberality. Decision-making and environmental “mess” is far too complex
http://www.d.umn.edu/~schilton/3221/LectureNotes/3221.RationalityVsMuddlingThrough.2003.Spring.html
The muddling through relied on autocratic rule – operation spectrum and operation coldstore are good example. Nobody is right except us and nobody got “better rationality” than us ( all dissenting viewed ruthlessly oppressed and destroyed even violently of politicl behaviour – the so-called 44 good years of “success” is all FICTION of course.
Hence the incredible mess we found ourself in – economy on knife’s edge needing restructuring, population economic and migration policy in turmoil and the country and political leadership lost in direction of STRATEGY GOING FORWARD.WE ARE A MUDDLED LOT MUDDLING THROUGH THE MESS LIKE A ZOMBIE NOT KNOWING WHERE OUR SURVIVAL AND SALVATION IS – pretty tragic I would say.
BUT ALL THAT IS ANOTHER THREAD OF DEBATE.
The issue on hand in this thread is migration. PR or PEP. I believe the failures and damaging consequence caused to our society has its root in that immigration relying on massive sudden influx on the quiet had been hijacked by an undisclosed political agenda. There was NO PUBLIC CONSULTATION NOR DISCUSSION RAISED INSIDE PARLIAMENT AND THERE WERE NO INFRASTUCTURE SET UP to select, qualify and quantify how much to take, who to take and how that blend with our national economic strategy – IF WE EVER HAD A STRATEGY THAT IS WORKING.
The Economic Restructuring Committee recommendation in 2003 (?) was looking to Temasek Holding to spearhead our Singapore International Inc. After the Goodyear saga, it was abandoned due to “strategic differences”. One might be reasonably forgiven to think from these two words that “strategic thinking” has had a thorough re-evaluation before Goodyear came abroad and that MEANS THAT THE POLICY RECOMMENDATION OF 2003 ECONOMIC RESTRUCTURING COMMITTEE AT THAT POINT IN TIME IS DETERMINED TO HAVE FAILED COMPLETELY.
Having a failed economic strategy even BEFORE Goodyear’s arrival, WHY DID THE GOVERNMENT STILL RUSHING IN HUGE PLANE LOADS AND PLANE LOADS OF immigrants with NO THOROUGH SCREENING OF QUALITY AND IN COMPLETE DETACHMENT OF THIS KNOWN FAILURE AND ABANDONMENT OF ECONOMIC STRATEGIC DIRECTION??
Zhang Yuan Yuan with only a Diploma got her PR. She is NO EXCEPTION if the assessment criteria is so loose. And even if there is some semblance of quality check, it must be dangerously flaw of superficiality. A degree is good enough to get landed PR approved in principle!!!Oh my God, see how easy degrees are “bought” or secured in China even among prestigious universities. Sleeping around with professors and making of political donations can get a degree!! This is no exaggeration.
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20091112-179459.html
So the end result is NO ECONOMIC STRATEGY IN FOUNDATION AND A RECKLESSLY WILD ABANDONED IMMIGRATION POLICY IN PRACTICE.
How could that NOT lead to unanticipated housing shortage, employment loss for Singaporeans and social upheavels with PRs is given like a piece of toilet paper!
The PEP is much better There is t least screening of migration to match with labour market gaps. And those that came in had a suitable employment and future here WITHOUT DISPLACING SINGAPOREAN IN JOBS and create distress in housing crisis. Page 12 of Straits Times today “Britian tightening its immigration policy” is a case in point where MISMANAGED IMMIGRATION CAUSED HUGE DISLOCATION TO EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING SHORTAGES PUSHING UP COSTS OF LIVING FOR LOCALS.
The way it is done now of PR flood DOES A LOT OF DAMAGE TO SINGAPOREANS, PROVIDE TOO MUCH SUBSIDIES FOR FOREIGN PR in the short term BUT ALSO VERY DAMAGING TO THEM IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
Many PRs will be without jobs too, as industry here is destroyed by foreign competition of continual upgrading. The quality of migrants are so low that they TOO WILL BECOME ECONOMICALLY AND TECHNOLOGICALL IRRELEVANT IN A FEW YEARS.
That creates a tonne of problems for us NOW WITH AN OVERLOAD OF POPULATION but no jobs for Singaporeans and PR alike.
Of course, PR can leave anytime BUT THAT CREATE OTHER PROBLEMS FOR US. Excess infrastructure overbuilt and underutilised! Housing ghosts in empty apartment, excess supply driving price collapse and killing Singaporeans stuck with high mortgages. And when economy rebound, they flooded in again. Housing shortages will exaggerate the BOOM-BUST CYCLE FOR SINGAPOREANS. ANOTHER ECONOMIC AND HOUSING NIGHTMARE!!!!
TheGovernment should convert all PR into PEP within 2 years to cut out excessive subsidy. If we can commit permanency to foreigner PR and they are unwilling to commit a future with us – then WE ARE AN ABSOLUTE FOOLS FOR THE TAKING. How long can Singaporeans tolerate this nonsense – of a one way commitment and generosity????????
After 2 years , if PR won’t commit change it to PEP with option for citizenship and if they decline cancel their stay. WE CANNOT HAVE PASSENGERS OF CONVENIENCE LEECHING ON OUR SOCIETY FOREVER AND AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR MISERIES.
ANYONE DISAGREE WITH ME???????????????????
@ Anonymous on Fri, 13th Nov 2009 5:19 pm
You can keep your little niavety.
I see many others here who appreciates and positively commented my thoughts and contributions in TR bloggs.
The world is round and indeed NOT exactly round!!
Well well well, it’s kinda ironic for you to use the word ‘niavety (SIC)’ on me when it is coming from the same mouth that suggests Dr Chee is the silver bullet to our problems.
@ Time for Change on Fri, 13th Nov 2009 5:23 pm
Dr Chee is a true patriot. He is fighting for Singaporeans and we love him. If SDP contest in my GRC, I will surely vote for them.
A true patriot won’t go to such lengths to smear the opposition and get himself into trouble. Granted, most of the troubles were initiated by MIW but going to other countries appealing for their presidents to do something about our Little Red Dot smacks of desperation and stupidity. Does he have little faith in the ability of Singaporeans to fix our problems? Is he doubting my intelligence that I can’t differentiate between the truth and PAP hogwash?
@ L on Fri, 13th Nov 2009 5:47 pm
For me at this moment, nobody is worst then those MIW. Anybody who is not wearing white contesting in my GRC will have at least 2 votes from my family of 3. The third person in my family is too young to vote. We are voting to safe guard his future otherwise in 10 years’ time, he would be a slave in his own country.
I understand where you are coming from. However, does voting in Dr Chee help to magically solve our problems? In fact, I want to ask, is Dr Chee the best opposition we can vote in? It’s amazing that some people’s opinions of Dr Chee borders on idolatry when there are other opposition members/parties that talk less but do more. Perhaps it’s just me but I am sick of hearing about the lack of human rights, press freedom, judiciary independence in Singapore. Frankly, I can’t give two hoots about these if I can’t even feed myself. In other words, talk more about economic policy, not about high-falutin ideals.
@ Jim, Fair and Square and Qussl3
As for as I can reasonably extrapolate – I see the whole immigration policy, in its present form, IS A COMPLETE SHAM AND FAILURE.
The risks of overpopulation and dysfunctional ill-effects have NOT be thought out – the most obvious one is the housing crisis and property speculation. Can’t imagine paying over $653,000 just for a 4 room HDB except those who can afford of capital outlay but that purchase perhaps ECONOMICALLY IRRELEVANT to Singapore development. And the costs to Singaporean young couple seeking a first home – NIGHTLY NIGHTMARE OF SLEEPLESSNESS OF WHAT ODDS ARE STACKING AGAINST THEM OF HOLDING AND BUILDING A FAMILY. It take a few hundred very rich migrants bidding up recklessly to wreak havouc in our housing sector. And the impact hitting maybe 100,000 aspiring home owners.
Without the security of housing, where the place to nest a family and make babies??? The migration policy, now in place, is SELF-DESTRUCTIVE OF ITS OBJECTIVE OF INCREASING THE POPULATION.
What is more. Increasing GDP by population increase DO NOT INCREASE IN ANYWAY ECONOMIC WELL-BEING OF SINGAPOREANS.
The foreigners, even though not completely displacing Singaporeans, will in employment EARN INCOME ADDING TO GDP statistics.
IT IS SALARY, CPF CONTRIBUTIONS THAT ACCRUED AND BENEFITING ONLY FOREIGNERS.
Singapore gains by some tax revenue from income tax. But that is about all. Short-term PRs are unlikely to commit to big enduring spending (except perhaps speculating in property purchase as they are the ones driving THE EARLY demand),so other than rent and food, they probably remit most of their savings back to where they come from just like Philipino maids. They have families overseas to support and that is understandable.
BUT FOR SINGAPORE, THERE IS A LEAKAGE OF MULTIPLIER EFFECTS, so not much consumption benefit accruing to Singapore.
And what we spend on these PRs? Besides medical and educational subsidies, WE NEED TO SPEND BILLIONS AND BILLIONS (depending on size of PR intake) ON INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT all of which cannot be recoup at all.
Whatever hoped for economic benefit dissipated through savings these PR remit abroad, or high costs of living here. Migration disrupt our society, dislocate our employment prospects AND MOST DAMAGING OF ALL AGGRAVATE OUR COSTS OF LIVING IN CONDITIONS OF UNEMPLOYMENT.
If population is the key to our survival, can anyone tell me HOW ARE WE EVER GOING TO COMPETE WITH COUNTRIES WITH BIGGER POPULATION LIKE CHINA, INIA, INDONESIA, NIGERIA, POLAND, MALAYSIA AND EVEN SOUTH KOREA.
We WILL NEVER CATCH UP WITH THEM – imppossible in 10 GENERATIONS EVEN.
This is flawed stupid economic rationalisation to cover political agenda.
And if the population growth is the key, then every country WILL BE BEGINNING FOREIGNERS TO COME INTO THEIR COUNTRY. Is this happening?? And why China is NOT taking foreigners – EVEN HIGHLY SKILLED FOREIGNER to innovate their economy and compete with USA and EU??
They know the inherent VERY LIMITED relevance and use of immigration to grow their economies and that is through HIGH QUALITY IMMIGRATION INTAKE POLICIES, not like our toilet paper handout approach now.
The downside for us?
Oh, very simple. A nightmare of generations to come of massive unemployment if recesssion hits badly in a world o much slower economic growth, SEVERE RESOURCES CONSTRAINT, carbon-constraint costs world, frequent economic upheavel, over-stretched infrastructure and facilities, and worse still a city so densely packed impossible of military defence in wartime crisis – IN A LITTLE RED DOT WITH NO RESOURCES AND NO POSIBILITY OF EXPANDING ITS PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES.
We could NOT do worse than escalating recklessly a migration influx of no quality control matched to DEFINED ECONOMIC STRATEGY NEEDS which we cannot yet establish and uncertain of future success of such a strategy even if adopted of designed by the Economic Restructuring Committee.
IT HAS TO GO BACK TO THE PEP ROUTE.
We are heading down the suicidal path.
Don’t you all think so too????
@ raxip on Fri, 13th Nov 2009 8:47 pm
You have NOT have one positive contribution on this thread except abusing others. And your language in first post to me…
…”Why the fcuk do we need to vote for Dr. Chee” EVIDENT your sickly depraved background, perhaps coming from the University of fcukology. How can you be intelligent uterance of any reasoned thoughts other than swearing profanities here when your language vacabularly is so deficient.
And then proceed to lecture L to ” In other words, talk more about economic policy..” – IT IS THE ULTIMATE PERVERSION OF YOUR THALLIUM THOUGHTS. I will bet that if L starts writing about economics, you would be clueless.
And if you got any dust between your ears, try explaining this economic stuff below of tremendous financial advantage to you if you know what it all means.
http://www.azureminerals.com.au/reports/LaTortugaDrillResults-5May09.pdf
Interpret for TR readers what is the prospects like of making money ( in your words “about economics”) in this business opportunities.
I just like to see how smart or really niave you are to be so intellectual when it is only dessicated coconut between your ears -I am sure of this.
@quss13,Anonymous
THANKS FOR SHARING YOUR THOUGHTS.
under the present circumstances,i lean towards Anonymous’s
idea of PEP,it’s not a surety but at least there is more ultimatum for foreigners to show GENUINE commitment.
As Anonymous points out,locals in aggregate have pumped into
our system over many long years and now,we have to share that
contribution with newcomers.Don’t get me wrong ,i am no xenophobic but i think that the gahmen NEED NOT rush into
every “well conceived” policy when we are in the midst of a global meltdown and our own citizens are to me unfairly displaced by employers to “make way for cheaper(?) labour.
If PR POILCIY is based on the premise that “foreign talents create jobs for Singaporeans;i have no probelm if words are honoured by ACTIONS.Indeed,if tht be the scenario,i would even embrace it for it’s a plus(an injection ) to our economy.
In nett effect,as the POLICY has so far been implented,it suggests status quo or worse,create another BIG social and economic problem for the coutry and its local citizens.
Not just the displaced worker is affected but his family to a great extent…poverty,loansharking,family break-ups etc…these are non-quantifiable but they add to SOCIAL COSTS
for our nation(read economy).
By all means,if when our economy picks up and there are enough
jobs to go around,welcome the foreign workers but as of now,
keep to your words,by making sure that FTs(LIKE ENTRPRENEURS,RICH INVESTORS AND OTHERS) do create jobs for singaporeans.
@Anon
I’m in broad agreement with you on how poorly the FT policy has been implemented and how the almost total lack of consultation has only made us singaporeans feel like we’ve been taken for a ride.
I do however believe that balancing the demographic trends necessitates some immigration, and that such immigrants should be subject to much more stringent screening – similar to the PEP route that you outline. My understanding of the PEP being employer initiated and that the FT in question possesses a high value skill set.
The impact on our open door policy for both labor and capital coupled with easy credit (thank you OCBC for playing that ad incessantly) has been a major contributor to spiking asset prices, so much so that i personally have chosen not to look for a place of my own and extend my bachelorhood until i have enough to emigrate, i have little intention on becoming a debt slave in the current inflated property environment. When the bust comes i may reevaluate again then.
All i can really say is that the reason why people like us spend so much time and effort venting here is just symptomatic of how impotent we feel with regards to our ability to have a voice.
@Raxip
In this respect i applaud Dr Chee, his methods may smack of desperation and frankly also puts singapore in a bad light on occasion, but HE HAS BALLS, more balls than i do at least.
I think those that criticize him fail to consider this man has 3 kids and is sticking their futures on the line for what he considers are political ideals worth sacrificing for.
I may not agree with his methods or policy (does he even have a coherent economic policy portfolio lol), but if it wasnt for brave/foolish/idealistic people like him and other opposition leaders we would really be a truly silent majority.
Yes, i agree alot of what Dr Chee has done in also for his own self interest and that he is no noble martyr but who are we to criticize him when he is willing to put his and his families future on the line, while we sit behind our screens sniping at each other.
We singaporeans need to stick together the more we bicker the easier it is for the powers that be to exploit us.
Jim on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 5:54 pm
“……The CPF thing is a real life “ponzi” scheme – they take from the present generation to pay off previous generation, and vice versa form the future generation to pay off our generation. We are, in fact, living at the expense of our future generations in this respect…..”
So, do we increase the population in order to pay the upcoming senior citizens? What about 10 years later? Do we still continue to increase even more of the population just to pay those due to receive the Cpf in 10 years time? how many times can we do this over and over again? Btw, who started all this cpf policy?
I love the author of this article.
Aiyoyo
The CPF scheme was inherited by the PAP administration in 1959 from the previous administration of Lim Yew Hock (and he from David Marshall who was our first Chief Minister, who in turn, probably inherited from the British administration), I think it had a different name originally.
However, back in the good old days the contribution rate was very very low (I think the combined contribution rate was less than 5 % and its original constitution was a pension fund). It was only in the mid 70’s that LKY increased it by 3 or 4 times because he wanted people to own their HDB flats instead of renting them (which was initially the case), and this was the instrument used to finance such housing. You would have thought LKY was very kind ? Think again. At that time everyone who purchased their HDB flats could only use one law firm, and that was Lee & Lee (do you know whose firm this is?). This dirty practice continued for a good many years. It’s not difficult to calculate how much money Lee & Lee made during this period (at a time when there was not a single opposition member in Parliament)?
It was only in 1981, I think, that JB Jeyeretnam won the Anson constituency seat in a bye-election that an opposition member was voted into Parliament since the early 60’s when the last few who did walked out and resigned en bloc to protest against the PAP’s crackdown by imprisoning some of their party members (Barisan Socialist Party). Upon entering Parliament Jeyeretnam questioned the policy on why the HDB had only relied on using just one law firm, and why Lee & Lee for that matter. Following this, the HDB subsequently appointed a panel of lawyers (I think 4 or 5) from which purchasers could chose to represent them. This was the single most important achievement and contribution made by Jeyeretnam on behalf of the opposition which benefited all HDB purchasers because from then on a choice was given to them at last. The younger generation may not know it, but this is one of the several reasons why LKY is going for broke to demolish Jeyeretnam at every opportunity that is available. So do you still think LKY’s administration is that clean after all (despite his claim that they are as white as can be)?
To Jim on Fri, 13th Nov 2009 12:32 pm,
Really, I do think you are the one who is NOT “look at the situation in its entirety”
So what if the imported (you said 500k of them?) foreigners “prop up our economy”? At what cost, may I ask? To me, I would assume that’s probably the north of 450k jobs that would otherwise gone to a Singaporean to feed his/her Singaporean family, while still having to fulfill their national responsibilites
I have not even gone on to the scenario where most of your 500k foreigners might not be PR and hence no CPF contribution, and even if they are PR and contribute to CPF, they would still withdraw them after they have squeeze enough from Singapore. Then what? Import even more foreigners?
This is what I was asking in my other post:
“Saying that it is justifiable to import foreigners, only adds on to my worries, and from my understanding, it will only delay the (CPF) problems or shift it to another form (social, jobs, etc)”
Anyway from your posts, you seem to know more than I do about the “behind the scene” activities. So “what’s with the CPF? Are you implying that, after ever increasing the minimum retirement sum in our accounts, CPF board is still facing potential shortage? It may suggest that a big chunk has been spent (wasted?) and un-recoverable… this sure sounds bad. What about the many many folds of returns from those so-called government investment branches? Are those numbers fabricated then?”
@ qussl3 on Fri, 13th Nov 2009 10:31 pm
Yes, glad to hear you share my view. PEP – employer-initiated migration is the only viable route where employer vetted for quality check and suitability. And if that fails, then employer has to cancel PEP sponsorship. Because right now, the Government is anybody with a degree/diploma even if corruptly obtained in foreign countries walked in – in false hope of a great future for themselves and a continuiing burden once he or she fails here – THE CRITERIA bar here is set too low and no mechanism exists in Government ICA for rigorous stringent checks. Imagine Zhang Yuan Yuan can simply danced in and danced out!!
And yes, we need migrants to fill labour gaps – I agree with that, But NOT any cockcroach, spider or caterpillar can just creep in. And one wonders any check on security risks as well. Some might have criminal or medical history.
I know of PRCs in Argentina travelling on Argentine passport but still carry Chinese passport (illegal in China of dual citizenship) because of connections with the Chinese Communist Party. They owned “entertainment” outlets in China engaged in prostitution that is linked to underworld and corrupt police network. I know because I was brought to their business premises.Inside China, they are Chinese nationals and senior members of the Communist Party engaged in lucrative business. If things turn sour, they just fled on Argentine passport. When these people are linked hand-in-glove with the underworld figures and payback, they will bring in criminals abroad to sustain overseas business as well.
I don’t want to see Singapore turned into a criminal haven. I recalled a former Yunnam high official who is a PR in Singapore extradited back to his Province facing massive corruption trial.
So I would say PEP is the only sustainable route and a lot of tightening is required. Employers cannot simply “import” migrant as a business of human trafficking. After too many failed sponsorship for PEPs, his permit to recruit foreigners might be restricted. This forced them to be of serious quality check and consistent with our economic development needs – NOT HAPHAZARD THE WAY IT IS PRESENTLY.
Aiyoyo
Allow me to give you some historical perspective on the subject matter.
The CPF scheme was inherited by the LKY administration in 1959 from the Lim Yew Hock government (1956)(Labour Front), who in turn, inherited it from David Marshall (Labour Front) who in turn, also adopted it from the British when he was elected Singapore’s first Chief Minister in 1955 (there was no appointment of PM yet at that time). The Scheme was initially a pension fund with a different name originally.
When LKY took over the total contribution rates were very very low, not exceeding 5%. The PAP administration then started its massive revamp of the housing programme here changing the Singapore Improvement Trust and re-naming it as HDB. A lot of flats were built initially but these were rented out to Singaporeans. In early 70’s LKY embarked on a new programme of home ownership, and to finance this widespread programme he increased the rates of CPF contributions by more than 5 times so that Singaporeans could use this resource to purchase their HDB flats. Very kind of LKY you would say. Think again. At that time HDB required all purchasers of its flats to use only one law firm, and that was Messrs. Lee & Lee (do you know whose firm this is?). With the monopoly of it being the only legal firm to do all the conveyancing work for HDB flats can you imagine how much money Lee & Lee made during that period when Parliament was 100 % controlled by the PAP with not a single opposition member in the house?
It was only in 1981, I think, that JB Jeyeretnam got into Parliament by winning the Anson bye-election (this constituency has since been stripped apart by LKY to diffuse the concentration of opposition voters – this practice in politics is known as gerrymandering). When he got into Parliament JBJ voiced very strong opposition to HDB’s unhealthy practice of relying on only one law firm to do all its conveyancing services, and even at that, why Lee & Lee and not some other legal firm. Following this strong but pertinent challenge, HDB then scrapped this practice and since then onwards maintains a panel of 4 or 5 legal firms (of course, Lee & Lee remained as a member in the panel). Can you imagine what would have happened if this was in the US or UK ? This was JBJ’s single most significant and important contribution to opposition politics for the benefit of all Singaporeans.
The younger voting generation may not know it, but this was one of the reasons why LKY went for broke to ruin JBJ at every opportunity he could lay his hands on. So do you now still think LKY’s is white as snow and his administration is that clean as he has always proudly proclaim it to be so to Singaporeans and to the world ?
Singaporean parent
All employees working in Singapore, whether citizens, PR or immigrants, under work permit or employment pass, etc – they ALL have to make compulsory contributions to CPF under the CPF Act. No one escapes the dragnet.
Singaporean parent
Sorry I didn’t touch on your other comment regarding what the government did with our CPF money. That’s a very good question.
The operation of this scheme basically goes like this : The CPF is like a bank. You have a stream of depositors (CPF contributors) putting in money (CPF contributions) at regular intervals but at the same time there is another line queuing at the other end waiting to withdraw their money (CPF withdrawals). Follow me so far ? Now the bank takes the money (CPF contributions) and apportion them into a set of ratios according to their management objectives, taking into consideration the priorities between (i) the need to generate capital growth for the fund (through investments involving risks of varying degrees, but in the case of CPF, they are mostly vested in Singapore Government Bonds & Securities, and Treasury Bills, all of which give medium yield and are safe instruments – I can’t explain the details of all these as they are too lengthy to convey) and (ii) the need to maintain a steady and healthy cash flow (that is to ensure they have a sufficient float of cash to pay off the queue line at the other end). All this is done through a system of money management based on their current experience and their expectation of the near future through regular projections of their cash requirements.
Now, if the bank is deeply entrenched in long term investments, etc, their liquidity would be affected because they cannot convert such investments into cash readily. This portion must be sustainable at all times because it is the principal income generating source for the the bank from which it can afford to pay the depositors (CPF contributors) their yearly interest. You get the picture so far ? The remaining portion which is used for their daily cash flow (receiving and payment out) is the kitty we are worried about. If depositors (CPF contributors) are withdrawing more than they are putting in then, the bank is said to be faced with what is called a liquidity squeeze if it is of a temporary duration. If it is over a protracted period of time, then it is said to be having a liquidity problem (cash flow problems). There are 2 ways the bank can fund this shortfall in its daily cash need – (a ) to borrow from the capital markets, or (b) to liquidate part of its investments and convert them to cash. In alternative (a) the bank has to pay interests and in (b) it suffers from loss of income. If a bank has to reach this sad state of affairs it is said to be poorly runned and its management incompetent.
In essence the operation of our CPF is something like that. The decrease in our population (workforce) is like the decrease in depositors placing their money in the bank. And the increase in our pool of retirees is like the growing queue line of depositors waiting to withdraw their money from the bank.
I hope I have explained it very clearly in lay language to have answered your query and also calmed your anxiety in the process. Don’t worry, your CPF money is safe. Our government knows what they are doing. I need a drink.
Hey Jim,
So where does the capital of our sovereign wealth funds(TH & GIC) come from?CPF?
Anon
Glad you asked. And a very good question indeed.
Firstly, on the subject of Temasek and GIC. These are sovereign funds, i.e. the capital and resources (principal plus income or capital gained) in these funds belong to the country (the government of the day only manages them, it does not own them). The capital that is put into these funds comes from government sources through the Ministry of Finance. They may be apportioned from the many Singapore Government Securities and Bond issues and Treasury Bills that are regularly tendered out (through the Monetary Authority of Singapore) or from budget surpluses or from balance of payment surpluses, depending on how the government (ministry of finance) manages the country’s cash flow.
You might want to ask why does the government need to issue all these securities and bonds and treasury bills now and then. This is done so that it can maintain its monetary and fiscal policies, and to provide for liquidity in the capital or secondary markets. Banks shuffle between holding various proportion of their assets in these instruments regularly to meet minimum statutory liquidity requirements between reporting periods (fortnightly).
Secondly, on the subject of CPF. The funds (capital) come from contributions by employees and employers combined. The government (represented by CPF Board which manages the funds) is only a stakeholder and manager. They do not own a single dollar in the fund. The CPF contributors are the beneficial owners. However, the government derives the benefit of possession of these funds as part of it can be invested into the securities and bonds or treasury bills as mentioned above, the proceeds of which they can use to fund development projects.
Anon
Sorry I missed that part you queried whether CPF funds are invested into Temasek or GIC. The answer is no. Both these sovereign funds have longer term objectives and their risks portfolio is not in line with the governing constitution of the CPF fund as laid down in the CPF Act.
But if you were to talk in indirect terms of a round robin trip I guess you can technically say that some CPF funds may find their way into any of the 2 sovereign funds viz., when the proceeds of CPF’s investments in government securities are used by them to finance Temask or GIC. However, these are seperate transactions per se.
anon on Sat, 14th Nov 2009 1:52 am
Hey Jim,
So where does the capital of our sovereign wealth funds(TH & GIC) come from?CPF?
I really want to know the answer to that as well.
Jim you’re like a singaporean history encyclopaedia.
Is it possible the CPF is possibly experiencing a lquidity squeeze? Thier annual report given my limited understanding suggests that that the cash contributions (contribution credited for the year) now greatly exceeds cash payouts (withdrawals net of refunds), so where is the liquidity squeeze?
Also investment income covers costs and contributions comfortably resulting in a surplus (Which goes into the Government Consolidated Fund managed by GIC right?).
Ofc when demo trends reverse then this will def change but as of now that isnt the case right? Am i reading anything wrong?
Thanks
Ok sorry ignore my previous post just saw the cash flow statement, CPF is leaking cash to the tune of 1.27B in just 2008, with just 890 mil in cash and near cash equivalents.
From 150+mil in 2005 to 7.7B in 2006 to 2.1B in 2007 in cash and near cash equivalents, WTF is going on.
NOT FREAKING FUNNY.
@@Jim…………
Your comment is lack of logic. I do not agree. Everything said are hypothetical and they are out to pull wool over the reader’s eyes.
So we need to get our present generation’s contribution to meet the old generation’s payout. You make something complicated sound so easy. Money collected by CPF is stagnant and vanish overnight. Should our government source for your investment expertise? Fat hope.
Of course it would be ideal if the present generation’s CPF meets the old generation’s CPF payout, that way we don’t have to deplete collected monies. Need be, we can deplete the country’s saving and still meet every cents of payout. We are definitely not in any dire straits.
We definitely did not bring in PR in desperation to meet CPF’s payout.
The purpose of PR is to pre conditioned these people to be assimilated into our society and eventually make them citizens and not perpetually remaining as PR. It is incidental that their assimilation co incidentally meet the CPF’s payout without depleting saving. Stop making mountain out of molehills.
There is one other reason for the high influx of foreign labour and that is to keep wages down and this has been quite successful. Wages are not only down but in certain jobs, are even lower than before. Foreign labor are no longer limited to construction sites (jobs that locals do not want to do) but are found in restaurants as chefs and waiters,department stores as sales staff, buses as bus drivers, factories as floor managers and supervisors, coffee shops as ‘tiger beer’ girls and many other places, GETAI as singers, in hotels as front-line staff i.e in jobs that Singaporeans WANT to do. And the reason is obvious; they are prepared to work at wages much lower (Not just lower but much lower) than Singaporeans have been getting.
If I am the employer I will employ them too; cheaper, younger, prettier, work longer hours. No need to speak other languages as Singaporeans will only grumble but cannot do anything about it. I would have employed the Singaporean if I do not have a choice but now that foreign labor can be used,why bother.
The question then is why can’t the Singaporeans accept lower wages too? Certainly if they cannot find a job they should bite the bullet as well. But there is one big difference. To the foreigner from China, a job that pays $600 a month as a waiter in the coffeshop or say $1000 as a bus driver is a big improvement from where they come. Send the money home and it can feed an entire family. While in Singapore they live in rooms with 4 to 6 in a room.Never mind the discomfort; it is still better than back home.
But for the Singaporean how much can $600 or even $1000 buy. At $20 a day he can just barely look after himself if housing is disregarded. At $30 he can look after his mother as well, maybe. What we are asking the Singaporean to do is to adjust to a lower quality of life ( live and work longer hours like the chinese here) and to lower his aspirations( accept lower wages). But is this what we have voted in a government to help us to do? Isn’t it the government’s duty and responsibility to uplift the living standards of all Singaporeans. Yes we have nice HDB flats, good transportation, clean and tree-lined parks, high GDP but to those whose jobs have been taken away, or lucky enough to earn $600 to $1000 a month, how much do these mean to them?
Keeping wages low seems to be a cornerstone of the governement’s foreign labor policy? More and more Singaporeans will be displaced as the government keeps its objective of achieving high growth as more and more foreign labor will have to be imported.
Today’s solution (i.e import labor to bring wages down) will be a problem 10 years to 20 years from now. Just as the government’s 2 child policy years ago which was so successful has brought about the problem of low population growth today. And this is for a government that suppossedly plans ahead.
Smalltimer
I am sorry I will not be replying to you. Please excuse me for that. This is because i think you did not understand what I was saying (do not be mistaken, this reply is not meant to insult you in any way).
The better informed and more discerning readers out there certainly didn’t think that I was pulling wools over people’s eyes as you have suggested. It was just my honest effort in offering some explanation (in rather simplistic and, perhaps, aleegorical way) in response to queries by some serious readers. I have nothing to gain or lose in spending a little time sharing my humble knowledge with other concerned Singaporeans that’s all.
It’s ok to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion.
Yeah Johnny.
The only beneficiary of the high growth is PAP ministers.
The funny thing is all the pain that Singaporeans suffer to take it these fts to construct buildings and hotels and what no might cause them even more pain in the future if nobody wants to use the services in the new hotels, buildings etc because there is really nothing more attractive about these hotels as compared to the ones in HK or Shanghai.
When the property market falls because of that, every ordinary Singaporean will get shit.
johnny wong
You are very correct to have made that observation. Your points are very pertinent and very reflective of the current situation.
The government’s concern has always been to ensure that we remain competitive in the face of the global shift in the way business is being conducted. We have to in order to stay relevant and ensure own own continued eeconomic survival. This shift is a process happening for many years now and it involves not just the movements of workers across international borders due to wage differentials (as you have mentioned) but also to the physical movements of industries as well. At times industrial production in various countries have been relocated now and then to other countries where production costs are lower (cost differentials). And at other times when it is cheaper to commission production facilities in some other countries to do it for you at a cheaper price than you can for the same quality. This is what the term outsourcing means, and it is based on the prinicple of what is known as “comparative advantage”.
Coca-cola was one of the pioneers who did this when they opened up production facilities in China nearly 20 years ago. Today, a lot of American companies are there. Most of the branded designer labels are manufacured on Chinese soil. A lot of their end products are then shipped back to the States for distribution or re-distributed through trans-shipment, etc. This is the reason why China appears to be one of the US’s largest creditors, if not, its biggest. This big debt is not actually a debt in the term as we know it. It’s just an accounting treatment arising from collating statistical returns. Let me explain. Coca-cola Inc sets up a subsidiary in China to bottle its drink. These are then exported back to its parents in the US. Such transactions would be recorded in China’s GDP as exports and goes into inflating the country’s economic statistics. In real terms the US does not owe China any physical money but its enterprises such as coca-cola are partly responsible for churning out the economic figures (GDP) for China and, as a result, helps in raising the standard of living there (as measured by GDP per capita basis). So can you imagine what would happen if all the industrial (and commercial) units belonging to foreign countries start pulling out of there ? China’s GDP would drop like a pin and its standard of living would be affected.
It is for this very reason our government wants us to remain competitive so that foreigned owned industries do not pull out from the Republic. And one of the tools is, as you have mentioned, to keep labour costs competitively low, as otherwise we would price ourselves out of the global market. Already as it is, alarm bells are ringing. Major global shippers such as Maesrk Lines and Evergreen Lines are pulling our their operations from PSA to PTP (Port of Tanjung Pelapas) in Johore and many others are in consideration doing so (e.g. Hanjin Shipping of S. Korea,) because PSA has overpriced itself and lost part of its competitiveness over the years. The real threat from PTP would be when Johore develops fully a hinterland with a full fledged secondary market to support the port’s operations. As it is, its own rival Port Klang (a port with much shallower waters) is now being re-designed to cater for this need.
You will remember LKY’s recent visit to Malaysia following Najib’s inauguration as its next PM. The press reported it as a familiarisation tour. However, the real objective was to gain insight into the phase of development at PTP and other areas of development which could fundamentally pull away much of the foreign investments already entrenched in our shores.
That is probably the reason why LKY fully supports Johore in the proposed Iskandar Project in the eastern part of the State. If this project becomes a reality, it would divert a lot of internal resources within Malaysia away from the continuing development of PTP. We have a very cunning leader in him you have to admit (even though as a political person he is rather “cruel” and and, at times, unjust and whimsical)
Hey Jim,
It seems that Singapore is too dependent on foreign direct investment just to remain competitive.Over the past few decades,Singapore government has done everything just to attract foreign investors,which generate GDP growth.Hence the social engineering,eg encouraged students to take life science so that international companies from pharmaceutical and research sector can hire these people to fill up the demand.And hence the depression of the wages.
Domestic economy is simply too weak in Singapore.If the government is not going to do something about it and if majority of MNCs were to hollow out of Singapore,the economy will collapse.
What do you think,Jim?
to my simple mind and gut-feeling,this whole grand excercise
no mattter it is being discoursed here or elsewhere is going to
make the poor singaporeans poorer…wait and see 4-7 years down the road!
meanwhile,even as we pay foreigners(FTs,chef-like PRCs types @hawkers centres)cheaper salaries,it’s only a short boost to greedy employers’s coffers,NOT to the nation(economy).
we are all cheated!even the gahmen…the lower wages translate into a “withdrawal” from the system,UNLESS companies put the cost-savings into some kind of investments?
otheriwse,its’ merely a NETT savings and that’s actually a withdrawal mostly except for that part that went to the increased salaries and bonuses of those ah-so-clever bosses and their “cronies”.On top of that,the foreigners’ remittances
back to their homeland create an outflow naturally.
this is only a short term withdrawal.But come some years later,
when the SMARTER,SHREWDER THAN LOCALS FTs pack and go log stock
and barrel,it would be a SAD disaster,NOT ONLY FOR LOCALS but more so for the SMART PEOPLE in GAHMEN!
What -honestly-does out tiny republic has that a MUMBAI,SHANGHAI OR “MABUHAY” cannot have if they pcik up steam
in the rather near future?…the one thing that could have
salvage the whole “mess!” is actually our very own LT(local talents)-it’stime we ascribe some value to ourselves!-as we could in fact have been the thriving exporter of talents if not
for the contradcitory FT policy!RETRENCHED LTs could have in effect been the “pool of much sought after talents” for the region have they not been relegated to the lesser role of
“house-husbands” and hospital assistants and such other “under-employment”.
Oh!oh,oh,oh-ooo..sad movies..wait and see.
@ jim on Sat, 14th Nov 2009 10:46 am
The old mantra in the early 1980s were for Singapore to upgrade, move up the technnology ladder to higher wages economies as competition from lower costs producers increasingly erode the competitive strength of our labour intensive assembly-type industries. Well wages did gone up BUT ALL OTHER INPUTS ALSO GOES UP INCLUDING LAND DEVELOPMENT CHARGES etc. WE moved up into the high wage-high costs economic structure.
Now the climb down with lower labour costs of foreign labour see our economies STUCK AT OTHER INPUT REMAINING IN THE HIGH COSTS STRATA., land costs, rentals, COE, ERP, PUBLIC HOUSING ACCOMODATION COSTS and Medical costs refusing to come down. This dislocated economy was badly managed without an opposition voice in Parliament to kick arses when arses should be kicked really hard to excretion.
Singaporeans are trapped of irrelevant new economic realities and dumb fools still talked of 44 good years without shying to admit it is good for the MIW in particular. As if the MIW did such a fantastic job of GDP growth when most of this GDP goes into the wallet and banking accounts of GLC and foreign investors. We are just digits in the process of generating GDP no longer wanted.
And the Government now lost in direction of resolving dilemma of its incompetency by flooding this place with migrants to create a small domestic market to give some semblance that Singapore exists more than a little cog in MNC production process and GLC incompetent of competing outside Singapore.
@@jim………..
R u sure most of our CPF’s monies are only parked within our border in Singapore Government Bonds & Securities, and Treasury Bills and not offshore?
CPF being a national reserves is contorted into becoming a bank’s deposit. You surely taken your own personal view of looking at things and speak with assumed authority. By bringing a bank analogy gives you ammunition to further bend and make stories. If what you said is true then our CPF can end up like Lehman Brothers and Singapore can thus be a bankrupt and unable to pay its citizen therefore our sycophantic government is doing us a big favor by bringing more PR to pronzi around. You are tickling me so badly with so much distortion and aloofness that I m rotflmao.
Show some proof that our government is so in debt that the only way to supplement payback is through recruiting PR.
No doubt you are well informed but you are not informing well.
smalltimer
Your last line is very well written.
However, only that line deserves some mention for credit. Your comments preceding that do not carry any rational thoughts. I think you should look at CPF’s annual statements and study the financial details first before you jump to any conclusion or engage others in discussions of a financial nature.