TR EMERITUS

作者：南洋視界11/02/2010 新加坡讯，一名中国学者认为，新加坡淡马锡模式无法维持经济的长期发展，建议新加坡加以反思。新加坡发行量最大的报纸英文海峡时报，今天刊载了有关的专访。 新加坡最近刚刚由经济战略委员会 (Economic Strategies Committee) 公布了经济重组的一系列建议。过去十年，新加坡遭遇了三次经济衰退，使得新加坡领导人进一步考虑新加坡未来的发展战略的问题。 这个由总理李显龙要求成立、财政部长尚达曼担任主席的委员会，上个星期建议政府，联手私营企业和基金经理，向新加坡企业投资高达15亿新元，协助他们成长，甚至持有这些企业的股份，海峡时报报道。 现为麻省理工学院教授的来自北京的学者黄亚生认为，国有企业模式是扼杀经济长期增长的东西。 黄亚生长期以来对中国牺牲国内企业而偏向国有企业的做法持批评观点。他同样对新加坡所谓的国家干预能帮助新加坡企业的成长，持怀疑态度。 他说，新加坡应该反思（rethink）淡马锡模式，他指的是新加坡投资旗舰淡马锡控股，这是新加坡一些大型企业的主要股东，如新电信和嘉德置地。 “私营企业是经济成长的最好模式，最具有生产力，最具创新和企业家文化。国有企业体制给不了你这些。” 他承认新加坡在全球采取这种方式的国家中，是“最具效率的国家管理模式”，但却已经榨干了这个体制所有的价值。 他警告说：“你已经在碰壁了。”维持这样的战略可能意味着牺牲未来的增长，这种增长只有通过一个较大的、更有动力的私人企业界才能产生。 当政府介入风险融资，他们可能得面临一大堆纠缠不清的问题。他估计，很少的纳税人可以承受资助科技起步公司的内在风险。 “十之八九的投资项目是失败的，政府对这样的风险有这样高的容忍度吗。这是纳税人的钱，对吗？政治上来说，我不认为政府投资于失败的个人和失败的项目是合理的。你要如何为你的决定辩护？” 投资于起步公司的人必须了解，风险是整个过程的一部分。“但是，一般新加坡人能理解这一点吗？” 即使项目成功了，其他棘手的问题也出现了。 “有关的企业家获得的好处不成比例。作为纳税人，为什么我要资助这些项目，我得到了什么，对政府来说，在政治和操作层面上，涉及一个基本的逻辑悖论。” 在其他多数国家，政府的资金往往投入到基础研究，而不是直接投入到商业应用。 “或许，对于政府来说，较好的方式是资助更多的研究，然后允许大学、私人投资公司、风险资本和富人其做余下来的事情。”因为即使国有企业有良好的管理，它也不会有和私人业界一样的创新精神。 “从科技发展的观点来看，你需要更大的私人企业界来竞争、来从事新的产品、工艺和技术，以更好地和印度及中国竞争。” 私人企业的情况，也适用于这两个亚洲的强国。2006年，金融时报的一篇文章中比较了这两个经济体，结论是，印度正在实现的较高级的经济增长，而接收的外资和中国比，只是很少部分。其中的差别就是国家对本地企业家的支持程度。 “经济的试金石并非一个国家能吸引多少外国直接投资，而是有一个商业环境，可以培育企业家，支持健康的竞争，以及相对少的政治干预。这方面，印度做的比中国好。” 他说，那些负责领导的公务员，常常缺乏创新思维。因为公务员文化是纪律，是执行，是效率。企业家文化是挑战权威、质疑现在的经商方式，背离程序和规范。那是非传统、反叛和多元化。这两种价值几乎是相反两极的。 他说：“我要明确地说，新加坡具有世界上最好的公务员制度，这是非常珍贵的资产。问题是，你是否要公务员在企业中扮演这样一个大的角色？” 他承认，在中国和印度的廉价劳动力崛起前，国有企业（政联公司）干得很不错，因为增长经济仅仅需要通过较高的效率提高产量。但是今天，挑战始终是创新。 “你能依靠政府资金来增加经济规模，但是当来到新产品、新工艺和新技术时，这就很难，这不只是钱。” 但是，国家干预的巨大阴影，已经让新加坡的企业家文化相形见拙，他说。新加坡“秩序化”的环境，不利创新思维。“每件事都组织得很好，企业家精神一般是在混沌的环境中出现的。” 他也不赞同有观点称，本地的企业太小，没有政府或政联企业支持，无法到国外竞争。 “这是一个非常奇怪的说法。微软在1975年是一间大公司吗？Google在1998年是一间大公司吗？” “关键是你是否能成长，你如何成长。如果政府支持是企业成长的要素，这证明公司没有经过竞争的检验，在不同的环境下还是会失败。” 更糟糕的是，“如果政府支持太强，就会稀释了对创新的激励。” 他说，小企业可以通过占领战略重点而极有竞争力。 “研究显示，压倒性的结果是，是小企业创造了新科技和新产品。大企业的创新只是收购小企业。” 所以，新加坡关键的问题在于，新加坡的大企业是否有足够多的小企业来收购？ 为了协助小企业的发展，他相信应该让本地企业家较容易地接触私人资金。中央公积金(CPF)系统也应该重新检讨。公积金通过强制征收雇员的40%的薪金，来建立退休的储蓄，这也使得潜在的企业家可获得的大量的资金，流向了政府的投资。 这些钱的一部分如果流到了较灵活的的本地企业家那里，是新加坡走在全球经济前列的最好办法。他说，新加坡作为一个亚洲之虎，如果不能开掘私营业界的潜能，将意味着新加坡作为曾经风光过的经济体走入历史。 “我认为，新加坡过去50年取得了很辉煌的成就，新加坡体制非常强。但是，现在的问题是，环境有了很大的不同。” “一个体制最终的成功取决于适应新形势的能力，”他说。 来源：http://www.nanyangpost.com  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent Singaporeans and PRs are now permitted to use Medisave to pay for private care in 12 Malaysian hospitals and medical centers owned by two Singapore health-care groups, Health Management International (HMI) and Parkway Holdings. The two nearest hospitals are the Regency Specialist Hospital (Johor Baru) and Pantai Hospital (Batu Pahat). The patients must be referred to by the Singapore groups' centres first at Balestier Clinic and Health Screening centre and East Shore Hospital. Their Medisave accounts can only be used for day surggery or in-hospital admissions, subject to the same withdrawal limits as in Singapore. Malaysian PRs are likely to be the greatest beneficiaries of the latest move by the Ministry of Health. Already, some of them are seeking medical treatments back home. For example, it is not uncommon for pregnant Malaysian women working in Singapore to opt for obstetric care in Malaysia and deliver there where the cost is much lower than that in Singapore hospitals. With the impending decrease in healthcare subsidies for PRs in Singapore, allowing the use of Medisave in Malaysia hospitals will make up for the "loss" incurred. Singapore's Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan himself was a former Malaysian born in Penang. He sparked a controversy last year by suggesting that Singaporeans send their aged parents to "retire" in JB nursing homes where the medical expenses will be lowered though he later denied saying so. Though Medisave cannot be used for nursing facilities in Malaysia now, it is only a matter of time before it is allowed to lessen the financial burden of Singaporeans who cannot afford chronic care in Singapore.  Read More →

OPINION The Economic Strategies Committee unveiled a series of recommendations last week to re-orient Singapore's economy for the next few years among which includes decreasing our reliance on foreign workers, boosting labor productivity, increasing investments in Research and Development and fostering more $100 million SMEs in Singapore. It is strange that Singapore's political economy is left entirely out of discussion when it should be involved in the first place given the Singapore government's pervasive control over our economy. Political economy refers to interdisciplinary studies drawing upon economics, law, and political science in explaining how political institutions, the political environment, and the economic system—capitalist, socialist, mixed—influence each other. Singapore's economy is a highly developed state capitalist mixed economy. While government intervention in the market is kept at a minimum, the state controls and owns firms that comprise at least 60% of the GDP through government-linked companies and its two giant sovereign wealth funds GIC and Temasek Holdings (Source: countryrisk.com, 2004) Its political system is that of a "hybrid democracy" as defined by U.S.-based NGO Freedom House - one which resembles a democracy in that regular elections are conducted, but lacks the essential pillars of a democratic state such as a free and independent media, a robust civil society and separation of powers between the executive and legislative. Human Rights Watch recently condemned Singapore as a "textbook example of a politically repressive state." which is not quite unlike despotic regimes like China, North Korea, Iran and Myanmar. While ESC's recommendations make sense with Singapore's economy evolving gradually from one based on low cost manufacturing to a developed one producing high-tech products, they are unlikely to take off without corresponding changes made to Singapore's political economy. The other three Asian Tigers - South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong have all produced internationally recognized brand names such as Samsung, Hyundai, Acer, and Whampoa Hutchinson but not Singapore and it is not hard to see why. Creativity and innovation requires a free environment for free minds to explore novel ideas freely without any restrictions. Singapore's restrictive political environment and education system simply do not foster or promote the qualities needed for innovation such as creativity, courage, and perseverance. All great inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs in history have a rebellious streak in them - they dare to question the establishment and to blaze a path of their own. The theory of Relativity would not have existed today had Albert Einstein not challenged Issac Newton's version of Physics. There would not be Microsoft today if Bill Gates remained in awe of IBM then. And Google would not take the world by storm if its founders stay in their comfort zone. Furthermore, the continued dominance of our domestic economy by government-linked companies is choking the life out of our SMEs right at the very beginning. Korea's Chipstat and Taiwan's TSM semi-conductors will never take off if they have to compete with the equivalent of Chartered Semiconductors in their own countries. Neither will the small biotechnology startups such as Celgene, Genzyme and Vical survive in San Diego, U.S.A if they have to compete with the likes of A*STAR for funding. The Singapore government's "top-down" approach to R&D is a disastrous mistake and will continue to cost billions of dollars of taxpayers' monies simply because its myopic strategy of picking out winners and investing in established scientists deprive the critical drive, passion and intellectual stimulus needed to conduct ground-breaking research. To this date, what has the Singapore government got to show for all the billions of dollars they have been plowing into Life Sciences? There is a correlation between the level of openness and the number of patents produced by a country: As seen in the above table, Singapore ranked a miserly 17th position in the world in terms of the number of patents produced per million population. The countries ranked above it are all democracies whose people enjoy far greater political freedom than Singaporeans. The Singapore government should realize that it is part of the problem and so long it refuses to let go of its control of the nation politically and economically, the true potential of its citizens will never be fulfilled to the fullest and we will forever lag behind the likes of Japan, Korea and Taiwan in innovation and R&D. Free minds require a free environment to soar and no talent, be it local or foreign, will be able to survive, let alone thrive in such a restrictive and oppressive political environment which the PAP has promulgated in order to perpetuate its political hegemony. As in all totalitarian states, absolute control of the economy by the state is critical to keeping the citizenry under control and to prevent the emergence of a pretender to the throne. With a significant proportion of Singaporeans being on the payroll of the government or its associated companies, many of them are so glued to their rice-bowls that they cannot imagine a Singapore other than the status quo. The command structure of both the Singapore's political system and economy kills off creativity, independent thinking and innovation right at its roots before they have the chance to develop further. In today's borderless world brought together by the internet, it is the "software" which matters more than the "hardware". The former Soviet Union was a great military power too under the absolute control of the Communist Party, but while the state is military strong, its people lagged far behind the Americans in terms of entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity, resulting in an economically stagnant and culturally anemic society. As for China, it has a sufficiently large population to make up for its losses in human resource development for now though it will soon reach the same bottleneck as the Soviets one day if it still does not reform its archaic political system. Being a small country, Singapore cannot afford to go down the slippery slope taken by the Soviet Union. We need to free the minds of our people from the shackles imposed on them by the PAP and allow them to explore the world freely and fearlessly. To quote from an article published in the Economist last week: "For all its frustrations, open and accountable government tends in the long run to produce better policies. This is because no group of mandarins, no matter how enlightened or well-meaning, can claim to be sure of what is best for a complex society." In a recent speech made at the Civil Service College, prominent MIT political economist Professor 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. He also opined that Singapore should expand its private sector in order to compete with China and India: “Maybe a better way is for the government to fund more basic research and then allow universities, private equity firms, venture capital firms and rich individuals to take care of the rest. That is because even when the state sector is well managed, it is not as innovative as the private sector, he says. From a technological development point of view, you need a bigger private sector to compete, to come up with new products, processes and technologies, to better compete with India and China.” With due respect to them, the PAP leaders do not have the monopoly on the truth. Singapore will be far better off in the long run if the government relinquish its control of the domestic economy. State-linked conglomerates should either by privatized entirely or broken up into smaller units like what South Korea did to its chaebols in the aftermath of the 1997 financial crisis and Temasek Holdings should divest of all its stakes in local state-linked companies. GIC and Temasek Holdings should be entirely depoliticized and hired highly qualified and experienced fund managers to manage our reserves instead of lawyers, engineers and civil servants who never step a foot into the financial industry before. Instead of investing in risky assets like financial institutions overseas, they should put our money in safe bonds and securities which though generate smaller returns, are less volatile. The annual returns should be made accountable to Singaporeans and diverted to a pension fund for help the elderly like the Norway Pension Fund. The government should only play a regulatory and supportive role in the economy instead of micro-managing it. As the South Korean example has shown, leaving major state enterprises entirely in the hands of private entrepreneurs and investors will reap greater dividends in the long run. Let us wait for the day when Singapore can produce its own Samsung, LG, Acer and BenQ and take our economy off to the next stage, free from the PAP's interference.  Read More →