TR EMERITUS

Firms will relocate if their manpower needs are not met, says Amy Khor. I can see where Amy Khor was coming from when she told Foo Mee Har that foreigners first in employment was a bad policy. She is a living example of how good it is to place foreigners first ahead of Sinkies when the foreigners are super talents. If we don’t have this policy we would not have the privilege and benefits of having her as a minister in Parliament. We would surely lose her to our competitor country and would therefore be disadvantaged. And the other foreigner turned Sinkie ministers and MPs are all living proofs of how good this policy is. Let’s take this policy a step further. In this competitive world, not having enough foreign talents is unacceptable as the foreign talents that we rejected would go to our neighbouring countries to compete against us. We have no choice. Then look at the good side, if all the world’s talents are here, even replacing most of the Sinkies that are less talented, Singapore will definitely benefit from their contributions to our economy and prosper. Sinkies who have been displaced by these foreigners need not worry as there will be other jobs created for them. The finest choice is to be their own boss, as the infamous Sinkie taxi drivers. The rich and talented foreigners would be their customers to give them good tips for good services. And they can be very nice to their foreigner customers to show to the world that Sinkies are not xenophobic. For those Sinkies that still could not find a decent job, they can look forward to Workfare handouts by the govt. And for those who are more entrepreneurial, they can emigrate, sell their HDB flats and take out their CPF savings and live like a king in Batam, Bintang or JB. Johore is looking more attractive with the gargantuan Iskandar project. Sinkies can live there and work there. But with the withdrawal of their CPF and the selling of their flats, they don’t really need to work at all. They can retire there and no need to come back anymore. Singapore will prosper with all the talented foreigners flooding into the island. Sinkies can go elsewhere if they are not good enough, not competitive enough, not talented enough. That is life. For the losers, what can you expect? You have to look after yourself or blame yourself. You have to be responsible to your own life. For the survival of Singapore as a prosperous city state, only the best are needed. If Sinkies are second best and cannot find a place here, just too bad. Singapore must be the best place to live for the best people in this world. Sinkies that are not the best, please do not begrudge this practical policy of foreign talents first. Singapore must prosper as the best city for the rich and talented. Chua Chin Leng aka redbean * The writer blogs at mysingaporenew.blogspot.com.  Read More →

Finally, after the whole world got to know that the amount of money raised by blogger Roy Ngerng through public donations has exceeded his target of $70K in 4 days, the Straits Times decided to publish the news in print today (4 Jun). Roy is raising the money for his legal defence. He is currently being sued by PM Lee for defamation, due to an article he posted on his blog The Heart Truths. Roy announced on the evening of Monday (2 Jun) [Link] that he had hit the $70K target. That night, international news wire AFP immediately judged that the news was newsworthy and picked it up. It published the news on the same day (‘Blogger uses crowdfunding to fight PM’s defamation suit‘, 2 Jun) [Link]. AFP’s report was subsequently picked up by other news media around the world and published on the same day and yesterday (3 Jun): Bangkok Post Malaysia Insider Yahoo Australia Business Standard Financial Express Hindustan Times Etc Other international news wires like Bloomberg also published the same news yesterday. Since the news was out on 2 June, ST could have published it yesterday (3 Jun). However, it did not do so until today (4 Jun), when the world's media had already published the news. It is not known why ST did not think Roy's fundraising feat - reaching his target of $70K in just 4 days - was not newsworthy enough to be published earlier. According to a WikiLeaks document [Link], an ST bureau chief once told a member of the American Embassy in Singapore that reporters are frustrated with the obstacles they face in reporting on sensitive domestic issues. They have to tread carefully, as the powers-that-be will likely come down hard on anyone who writes negative stories about the government or its leadership. The bureau chief disclosed that there is a growing disconnect between ST’s reporters and its editors, with the reporters wanting to write more investigative and critical stories than the editors would allow. He lamented that ST editors have all been groomed to be supportive of the PAP government and they are careful to ensure that all reporting of local events adheres closely to the official line. He observed that none of the editors has the courage to publish any stories critical of the government. He also revealed that the government exerts significant pressure on ST editors to ensure that published articles follow the government's line. While he admitted that he knew of no editors who had been fired or otherwise punished for printing articles critical of the government, he said that is because all of them have been vetted to ensure their pro-government leanings.  Read More →

We refer to “Realistic ways to raise CPF returns” by Benedict Koh (Straits Times, May 30). CPFIS: 82% did not make profits in excess of the OA interest rate? It states that “So far, those CPF members who have risked their savings have not done very well. Almost half of CPFIS-OA investors (47 per cent) incurred losses on their investments between 2004 and 2013, while 35 per cent obtained net profits equal to or less than the default OA rate of 2.5 per cent. Only 18 per cent made net profits in excess of the OA interest rate. Only 12 and 20% invested their OA and SA? While the CPFIS is open to all members, the 2008 study found that only 12 per cent of Ordinary Account (OA) savings and 20 per cent of Special Account (SA) savings were committed to investment. These statistics indicate that the participation rate in CPFIS is low.” The CPF system is a failure? What do the above statistics mean for Singaporeans? That our CPF system is a failure because most of those who followed the CPF approved investment schemes as well as those who left their CPF in their accounts, received what is probably the lowest real rate of return amongst national pension funds in the world, historically? Only 1 in 8 met Minimum Sum? As to “There have been gripes in social media recently about the inadequacy of CPF’s compulsory savings scheme. From 2005 to 2012, the percentage of CPF members attaining the required minimum sum for old age ranged from 33.8 per cent to 48.7 per cent. In other words, less than half of CPF members have the minimum sum. the 48.7% refers to only active CPF members who met the Minimum Sum including the property pledge. It has been estimated that only about 1 in 8 who reached age 55 were able to meet the combined CPF and Medisave Minimum Sums (currently $198,500) entirely in cash from their CPF accounts. “Constructive politics” vs “constructive outcomes”? When the outcomes of our CPF system is so pathetic from the perspective of returns as well as the percentage who are able to meet the Minimum Sums – the irrefutable conclusion may only be that our so called “constructive politics” have not given Singaporeans “constructive outcomes” that matter to our lives. So enlightening! The following extract from the above article may arguably be the most illuminating enlightenment published by the Straits Times so far this year: “Irrational to expect both low risk and high returns - As the Government has been generating budget surpluses over the years, it is assumed by detractors that CPF funds end up with GIC and Temasek which then “exploit” Singaporeans by paying them meagre interest while earning higher returns. Those who espouse such views clearly do not understand the basics of finance and how financial intermediation works. CPF members’ savings in the Ordinary Account (OA) and Special Account (SA) are akin to deposits in banks. Depositors who leave their savings in banks do not demand high returns. Instead, they are willing to settle for very low interest in exchange for security. They cannot demand the returns earned by banks because they are not the ones putting capital at risk.” Note: The writer (Benedict Koh) is professor of finance at the Singapore Management University. SY Lee and Leong Sze Hian  Read More →