TR EMERITUS

I refer to these Straits Times letters by Mr Francis Cheng: • Exciting times, but no time for complacency, 13 Feb 2014 • Strong leaders need not be popular, 26 May 2014 • How Singapore can stay ahead of competition, 1 Jul 2014 High per capita GDP Mr Cheng expressed excitement with Singapore’s 2011 per capita GDP of US$46,241 (S$58,600) which was higher than Japan’s, Germany’s and France’s. The following are Singapore’s per capita GDP figures extracted from Singstats. If we go by Mr Cheng’s S$58,600 figure, the closest year should be 2008. If we go by Mr Cheng’s US$46,241 figure, the closest year would be 2010. Neither year is 2011. You wonder where Mr Cheng got his figures from. Year Singstats per capita GDP, current (S$) Singstats per capita GDP, 2010 prices (S$) Singstats per capita GDP, current (US$) 2007 59,114 60,254.90 39,224 2008 56,201 58,153.10 39,724 2009 56,111 56,085.20 38,578 2010 63,498 63,498.00 46,570 2011 66,499 65,953.80 52,865 2012 67,492 65,967.90 54,007 2013 69,050 67,406.80 55,183 Assuming Mr Cheng did refer to 2011; Singapore’s per capita GDP then should be S$66,499. But Singapore’s 2011 indigenous per capita GDP was only S$48,189 (Yearbook of Statistics Singapore 2012) or US$38,313 which was lower than Japan’s, Germany’s or France’s per capita GDP. World Bank 2011 per capita GDP US$ Singapore 52,871 Japan 46,204 Germany 44,355 France 42,578 Indigenous Singapore (residents) 38,313 Mr Cheng must be clear, if foreigners and foreign owned companies are excluded, the remaining per capita GDP of US$38,313 attributable to Singapore companies and Singapore residents is much lower than the US$52,871 Mr Cheng was excited about. If PRs and newly minted Singaporeans are excluded too, the remaining Singaporean per capita GDP could be even lower. Does Mr Cheng get excited when more and more rich foreigners move into his neighbourhood without any change to his wealth of income? Others Mr Cheng was excited that Singapore’s No. 18 ranking in the Human Development Index was higher than France’s and Finland’s. Since when has Singapore’s standard fallen so low that even No. 18 is cause for excitement? Why didn’t Mr Cheng point out that Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong at positions 10, 12 and 13 respectively are all ranked higher than Singapore? Mr Cheng was excited with our low unemployment rate but did not consider the masking of the problem by the mixing of Singaporeans with Singapore residents. Mr Cheng was excited with our high literacy rate of 95.9% but did not consider that it is lower than North Korea’s (100%) and Russia’s (99.7%). Mr Cheng claimed that all these were due to the Singapore government tackling problems head on and fearlessly without considering that our key success factors had already been firmly established during colonial times as explained by Dr Goh Keng Swee: There are four reasons which enabled Singapore throughout her history as a British colony, and today as an independent republic, to survive and even prosper in the face of apparently insurmountable difficulties … The second reason must be ascribed … to Sir Stamford Raffles’ great vision of the island growing into a great emporium founded on the Victorian belief in the virtues of free trade. Successive colonial governors zealously nurtured the port, maintained lean and efficient administrators, and allowed merchants and bankers full scope for the exercise of their talents. In the modern idiom, the Victorians who governed Singapore established and maintained an infrastructure at minimum cost with maximum efficiency. The third reason derives from the second condition, the nurturing of the free enterprise system. In the absence of monopolies and privileged business interests, keen and free competition ensured efficient business … For well over a hundred years Singapore learnt to adapt her economy to changing circumstances. This ability to adapt which was won in the hard school of experience remains an asset which the government of independent Singapore decided to retain. It might have been politically expedient to rid ourselves of institutions and practices that bore the taint of colonial associations. Had we done so, we would have thrown away a priceless advantage. [Goh Keng Swee, The Practice of Economic Growth, Chapter 1: Why Singapore succeeds, pages 6-7] Mr Cheng beseeched the younger generation to improve on what our founding fathers have done. But Singapore has only one founding father – Sir Stamford Raffles. There are no other founding fathers as far as founding means. Mr Cheng advised that Singapore’s top rankings would mean nothing if the young take things for granted. But Singapore’s top rankings already mean nothing. High per capita GDP means nothing to the average Singaporean struggling to keep up with high cost of living. Mr Cheng advised the young not to ignore our vulnerabilities. Will Mr Cheng consider that our biggest vulnerability is actually our government? Mr Cheng advised us not to ease off lest we lose out to countries cheaper and better than us. Mr Cheng should direct his advice to our MPs by asking them not to sleep through or pontang parliament sessions. Need not be popular Mr Cheng expressed his belief that Singapore leaders govern without feeling the need to be popular. If that’s the case, why did the government suddenly wake up after the 2011 election and vigorously ramped up housing after that? Why didn’t it continue its tidak apa attitude? Natural resources Mr Cheng repeated the common falsehood that Singapore has no natural resources and can only depend on its brand name. Singapore’s geographical location is our priceless resource acknowledged by none other than Dr Goh Keng Swee. Dr Goh wrote: • There are four reasons which enabled Singapore throughout her history as a British colony, and today as an independent republic, to survive and even prosper in the face of apparently insurmountable difficulties. First, there is the well-known fact of a superb central geographical location with a natural harbor swept by currents flowing between the South China Sea and the Straits of Malacca. [Goh Keng Swee, The Practice of Economic Growth, Chapter 1: Why Singapore succeeds, pages 6-7] Furthermore, natural resources is not an important success factor as exemplified by the fact that the great majority of First World nations today derive less than 5% (most less than 2%) of their GDP from natural resources. World Bank data, Total natural resources rent as percentage of GDP Thank you Ng Kok Lim Straits Times, Exciting times, but no time for complacency, 13 Feb 2014, Francis Cheng SINGAPORE'S per capita gross domestic product stood at US$46,241 (S$58,600) in 2011, higher than that of Japan, Germany and France. The United Nations' Human Development Index ranks Singapore at No. 18, ahead of France and Finland. And we are among the countries with the largest surpluses and lowest foreign debts. The unemployment rate here remains low, and our literacy and home ownership rates are high. Also, our airport is among the world's best. All these would not have been possible if whoever governed Singapore was afraid to tackle problems head-on. Singapore has faced many challenges. Those in the older generation, like me, now have to depend on the younger generation to improve on what our founding fathers and past leaders have done. But the young must understand that Singapore's top rankings mean nothing if we take things for granted, ignore our vulnerabilities and become complacent and irrelevant to the world. We must continue to adapt. If we ease off, Singapore will lose out to countries that can do things cheaper and better than us. Straits Times, Strong leaders need not be popular, 26 May 2014, Francis Cheng BEING a strong leader does not mean winning wars to gain domestic popularity unless the country is threatened or attacked ("Who says Obama is a weak leader?" by Professor Tommy Koh; May 17). No country likes going to war as it means families have to send their loved ones overseas without knowing if they would see them alive again. When United States President Barack Obama visited Seoul, South Korea recently, he was asked why he was reluctant to use force. His reply: "Very rarely have I seen the exercise of military power providing a definitive answer." In the Philippines, when asked whether his handling of crises ranging from Ukraine to Syria were signs of his weak leadership, he retorted: "My tactics may not always be sexy but they have strengthened America's global position. Many of my critics were the same people who supported the disastrous war in Iraq and who haven't really learnt the lesson of the last decade." Mr Obama is right to consider the lessons from the past. The wars overseas in places like Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the US billions of dollars as well as caused casualties and the loss of lives, but America has little to show for it. Just because Mr Obama thinks carefully before deciding to go to war abroad does not mean he would never do so, should terrorists stage another attack on American soil. Leaders who exercise power for power's sake get nowhere because power cannot carry them through a crisis. Many will flinch and fail when confronted with the prospect of failure and retribution at home. Singapore's leaders understand this and do not subscribe to the belief that the government must be popular in order to govern. Straits Times, How Singapore can stay ahead of competition, 1 July 2014, Francis Cheng SINGAPORE and Singaporeans should not take our prosperity for granted as other countries are always on the lookout to "eat our lunch" ("Johor reclamation project 'to create oil storage hub'"; last Wednesday). It is natural for our closest neighbour to compete with us. To tackle this challenge, Singapore had planned ahead with liquefied natural gas, oil and marine facilities on Jurong Island. Maintaining our reputation as a global hub for warehousing, logistics, transport, communications, banking and financial services requires leaders with good foresight. Also, our workers and unions must not rest on their laurels. Our competitors will be studying our policies and finding ways to improve on them, while building the infrastructure to compete with us. But it is not easy to replicate our "software" - we must continue to be rugged and adaptable to change. Without natural resources, Singapore can depend only on its brand name, which means we must establish ourselves as a country that is pro-business with strong intellectual property protection. When we have that supremacy, other countries will find it hard to beat us. The next generation could do well to improve on what has been done.  Read More →

Indian IT workers I refer to the TRE article - https://www.tremeritus.net/2014/07/06/would-sgs-encourage-their-children-to-go-into-it. In the article, the writer blames the so-called "cheap" Indian IT programmers for depressing the salaries in the IT industry, discouraging Singaporeans to work in the IT industry. I would like to offer a different persepective to the matter. First of all, I would like to remind all that we are living in a globalised world. If the cost of programming work is too high, companies will simply outsource the work to other countries like India, Malaysia or even Vietnam these days. This will be a loss to Singapore. Would you rather the work be done here in Singapore or other countries, even though in Singapore, they are done by foreign IT personnel, which include other nationals too like the Filipinos and Chinese? You may ask, are there still advantages for Singapore to use lower cost foreign IT personnel to work here? Their presence here certainly helps other Singaporeans and businesses. I can think of the following Singaporeans and businesses which can benefit from having foreign IT personnel working here: 1. House owners. Foreign workers coming here to work need a place to stay. A lot of Singaporeans are renting out their rooms and houses to them. The foreign workers help to earn rental income for Singaporeans. In turn, they help to pay for Singaporeans' mortgages. What is wrong with that? I'm not ashamed to say that I own a good condo unit in the East side of Singapore and I'm renting it to a nice Indian family who is working in the IT industry. Like any tenants, there are good and bad ones. As a landlord, you just need to know how to manage your tenants. I also have friends in Tampines renting out their HDB rooms to the Indian IT programmers, earning a good stream of rental income. Everyone is happy. What is wrong with that? 2. Foreign workers living in Singapore need to travel. They bring business to our transport companies like SMRT. Our SMRT in turn, employs mostly Singaporeans. In other words, foreign workers are helping to create more jobs for our transport industry. What's wrong with that? 3. Foreign workers need to eat. In turn, they help our F&B industry to grow. Didn't you read the news that F&B industry now wants to hire more Singaporeans? That means, more jobs created for Singaporeans in the F&B industry. What's wrong with that? 4. Foreign workers also need to buy the usual living necessities like clothing, soap, shampoo, toilet papers, rice etc to live here. That means it's a boon for our retail industry, helping to create more jobs in retail. Again, I would like to ask, what's wrong with that? I would like to advise all here not to be so small-minded and myopic. Think big and think strategically. Instead of complaining online, think about how to take advantage of the situation. The unhappy people will waste their time online, griping away. The smart people will try to make the best out of the situation to make themselves happy. Be smart.   M K Tan * Submitted by reader    Read More →

Prior to the 2011 GE, a local university carried out a massive exercise in firing professors, including many Singaporean professors. Our “good” Government even brought in a European (foreigner) to oversee the firing, and many Singaporeans lost their jobs. After that, many of the positions previously held by Singaporean professors were filled by foreigners. This is one of the reasons why there are so few Singaporean professors in the university. After the 2011 GE, this university did a complete u-turn in that for the professors who were due to be fired, they were given contracts to stay. Who could have caused this reversal in policy? Could it be the opposition voters who caused the worst election result to the Government since Singapore’s independence? If it is, the professors who are still working at the university should thank the opposition voters for saving their jobs. So, voting for the opposition could actually do some “good” to fellow Singaporeans! TW * Submitted by TRE reader  Read More →