TR EMERITUS

Written by Our Correspondent In a sign that elections may be called anytime soon, the ruling party has updated the registers of voters again for the second time within a year to include the new immigrants who took up Singapore citizenship last year. The revision will enable the names of new voters to be entered in the appropriate registers. There were 20,153 new citizens in 2008 and their names have already been included in an earlier update in February last year. The present revision will include new citizens in 2009, whose numbers is not known yet. Faced with a potential voter backlash over some of its misguided policies, the ruling party has been desperately trying to shore up its support base by "persuading" PRs to take up Singapore citizenship. According to unverified feedback from the ground, some PRs are not having their status renewed - they were told in no uncertain terms either to become Singaporeans or returned to where they came from. As new citizens will most likely vote for the ruling party, the increase in the number of new citizens will dilute support for the opposition. The ruling party has gone out of its way to woo the newcomers including PRs. A mega $10-million Community Integration Fund was unveiled last year to make the immigrants feel "welcomed" in Singapore. New citizens and PRs are being roped into grassroots organizations which are described as "part of the PAP" by its strongman Lee Kuan Yew lately. No efforts were spared by the media to portray the measures taken by the ruling party to "integrate" the new citizens. Due to the ruling party's liberal immigration policies, foreigners now make up 36 per cent of Singapore's population, up from 14 per cent in 1990. Of the remaining 64 per cent who are citizens, an increasing number are born overseas. Assuming the average number of new citizens per year since 2006 is 20,000, they may contribute nearly 100,000 new voters in the next election, more than enough to sway votes in favor of the ruling party in closely fought contests. With few credible leaders in the opposition camp, the ruling party is likely to romp home to another electoral victory with or without the help of the new citizens.  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent Temasek Holdings' CEO Ho Ching will be getting a "special adviser" in former SGX CEO  Mr Hsieh Fu Hua. The appointment was announced internally to its staff this month. Mr Hsieh will serve on the Leadership Development and Compensation Committee and the Board Executive Committee and his role would involve supporting management 'in leadership development and talent management," said Temasek. Besides Mr Hsieh, Mr Michael Lien, grandson of the late Lien Ying Chow, the founder of Overseas Union Bank, joined the Temasek board last month as a member of the Audit Committee and the Leadership Development and Compensation Committee. It is not known if there are further leadership shuffles within Temasek in the near future. CEO Ho Ching was supposed to step down last year August and replaced by former BHP-Bilton CEO Chip Goodyear who pulled out last-minute due to "strategic differences" with the Temasek Board. When questioned in Parliament over the the fiasco, Finance Minister Tharman said revealing the reasons behind Goodyears' departure will not serve any "strategic purposes." Temasek has drawn flak from Singaporeans lately over a series of investment losses which saw its portfolio shrunk by nearly 30 per cent in the financial year ending March 2009 which includes the disastrous purchase of Merrill Lynch at a high price and selling it at a low only a few months later. According to both Temasek and the ruling party, Temasek Holdings is a "commercial entity" or "Asian investment firm" owned entirely by the Ministry of Finance (incorporated). As such, it is accountable only to the government and not the people of Singapore. It is not known where Temasek obtain its startup capital initially. Temasek Holdings has stakes in almost all the major companies in Singapore such as SIA, SingTel and Capitaland. The model was criticized by U.S-based political economist Professor Huang Yasheng in a recent speech made at the Civil Service College: “The private sector is the best way to grow the economy. It has the most productive, most innovative and entrepreneurial culture. The state-owned enterprise system doesn’t give you that….You are already hitting the wall. Retaining this strategy could mean sacrificing future growth that is possible only through a bigger, more dynamic private sector,” he said. He also questioned how the government can defend its decisions to invest in “failing individuals and projects”: “Nine out of 10 investment projects fail. Does the government have such a high tolerance for risk? It’s taxpayers’ money, right? I don’t think, politically, it’s legitimate for the government to keep investing in failing individuals and failing projects. How do you defend these decisions?,” he asked. Singaporeans should not be too concerned over recent leadership changes in Temasek Holdings or its recent investment losses. After all, the entire system is based on "trust" and there's nothing they can do except to "trust" the acumen of its CEO Ho Ching.  Read More →

By Hurr Riyahi After the release of the ESC's findings, I notice a big sigh of relief on the faces of the 66% of Singaporeans, the group that votes of PAP without fail. I hear them speak about how the government has put Singapore into a firm position to ride the post-financial crisis storm. They proudly claim the ESC has charted new directions that will take Singapore out of uncertain economic waters. How good will life be for Singaporeans if only that is real and true. During the post 1959, PAP had an economic vision for Singapore. They wanted to transform Singapore to become a manufacturing hub from one that was purely a services hub. They wanted to achieve this by luring foreign direct investments using cheap labour resources. That was a clear economic vision as the agenda clearly showed the type and number of jobs that can be created, the kind of investments that can be attracted and the type of economic transformation that Singapore will go through. By 1980s the vision started to crack. The PAP government swung into a new direction which was to develop its services and going into high value added manufacturing. Things started to get more tricky but this vision too has become too uncertain in recent times. The question now is what is the economic vision of Singapore. Are we going to be a services hub or manufacturing hub or both? What services and manufactuing industries are we going to focus on? Well propaganda machinese, arm chair bureacrats and sexy ST journalists may say we aleady have everything mapped out for the next 50 years. However what is clear is that Singapore does not have a long term economic vision. A couple of years ago, it was growing the country using immigration. That cant be a long term economic vision. Already it has failed even as a strategy as conceded by the government backed economists themselves. Currently the vision seems to be casino, pharmaceuticals, petrochemical and finance. That is more like strategies than economic vision. What is clear is that PAP is no longer able to come up with a long term economic vision. Singaporeans have to accept that. Part of the requirements of an economic vision is that it must show where are the newly created jobs in the longer term going to be. The kind of strategies for Singapore only shows some industries and its not something that all Singaporeans can rush into. Part of the requirements of an economic vision also includes a clear identification of how incomes are going to be generated. With many of the newly created jobs going to foreigners and lack of areas for Singaporeans to seek opportunities in, its very unclear how are all Singapore families going to generate income in long term. What is clear is only for some segment population and labour force. LKY claimed that income gap can be rectified if jobs are created. But there are jobs already being created currently and income gap only has widened. Going forth this gap will only widen further. What the PAP has instead of a longer term economic vision is a series of short term economic strategies stringed one onto another to make it appear its a long term vision. 66% of Singaporeans are naively watching this stringed rope of strategies with great relief and continued confidence as a rope that which they can hold on to. Its definitely a noose which offers no promise or security. In an era where we are seeing neighbouring economies such as Vietnam rapidly expanding, Singapore can be rest assured that it will one day become a case study of a rich country that started ahead but finished last with nothing.  Read More →