TR EMERITUS

Written by Our Correspondent In a speech made to a business community in Singapore, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong admitted that the Singapore government has learnt some "hard lessons" from the disastrous Suzhou Industrial Park  joint venture between China and Singapore in the 1990s which saw the Singapore consortium losing millions of dollars. SM Goh said it was not all "smooth sailing" for Singapore during the early years of doing business with China: "Many of our businessmen, especially in the early years, have had to learn hard lessons on the importance of guanxi ( connections) and the challenge of finding reliable partners.....The Suzhou Industrial Park venture provided practical lessons to the Singapore Government and civil servants on 'how best to have a productive relationship with China", he added. The China-Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP) was set up in 1994 at the outskirts of the Suzhou City in Jiangsu province with the help of Singapore funds and expertise. Singapore owned a 65% stake in the park. Even as the park was being constructed, the Suzhou City government set up Suzhou New District Industrial Park (SND) right next to SIP. It was the exact replica of the Singapore model. As the Suzhou City government had a majority stake in SND, it largely ignored the SIP and concentrated on promoting the SND instead. After incurring losses of some US$90 million over 5 years, the Singapore consortium lowered its stake to 35 percent, raising the Chinese consortium’s stake to 65 percent from 35 percent and reducing the Singaporean share from a planned 70 sq.km. to just 8 sq.km One year after Singapore lowered its stake, the park made its first profit of $3.8 million. Till today, it was not known how much money did Singapore lose exactly in its Suzhou misadventure. Singapore’s latest foray into China, led by the Ministry of National Development to develop an eco-city in the northern metropolis of Tianjing appears to be turning into another Suzhou nightmare too. A Singaporean, who has lived in China for over a decade and works for a company with close dealings with the Eco-City was quoted in an interview with the Straits Times as saying: “We may have another Suzhou Industrial Park tangle on our hands.” One problem which continues to plague the project as in Suzhou is the difference in priorities between local officials and the Singaporeans. Though the project has received strong support from the central government in Beijing, it is the provincial officials the Singapore team have to liaise with and many do not share the vision of their Singapore counter-parts. To the Tianjin officials who are there only for a short stint, they are desperate to produce quick results which will earn them promotions elsewhere. For example, while Singapore would like to have Housing Board-style public housing that will cater to low-income Chinese, Tianjin officials have been lukewarm to the idea because they worry over who will stump up the cash to subsidise the apartments. A Tianjin official apparently told his Singaporean colleague: “By the time the public housing project is completed, many of us Tianjin officials would likely be promoted elsewhere. Who would still be around to ensure that it is really the poor people who are relocated to this public housing estate?” Singapore appears not to have learnt its previous lessons from Suzhou – that written contracts count for little in business transactions in China and local officials are often more interested in securing promotions for themselves than the welfare of the people. Singapore's economic model is based largely on a state-capitalist system where its major companies are mostly controlled by the state via a gigantic sovereign wealth fund Temasek Holdings owned by the Ministry of Finance. In a recent speech made at the Civil Service College, US-based political economist Prof Huang Yasheng urged Singapore to “rethink” the “Temasek model” and warns that Singapore’s state management model has “milked this system for all it is worth.” “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. Prof Huang felt that governments should not get involved in venture financing as they are using taxpayers’ monies and questions 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. As in the Suzhou debacle, there was never a need for the Singapore government to defend its (dubious) decisions since Temasek Holdings is a "commercial entity" and the unique Singapore system is built entirely on "trust" and nothing else, to quote the words of Finance Minister Tharman.  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent Channel News Asia (CNA) is living up to its "reputation" as Singapore's  KCNA or "Korean Central News Agency" (of North Korea) by spinning stories on behalf of the PAP regime to promote "social integration" of the new immigrants of late, never mind if the story does truly reflect the reality on the ground. After sending a TV crew to film an Indian PR having reunion dinner with a Singapore Chinese family, the Malay community (or at least that of the People's Association) is roped in to lend some form of legitimacy to the nationwide effort to "integrate" the new citizens which has been foremost on the PAP's agenda. While in other countries, it is the immigrants who are expected to adapt to local culture and norms, it seems to be the other way round in Singapore. In October last year, the Ministry of Youth Development, Community and Sports unveiled a $10-million dollar Community Integration Fund to make the newcomers feel "welcomed" in Singapore, courtesy of Singapore taxpayers. According to a CNA report yesterday, the PA's Malay Activity Executive Committee Co-ordinating Council or MESRA has been making an active effort to "promote social cohesion in Singapore's multi-racial society" by putting up Malay dance and silat at community events. Malay dance and silat are items put up at community events by members of the People's Association Malay Activity Executive Committee Co-ordinating Council or MESRA. Mustaffa Abu Bakar, chairman, MESRA, said: "I think in a way, we have taken things for granted. We have been quiet and maybe we have to partake in the integration exercise by sending our tarian, our silat. But I think more needs to be done." How Malay dance and silat are going to help the newcomers from mainland China and India "integrate" into Singapore society is anybody's guess. Perhaps the PA is able to entice them to attend the events with free food and drinks after which they will simply leave with little or no interaction with the locals. 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. As too many foreigners are allowed into the country within too short a period of time, Singapore is now experiencing a grave problem trying to integrate them. Many of the newcomers prefer to mingle around within their own communities rather than to reach out to Singaporeans because there are already significant number of their compatriots in Singapore. In fact, certain parts of Singapore like Geylang now resembles more like cities in China than Singapore itself. It is little wonder that they don't feel out of place in Singapore. At the rate the ruling party is mass importing foreigners to replace native Singaporeans, it is only a matter of time before we become a minority in our own nation. CNA's reports are getting more and more "divorced from reality" that they are putting even KCNA to shame. Even the latest article from KCNA on Kim Jong IL's birthday being "observed" in various countries cannot be compared with this "masterpiece".  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent A 15 year old Singaporean by the name of Kenneth Lin has started an online petition against Singapore's strongman Lee Kuan Yew for his disparaging remarks on Singaporeans made during his interview with the National Geographic Magazine. He is currently studying in a secondary school in Singapore. Attached below is an email interview we conducted with him: Temasek Review: What are the reasons behind you starting the Facebook? Kenneth: As a Singaporean, I felt extremely insulted when our MM made those insensitive remarks. It shows that he is completely out of touch with the ground and shows no compassion for Singaporeans, who have been working hard their whole lives. I started this group because I am sick of him making comments like this and getting away with it. He has had his way for too long and now I think we should do something about it for a change, rather than keep quiet in fear.   Temasek Review:  What do you hope to achieve with it? Kenneth: I hope to raise awareness about what our MM has said hopefully, this will be a wake up call to Singaporeans who don't yet know the truth, that our MM only cares about himself and is not the caring leader as portrayed in our history textbooks. Temasek Review: Aren't you afraid of getting into trouble? Kenneth: As long as I believe that what I am doing is right, I will not stop doing it, even if I am a little afraid. I believe strongly in Justice. Temasek Review: MM Lee is widely regarded as the founding father of Singapore. It appears that you don't seem to think too much of him. What are your views about him? Kenneth: I used to admire him alot. That was before I watch the film One Nation Under Lee in Sec 2 when I learnt of what was really happening in Singapore. That film changed my opinion of him forever. That wise, righteous and heroic image of him that our education system teaches is non-existent, and what I found out was that he was a tyranical despot, bent on destroying anyone who opposed him and controlled the state media for his own greedy needs. But he wasnt always like that. Before he came into power, he was preaching about democracy and freedom to the then chief minister David Marshall. But eventually he got so obsessed with power and money that he lost control and changed forever. As the saying goes, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely", and I think he is a fine example of that quote.  Read More →