+- Luckymodena (http://lucky.myftp.org:8181/forum)
+-- Forum: General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: General section (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Articles from Insight : Down South (/showthread.php?tid=1456)
Pages: 1 2
Articles from Insight : Down South - stephenkhoo - 11-28-2011 02:55 PM
Article below is taken from Insight : Down South
Preparing for the global crunch
INSIGHT: DOWN SOUTH
By SEAH CHIANG NEE
The coming economic slowdown will likely hit Singapore harder than its South-East Asian neighbours. The real test is not whether the government can eventually restore economic health, but how badly Singaporean assets and jobs will be affected by the recession.
WITH the approach of the new year, middle class Singapore is becoming increasingly nervous about what is coming around the corner.
The economy has suddenly turned grim not only for the coming year, but also several years after that.
But true to tradition, young Singaporeans will probably ring in the parties with revelling and splurging, at least until reality dawns.
Behind the lights, however, the heartland is concerned about the coming global crunch that will likely hit Singapore harder than its South-East Asian neighbours.
This city, more than others, is a trading and financial centre, and its prosperity rests with the broad middle class being gainfully employed.
Those who have deeper retrenchment worries are Singapore’s professionals, managers, executives and technicians, who form the backbone of Singapore’s broad middle class.
With an army of lower-paid peers from developing countries ready to work for less, they could be among the first to go, depending on sympathetic, responsible employers.
For weeks now the government has been warning the 5.18 million residents to prepare for a prolonged slowdown.
And last week a minister of state surprised Singaporeans when he told them to get used to a weaker economy in the next 10 years. In other words, the troubles were more long-term than just cyclical.
Any prolonged weakness will not augur well for the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), which just suffered its worst election setback in May.
The PAP has stayed in power for 46 years because it was able to take care of Singaporeans.
The “severe slowdown” on the horizon could test the leadership of the PAP government and trade unions, said Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam.
“We have to prepare for the possibility, the very real possibility, of rough times ahead, a severe slowdown in the global economy,” said Tharman, who is also Finance Minister.
In the event of a recession – the third in 12 years – it will be the first without the presence of former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew in the Cabinet.
The New Year could bring a double whammy – a slowdown during a high inflation that could exceed 5%.
The real test for the political leaders is not whether Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong can eventually restore Singapore’s economic health. He can when the world recovers.
The question is how badly Singaporean assets and jobs will be affected by the recession.
Another issue is whether the crisis will result in a wider income gap, with the poor in worse condition than before.
“Will it render society less cohesive?” one commentator asked.
Several neighbouring countries whose interests are intertwined are watching when it will end. What will happen to Singapore’s open door immigration policies?
The Republic has long been the region’s top supplier of jobs for nationals of about half a dozen countries.
In the event of retrenchments – as had happened in 2008 – they will severely curtail inflow, but will deliver a blow to the aspirations of tens or thousands of foreigners, including fresh graduates, who seek better paying jobs here.
“It is fingernail-biting time for families scattered all over China, India, the Philippines and Malaysia who have relatives working or seeking to work here,” said a financial analyst.
Secondly, Singapore has long been an exporter of capital and investment in the region, and several developing countries have come to depend on it as a catalyst of growth.
As the year draws to a close, the government has increased its advice to citizens to be vigilant when buying stocks and properties, warning of market instability.
They could end up losing a lot of money, said an analyst in a government-linked corporation. A number of speculators have recently been badly burned.
One by one, the political leaders have warned Singaporeans to expect more retrenchments, lower salaries and bonuses next year as well as in the years ahead.
Two out of three companies have just reported profit declines in the third quarter and Singapore’s non-oil export fell by 16%. Electronics dropped by 33%.
Some economists are ruling out a return of the 6-8% growth in the years ahead for several reasons.
Fundamentally, Singapore is facing tougher competition abroad. Whatever it does, others are doing the same or better.
At the same time, the restraint in recruiting more foreign workers in the face of Singaporean objections is said by the government as a cause of the slowdown.
It faces another pressure from voters that it cannot afford to brush aside: take action to close the gap between rich and poor.
“This will result in more spending for a larger safety net for the poorer class,” said an economist.
A PAP backbencher explained: “It is quite clear that we are no longer embarking on a growth-at-all-costs policy.”
Meanwhile, there is a bit more disquiet in the workers’ front.
“I have seen more people scanning the classified pages for jobs,” said an Internet commentator.
RE: Articles from Insight : Down South - stephenkhoo - 11-28-2011 02:57 PM
DPM Tharman must be quite right that we might be heading for a recession or slower growth in Singapore whether or not it will be long term and how long the period is the question. The next question is, what happens to those who are retrenched during the recession and even if the economy recovers will they be able to compete with younger working adults at lower cost and cheaper workers from overseas seeking work here? Many times we hear floodgates opened for migrants seeking work here and even the running presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock motto was Singaporeans first. It is important to remember that Singapore's success today was not through fluke or rich in resources but we had 3 generations of hardworking immigrants who settled down here and weathered through war, riots, crisis after crisis and we became a nation of diverse race and religion which is something we must hold on to for our future!
I still believe there is hope for Singapore despite the gloom or controversy over Casino etc, to be fair we don't live in a perfect world and there will never be a perfect government. To compare I think our government has done well in terms of basic amenities for the general population which many countries until today are still finding it a challenge, of course you can argue Singapore is an island and other countries are many times ours but it does not take a mathematician to know which country will recovery quickly after a long recession
RE: Articles from Insight : Down South - stephenkhoo - 12-04-2011 12:11 AM
No more easy polls for PAP
Insight Down South
By SEAH CHIANG NEE
The ruling party is facing an uphill task trying to attract quality candidates to stand in elections. Unless Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong succeeds in reversing his recruitment fortune, the next election could spell greater trouble.
SINGAPORE’s ruling party for 46 years has sounded a warning to its followers that its era of easy election victories is over.
Future contests would be tougher, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who added that he no longer expected “clean sweeps” or “safe wards anywhere”.
Lee appealed to 1,500 party activists to help him build a new People’s Action Party (PAP) for a new phase.
This was its first convention since the poor election showing six months ago.
Last week, as PAP prepared for it crucial meeting, rival Workers’ Party (WP) launched the biggest offensive in the East Coast constituency since May.
It lost narrowly to the government (45-55%) and appears determined to win it in 2016.
While Lee was exhorting his party to work hard to regain lost ground, WP members – wearing blue – were out in force at hawker centres and markets to sell the party organ The Hammer to families.
The two events show the extent of Singapore’s political intensity although the next election is still five years away.
Both sides have appealed to Singaporeans not to let the political divide create rifts in society.
After years of acquiescence to former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, who governed Singapore with an iron hand, a new generation of Singaporeans is beginning to assert itself.
As a result, politics is steadily becoming a passionate subject and quite unpredictable, with more people who stayed away before taking sides now.
Several opposition parties are emerging as challengers, but as of now only PAP and WP, the two oldest parties here, figure strongly in the contest.
Both are committed to pursue their politics with a sense of maturity and responsibility so far.
Lee had earlier surprised Singaporeans when he invited six Workers Party MPs to join parliamentary committees to play a recommendation role in policy- making.
With Kuan Yew no longer in the Cabinet, although still an MP, the younger set of MPs from both sides is trying to find a practical way to work together.
The political landscape is changing, but what the present House will do will leave its mark – good or bad - in history.
There has been video coverage of opposing MPs organising joint community functions for residents, their differences temporarily laid aside.
Last month, the MPs formed a football team, complete with red jerseys, to play a friendly match against a team made up of media representatives.
The politicians, among them two opposition MPs, lost the match 2-1.
The general reaction, especially among younger Singaporeans, was one of excitement and people want to see more of such matches.
“It was good to see them put aside their political differences and fight a common battle on the same side,” said a Malaysia Cup fan.
He suggested the Singapore MPs team take on Malaysian politicians in a similar match as a prelude to the Malaysia Cup kick-off.
The younger generation is watching with interest to see how the two parties treat each other.
Unlike other Asian countries, Singapore has rarely had any real experience of intense Parliament debate since the left-wing Socialist Front quit Parliament and took to the streets.
A few sharp exchanges had taken place between Lee Senior and the late J.B. Jeyaretnam, but that was prior to the emergence of the Internet and mainstream coverage was minimal.
The newly-appointed Speaker Michael Palmer has urged MPs not to get lost in “the quagmire of party politics”.
Writing in an editorial for PAP magazine The Petir, Palmer said worthwhile suggestions should not be attacked just because they were made by the opposition.
From the other side came utterances like the following from Workers’ Party MP Chen Show Mao: “Let me state quite clearly how I see myself as an opposition member of this parliament. I may challenge government policy in Parliament, but I do not by definition oppose government policy.
“It does not mean that I do not support the government in its work. I am an opposition MP and will perform my role to voice alternative and opposing views in the law- making process.
“As an opposition MP, I am not the enemy of the government; I am a Singaporean and a patriot.”
PAP’s behaviour towards its rivals has taken a sharp turn for the better.
Some observers see a possible long-term motive in why the two parties – whose ideological differences are not very wide apart – wish to compete without personal attacks or animosity.
Firstly, Singaporeans are by and large moderately inclined and dislike to see politicians at each other’s throats.
The second reason is that both parties are pragmatic enough to realise that politics is entering an unpredictable phase.
Few can be sure whether one day one may need the other in a realignment of interests.
The ruling PAP is facing an uphill task trying to attract quality candidates from the private sector to stand in elections.
According to WikiLeaks, the leaked US diplomatic cables, PAP MP Charles Chong admitted that the party had to field “second and third-tier candidates” since the 2006 election.
Unless PM Lee succeeds in reversing his recruitment fortune, the next election could spell greater trouble.
No one really believes PAP will be overthrown but if it fares badly, having a workable relationship with the rival will be a very useful thing.
RE: Articles from Insight : Down South - stephenkhoo - 01-09-2012 01:19 PM
PAP mood turns sour over pay cuts
INSIGHT DOWN SOUTH BY SEAH CHIANG NEE
Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong intends to accept a government committee recommendation that his annual pay be cut by 36% to RM5.3mil.
IN 1976, when I first visited China, its 86-year-old leader Mao Zedong was near death, and I ended a series of articles for Singaporeans by asking: Would Maoism survive Mao? If not what – or who – would take over?
Today’s China, of course, makes my questions seem ridiculous. But at that time Mao was so much part of the country that an alternative was unimaginable.
I was part of the media team that accompanied (then Prime Minister) Lee Kuan Yew’s first official visit to the communist country.
The two men met for eight minutes; Mao was hardly coherent (he died six months later).
Lee was then a vibrant 52-year-old and at his political and intellectual peak.
Last year, when Lee was pondering being in firm control here for 46 years, the same questions cropped up in my mind.
Would Lee’s sacred cows – including the institutions, policies, wise (and not so wise) sayings that he contributed so powerfully for 46 years – survive after he’s gone, and for how long?
Part of the answer has come six months after Lee stepped down from office.
His corporatist strategy of paying Singapore’s Cabinet ministers sky-high salaries is being firmly rebuffed.
Faced with rising public anger, a government committee last week recommended that the PM’s annual pay be cut by 36% to S$2.2mil (RM5.3mil).
Cabinet ministers will get S$1.1mil (RM2.7mil), a 37% reduction, while the President’s yearly salary is reduced by 51% to S$1.54mil (RM3.7mil).
The PM said his government intends to accept the proposals.
The percentages seem enormous, but then so were the previous increases.
The last one announced five years ago saw these ministers being given an average pay rise of 60%.
The speed with which this sacred cow is being attacked so soon after Lee Kuan Yew’s exit has come as a surprise to some party hardliners.
The cut implies that for more than 25 years, the ruling People’s Action Party had been excessively overpaying its leaders – allegedly to attract talent or prevent corruption.
At the time, his colleagues’ support was mixed, some strenuously, others offering to contribute to charity (Lee forbade it).
His Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean said of the 2007 increase: “If we don’t do that, in the long term, the government system will slowly crumble and collapse.”
When the public reacted coolly, Lee painted a frightening alternative if Singapore ministers could not be paid more than leaders anywhere else.
“Your apartment will be worth a fraction of what it is,” he warned, “your jobs will be in peril, your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people’s countries.”
Today, his son – current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong – is finding that tearing down such a high massive pay structure is not so easy, because many party stalwarts have tied success to high pay.
Commentators said the PM’s immediate future would be tested on two fronts: One – a remaining large cynical public which feels their leaders are still overpaid compared with even the richest countries and, second – strong vibes reportedly coming from within his party.
To what extent will the exercise result in resignations by party aspirants drifting away for better paid private financial rewards is anybody’s guess.
At present, a little of the party mood is turning sour. The mainstream media is staying away from reports of internal PAP rifts.
However, several comments have emerged on discussion boards, apparently written by unhappy insiders.
One anonymous writer shouted: “PM MUST REJECT THE SALARY REVIEW.
“(Otherwise) all aspiring office holders in the PAP will be affected, so MPs, party cadres must know what their future salaries are, first, to ensure they have dignity.”
PAP Member of Parliament and former senior minister of state Grace Fu wrote about her feelings online. Her decision to join politics in 2006, she said, was not based on pay.
“The disruption to my career was also an important consideration,” she added.
“I had some grounds to believe that my family would not suffer a drastic change in the standard of living even though I experienced a drop in my income.
“So it is with this recent pay cut. If the balance is tilted further in the future, it will make it harder for anyone considering political office.”
Another apparent insider declared: “PAP cadres and MPs must speak up against the cuts.
“The salary review is too populist. PM should stand firm and reject it.”
The public is moderately supportive of the measure, although many still harbour resentment.
“After the pay cut, our Prime Minister (at US$1.7mil / RM5.3mil) still earns four times more than US President Barack Obama (US$400,000 / RM1.26mil a year) – and more than the combined salaries of (the leaders of) Britain, France and Germany,” said a cynic.
It is almost certain that high Cabinet pay will remain on the agenda in the next election in 2016, albeit less virulent.
A series of train breakdowns, floods, and shortages in housing, healthcare and telecommunications services have increased Singaporean unhappiness.
But PM Lee has also gained some political mileage among moderate citizens. “It shows that the PM is serious about putting it right without too much damage,” said one commentator.
A PAP supporter said: “With such pathetic pay, I don’t care if the opposition Workers Party (WP) wins in 2016 and takes over.”
This led to a cynical observation, that is, making it costly for people thinking of joining opposition politics to gain wealth and power.
RE: Articles from Insight : Down South - stephenkhoo - 01-11-2012 11:20 PM
Saturday November 12, 2011
Startling turn of events
INSIGHT DOWN SOUTH
By SEAH CHIANG NEE
Singapore’s ‘big bang’ approach to its manpower needs in the face of falling birth rates had its roots in the Goh Chok Tong administration, a current affairs commentor suggests.
WHO opened the floodgates in Singapore that let in three new waves of immigrants during the past 24 years? Most Singaporeans probably feel they know the answer but at least one serious analyst has pointed the finger, not at their influential ex-Minister Mentor, but at Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong.
Although a few people had privately talked about it, this was the first time it was articulated publicly that the mild-mannered Goh’s role was more than a passive one.
A regular contributor on the republic’s history and current affairs, Chua Suntong wrote in The Online Citizen that Goh was the starting force behind the influx of foreign PRs.
The ill-prepared policy, one of modern Singapore’s most important, has been the cause of a number of problems for locals, ranging from jobs and public transport to housing and education.
It also led to one of the worst election declines for the ruling party.
In his article, Chua said that as Singapore’s fertility rate fell to 1.4 in 1987, Goh – who was then Deputy Prime Minister and due to succeed Lee Kuan Yew – started a pro-immigration policy.
Chua, who describes himself as a homegrown Singaporean, is a regular commentator on finance, history, languages and logistics.
He alleged it was Goh who had openly promoted mass immigration in 1987 when he was DPM. There has been no official confirmation from the two retired leaders.
During the past 20 years (1991-2010) some 726,768 PR permits were issued – mostly to foreign professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), who were directly competing with middle-class Singaporeans.
“Goh regularly used the term ‘foreign talents’ (FTs) to describe foreign PMETs and foreign-born students in local higher-level academic institutions,” the columnist said.
At one time, he also strongly nudged as many PRs as possible to take up Singapore citizenship. Chua’s article was an analysis of the “Sept 2011 Population Report in the Larger Context” issued by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), a think tank.
“After promoting foreign immigration without really defining its meaning from 1987 to 2011, the ESM relinquished his Cabinet position,” Chua wrote.
“He expressed hopes that a younger Cabinet would be able to carry Singapore forward in a more difficult and complex situation. His policies probably caused this situation.”
The IPS report attributed no names of leaders responsible, but the writer indicated several times that Goh had been pushing it for a long period.
It opened the door for 20,000-plus new PRs a year from 1987 to 1997 (up from 8,000 average). The figures rose steadily in two more waves until 2005-2010 when between 50,000 and 80,000 arrived every year.
“The ESM remained in the Cabinet after stepping down from the prime ministership in 2004,” Chua added. The tempo of PR arrivals increased.
What he said of the role of the former well-liked Prime Minister has come as a surprise to Singapo-reans, who had all along believed the immigration policy was solely Lee’s idea.
Chua said that even after he handed over leadership to PM Lee Hsien Loong, he had continued to work on the programme as Senior Minister, and PRs kept coming in.
In another comment, social activist Ravi Philemon also said that it was the government under Goh which relaxed the stricter yester-years immigration policy of Singa-pore.
In fact, the excessive arrivals resulted in Lee Kuan Yew warning him that 60,000 new residents a year was “politically indigestible” and that 30,000 was more realistic.
Singaporeans generally read with some disbelief that Lee had allowed such an important decision as mass immigration to be decided by Goh.
The majority of informed Singaporeans still feel the original initiative had come from the founding leader himself – and that Goh was only a very convinced implementer.
A minority opinion, however, was that Goh and, subsequently, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong were just carrying out Lee’s ambition to have a six million to seven million population by 2030.
At that time, Lee had frequently been telling people that his successors were calling the shots and running Singapore and that he was merely – as Minister Mentor – giving advice on the side. It wasn’t always taken seriously.
“The truth will emerge one day as to who really made the call to let in so many foreign settlers without adequate preparation,” said a retired businessman and strong admirer of Lee.
“In the event that Lee was only minimally responsible for the excess, then it is good that someone puts it on record before he passes on. Otherwise, it will not be fair to him.”
That was a period when most People’s Action Party (PAP) leaders were pro-immigration, including both the two Lees. It is only now that the numbers are being cut back.
Lee Senior had said it allowed Singapore “to punch above its weight”. The difference was, of course, how big a figure.
Three years ago, Lee signalled a redirection, saying he now preferred an optimum population of 5.5 million – instead of 6.5 million. Others like former PAP MP Dr Tan Hui Heng had even called for a “big bang” approach in doubling manpower.
Dr Tan, in fact, suggested admitting not only the highly talented, but also those with lower and intermediate skills, arguing that a big bang approach would prevent erosion of asset values.
The new young arrivals, Goh had hoped, would make up for Singa-pore’s baby shortfall.
The story has not ended. More foreign PRs will likely arrive in this migrant society – but staggered over a longer period.
RE: Articles from Insight : Down South - stephenkhoo - 01-24-2012 10:33 PM
Learning to cope alone
INSIGHT: DOWN SOUTH By SEAH CHIANG NEE
Businesses are struggling with a worker shortage but it has surprisingly evoked less of a ruckus ruckus - the act of making a noisy disturbance
ruction, rumpus, commotion, din, tumult
disturbance - the act of disturbing something or someone; setting something in motion
ado, bustle, flurry, hustle, stir, fuss - a rapid active commotion
from the usually complaining public.
IF you’re going for an eat out in Singapore, be prepared for a little inconvenience, like slower service and seeing stacks of used plates where once these were efficiently cleared by China cleaners.
I am referring to hawker centres, not five-star hotels.
Chinese New Year is that time of the year when the service industry – some say the country itself – is being tested by an outflow of guest workers for family reunions.
The departure also involves celebrating Malaysians, Vietnamese and Koreans, but it is the Chinese – an awesome one-million strong – who are the most significant by their absence.
In varying degrees, their departure has left a hole in the city’s cleaning and food industries.
Some major airlines have doubled the number of Singapore-China flights.
Singapore businesses are struggling with the shortage that often sees uncollected dirty bowls and plates piling up on tables.
The smaller businesses are worst affected. At some places, litter is not swept for long periods.
At one food court, family members are roped in for emergency duty – serving, cleaning or delivering.
At the Kovan Hawker Centre, just newly-refurbished, the dilemma is worst during peak hours, when families and workers look for clean spots.
Most times, the dilemma eventually ends and the trays are eventually cleared.
When I returned a few days later, I saw non-uniformed relief cleaners rolling up their sleeves, and a few were apparently Singaporean!
I was told they were paid 30% to 40% more than their Chinese peers.
So, who says Singaporeans shun these jobs?
More likely, they dislike the low wages that mainlanders are given (the opposition has fought for a minimum wage without success).
The trouble is that many of the Chinese will be away for about a week, possibly longer. Singaporeans get only two days to celebrate Chinese New Year.
The worst hit is Chinatown which is popular with diners.
According to state television, it is in Chinatown that the worker shortage is hardest hit since most businessmen employ Chinese workers.
Tens of thousands of cleaners, sweepers, waitresses, karaoke girls and salespersons make it a flourishing place.
If you throw a stone there, it will likely hit a non-Singaporean, more likely a mainlander.
After all, they make up one-fifth of the population of five million.
Most work in services, from low-skilled labourers to hospitality workers in five star-hotels, from gleaming shopping malls or supermarkets to construction.
The Chinese men began driving buses in Singapore from 2008.
The hardy women are virtually everywhere, ranging from pushing garang guni carts to working at karaoke joints.
The biggest number is in the food and cleaning businesses, where the peak manpower needs lie at this time of the year.
“Even my favourite masseuse has gone home,” complained a young man.
“The usually crowded entertainment spots are now quiet, like a graveyard!” he added.
All the inconvenience has surprisingly evoked less of a ruckus from the usually complaining public.
This time, the public seems to be taking it in stride, except in the few message boards where the issue is hotly discussed.
But not the foodstall bosses, who are not too happy, because this is among the most profitable times of the year.
The shortage has forced them to get relief non-China workers, and replacing utensils with disposables.
Asked why the traditionally complaining social media Singaporeans are keeping silent, a hawker inspector replied: “I think they don’t want to provide ammunition to the pro-immigration government to bring in more foreign workers.”
If it serves as a mini-test of Singapore’s survival capabilities without depending on foreign workers, the result has been mixed.
Some people cope with the crisis well. Others complain of increased costs of hiring relief workers at premium wages.
“This is forcing us to raise prices more than usual,” one shopkeeper told me, adding “but no problem, the Singaporean buyers pay, happy.
“Anyway, there’s shortage also in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan.”
A friend who is a polytechnic lecturer commented: “If a small temporary shortage can cause this scale of mess, imagine if foreigners were to leave suddenly one day!”
All this made me recall the Singapore of the 1970s and 80s.
It was drummed into this reporter’s ears that Singapore must never follow Western Europe’s example of being hooked on imported cheap labour from Africa and Asia.
It was a different strategy then.
“You import too much cheap labour you become addicted to it and can’t live without it”.
The result, I remember being told on one occasion, would almost certainly be social chaos.
“If we import too many low-skilled foreigners, we would also import their problems”.
At any rate, the world today has moved into what we once swore to avoid.
After reading about China’s strong growth and predictions of its longer-term future, I am convinced that the flow of “cheap unskilled” workers from China will dry up in another generation.
This means that the shortage we are experiencing during this Chinese New Year will be many times more serious in possibly 20 years.
Hard to believe, but China is itself running low on semi-skilled or even lower-skilled workers, a trend that looks likely to worsen.
That could mean that China’s lower skilled workers may become too expensive for Singapore to feasibly employ.
Then perhaps the reverse may happen during future Chinese New Year festivals.
A stream of guest workers from Singapore leaves their China workplace to be with their families.
RE: Articles from Insight : Down South - stephenkhoo - 01-24-2012 10:34 PM
what will become of Singapore? will we be a migrant nation by 2050? though we can always pore back on history books and claim that our forefathers were once migrants but we have to remember we started with practically nothing with most coming as labourers, sansui women, rubber tappers or coolies and it took two generation to build up the nation whereas now the policy is to admit new residents with opportunities on equal footing. the equation don't gel despite the fact that immigrant numbers will make up the shortfall of declining birth population and a long term greying population. i only fear the reverse ie social ills when there will be a resentment on the ground and a paradigm shift of those once loyal to our nation when they feel no longer a sense of belonging.
remember this simple logic, if these pple are attracted to a new land with greener pasture they will always seek newer lands and even greener pastures so the question is you can draw them here but how do you maintain the pasture immaculate and greener year on year?
RE: Articles from Insight : Down South - stephenkhoo - 02-13-2012 04:34 PM
The passing of an old guard
INSIGHT: DOWN SOUTH By SEAH CHIANG NEE
Dr Toh Chin Chye’s departure reminds Singaporeans of the political brilliance of past leaders. Unfortunately, few young people know who he was, let alone his achievements.
THE passing of the PAP’s founding chairman has reminded Singaporeans of the country’s historical achievements under a different breed of leaders. Former Deputy Prime Minister Dr Toh Chin Chye died at 90 in his home, the fourth old guard leader to leave in the past six years.
The others were Dr Goh Keng Swee, S. Rajaratnam and Lim Kim San, all men of passion and ability. Only Lee Kuan Yew, 87, remains in politics.
Perak-born Toh had lived a low-profile life until his death on Feb 3.
Like other first-generation leaders, Toh’s departure has recalled for Singaporeans the political brilliance that past leaders Singapore had.
Toh: Instrumental in helping Lee Kuan Yew become the republic’s first PM
Some are comparing the current cabinet ministers to them and detecting a shortcoming.
The difference was in their passion to help people and a spirit of sacrifice that today’s breed can do with more of.
Actually it’s a bad time for comparison.
Singapore has just gone through bad times with too many things having gone wrong and blamed on poor policies or implementation.
From train breakdowns to floods, from high-level corruption to inadequate public housing, they reflect a lower standard of leadership compared to the past.
All this cost the government serious losses in votes in last May’s election despite Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s apologies to the nation.
Since then, there have been some improvements.
Few young Singaporeans know who Toh was – let alone his achievements.
His most crucial contribution was when the PAP Central Executive Committee was deadlocked in the vote between Lee Kuan Yew and mayor Ong Eng Guan when choosing Singapore’s first Prime Minister.
Toh cast his vote for Lee and set him into the history books. He left the cabinet in 1981 when he was 60 and as MP in 1988.
Since then his name was rarely mentioned in the news.
Former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew does not think the current crop of leaders, comprising mostly of scholars and technocrats, are worse than the old guard.
The problems the present government face, he said, are different from those of the past, which required a different type of leadership.
In a public talk several years ago, Lee said he did not think they were inferior.
Standards have gone up, he added. “Intelligence, administrative capabilities and political sensibilities” had improved over the years.
What was missing, he said, was the “combat experience” of Singapore’s first-generation leaders who went through the tumultuous independence years.
“There’s a vast difference between soldiers trained in actual combat who’ve seen casualty, blood and horror, and soldiers trained in simulation. You can’t recreate the same set of circumstances,” he said.
Despite this, Lee said today’s team “is as good as you can get”.
In his later years, Toh was critical of the PAP.
In a rare public interview over radio in 1997, Toh bemoaned the lack of idealism and creativity among the young and its implications for the future of Singapore.
“I would say the generation of the ’50s and ’60s took the plunge into politics without ever calculating the costs of the risks and the benefits to be gained. They were driven by ideology.
“Today’s generation has no culture and is averse to taking political risks. Really, an interest in politics is very necessary for the future.”
But the former Deputy Prime Minister added: “But I cannot blame the present generation, because they see the heavy-handed response by the government to dissenting views, even though they know that these matters involve their daily lives.
“So the result is that we have produced a younger generation who are meek and therefore very calculating. They are less independent-thinking and lack initiative.”
Would Singapore have been a better place for Singaporeans if it were governed by the first-generation leaders?
To this question, I get mixed answers, but a bigger response is in the affirmative. The reasons: Their better leadership and care for people.
While he was part of Lee’s authoritarian government for many years, Toh is remembered as a critic of the PAP’s strong control in his later years when he was a backbencher.
Some Singaporeans are unhappy with the treatment of silence accorded to Toh after his retirement from Parliament.
He seemed to have disappeared from the earth – until his recent death.
Some bloggers call it hypocrisy.
“Given his talent and experience, why was Toh retired from cabinet at 60?” one asked. “After all, isn’t the government complaining it cannot find enough talent?”
Veteran journalist P.N. Balji reportedly said: “The unfortunate thing about Singapore’s history is that we only remember Lee Kuan Yew.
“There’re other players too. So to many people – especially the younger ones – they may not even remember Toh Chin Chye’s name, they won’t even know who he is.
“This is a sad part of Singapore’s development, that we really don’t have a good knowledge of our founding fathers,” he said.
“And that’s because one man has taken centre stage all the while, from the past to more or less the present.”
Singaporeans poured their feelings during his funeral.
B.T. Ng wrote: “He gave his all for the country and received so little. He was born at the wrong time when million-dollar salaries for leaders were not the norm.”
Another surfer said: “Dr Toh served our country the way only a true patriot can. He worked for the good of Singapore, never crazy for power or crazy for money. We’ll not forget him.”
RE: Articles from Insight : Down South - stephenkhoo - 05-01-2012 09:49 PM
Driven to despair, literally
Everyone with internet knows what inflation and CPI (consumer price index) is but this policy of COE went through periods of ups and downs like stock market and remember the purpose was to curb car growth and not a market driven policy of who paid the lowest and benefitted. I believe the mistake was during the years after 2005 when COE kept going down to a low of 10K and below and that time there should already be measures to revise it. In addition we have ERP which was supposed to better utilise road usage. I believe the govt is to let citizens realise their aspirations to own house and car but now this seems distant. In Beijing the authorities control by restricting different number plates for different days on the road. Which poicy do you think is better?
Driven to despair, literally
INSIGHT: DOWN SOUTH
By SEAH CHIANG NEE
Owning a car can impoverish a Singaporean by millions of ringgit by the time he retires.
COE has become one of the most disliked – and feared – three letters for Singaporeans, except possibly the State Treasury. It stands for Certificate of Entitle-ment, which Singaporeans must have if they want to buy a new car.
Demand for this precious piece of paper has been rising steadily for years to a level that is killing off the dream of many young Singaporeans to own a car.
In the latest bidding, the COE – each certificate is valid for only 10 years – recently hit S$91,000 (RM223,600) for a big car (1,600cc or bigger) – a sum that could buy a bungalow or a large farm in many Asian countries.
Even in Singapore, this amount can finance up to three people for a four-year degree course.
Even for a small car (1,600cc or below), the COE is S$64,200 (RM157,750). Ironically, the certificate often costs more than the car itself.
The scheme has a significant impact on the city’s rising cost of living, now ninth highest in the world. Transport affects almost every form of activity on the island.
It may also be a wealth destroyer.
A lifetime of buying and operating a car could impoverish a Singaporean by as much as S$2mil (RM4.9mil) by the time he retires, a prominent blogger calculated.
In fact, many of the 10,000 Singaporeans who emigrate abroad annually – 4,000 of them to Australia – say they do so for cheaper cars and houses.
My own case may give an idea of how it is life changing.
Eight years ago, I paid S$18,700 (RM45,950) for a COE to buy a new 1,800cc Japanese car that inclusively cost S$80,000 (RM196,570), the most expensive in the world.
I thought it ridiculously high at the time. It was nothing compared to what was to come.
Today, the same car costs S$157,500 (RM387,050) or nearly twice what it did eight years ago. In other words, for this price I could have bought two cars back in 2004.
It has made my model the dearest car in the world. A similar one in the United States is one-seventh the cost.
Since my COE will expire in two years’ time, I am faced with two choices: buy a new car that I can ill-afford or bid for another 10-year COE, which could by then exceed S$100,000 (RM245,765).
The third option is, of course, to abandon it and use the bus or mass transit like other Singaporeans?
That would have been preferred if my state of health permits it. At 72, with a weak heart and on peritoneal dialysis for failed kidneys, alas public transport is not possible for me.
Most of my trips are to and from hospital for treatment.
I will probably decide, if I’m still alive, to pay for a five-year COE extension at half the then prevailing rate (currently S$91,000) so I can continue to drive my old jalopy for five more years.
The ironic thing is that I will be paying the government thousands of dollars a month just for the privilege of using my own car.
To put things in perspective, the government had intended the scheme to reduce road congestion by putting a quota on new cars. Somewhere along the way, it became a great source of revenue.
Has it cut down car enthusiasm or traffic jams? Yes, but the success has been confined to peak hours in the business districts.
There are more than 500,000 private cars on the roads here – or 44 per 100 households.
Singapore has two-and-a half times more cars than Hong Kong, a comparable city. Without the COE, who knows how many cars would be using our roads – a million?
The government is not wrong in saying that without a quota the roads would be gridlocked at most times, given the rising wealth accumulated by so many.
Critics often call for an end to the COE, saying there are other less costly ways to contain road jams. Beijing, for example, has occasionally imposed alternate-day driving.
The Singapore authorities should impose higher levies on the second and third car, the same way it is doing in the property market to reduce the possibility of a bubble forming, some motorists suggest.
This would be a disincentive against over-consumption by the rich. “But since these measures are revenue-reducing, they are unlikely to be implemented,” the motorist added.
After paying a small fortune for a new car, the owner will then have to worry about Singapore’s Electronic Road Pricing (ERP), another money-draining project.
Nearly 70 electronic gantries are placed over busy streets and highways to tax car users.
My drive to the Singapore General Hospital, for example, passes four gantries and costs me some S$7 (RM17.20) at peak periods.
But the COE has worked to some extent in keeping down the number of cars in these ERP-covered roads.
The problem is pushed to the surrounding roads, which often inherit some of the congestion as cars make a detour through them.
In a recent report, the Wall Street Journal, in labelling Singapore as the ninth most expensive city in the world, said:
“Moving to Singapore? Start saving: The city-state is one of most expensive cities in the world – 42% more expensive than New York – topping London, Frankfurt and Hong Kong.”
In March, inflation was a high 5.2%, one of the highest in the developed world.
“What’s been messing things up are the COE prices,” said a foreign bank economist.
If they keep rising at the current pace, it will be difficult to bring inflation down
RE: Articles from Insight : Down South - stephenkhoo - 05-10-2012 10:30 AM
Pressure on middle class rising
INSIGHT DOWN SOUTH BY SEAH CHIANG NEE
cnseah05@thestar.com.my
The demise of the industrial era locally and the emergence of competitive giants like China and India are pushing down wages everywhere.
SINGAPORE’S P-MET (pronounced Pee-met) – the acronym for Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians, a flourishing group of people who make up 51% of the workforce – is under stress.
Most are, of course, university graduates or diploma holders, whose numbers and role in society had steadily increased because of strong growth and people’s determination to get higher education.
In turn, it helped to shape Singapore into what it is – a rich, middle-class society.
The first blow was struck by the demise of the industrial era here as well as the emergence of competitive giants like China and India that pushed down wages everywhere.
Factories were closed or moved overseas and mass retrenchments followed, including executives and managers.
A series of downturns and recessions added to the toll. In 2008, for example, 43.3% of retrenched Singaporeans were from this group.
A new shadow now looms. This is the arrival of a small army of hungrier foreign P-METs who are always ready to accept lower wages.
Singapore is a middle class city. An estimated 70% of citizens consider themselves middle class rather than working class.
The influx of one million workers in the past 10 years included many poorer paid P-METs from India and the Philippines. Many ended up in finance, computer and multinational corporations, some of them easing out locals.
The arrivals are a mixed bag. The majority comprises lower-paid workers, but also includes many extremely rich settlers.
The demographic infusion is continuing but the government, responding to public pressure, has recently reduced the number of approvals given out.
It has eroded bit by bit the Singapore middle-class, already hit by economic changes.
Another effect of globalisation is the monthly departure of 1,000 Singaporeans to settle abroad for better opportunities and a more relaxed lifestyle.
In the past 10 years, 97,990 Singaporeans (excluding small children), had left, the government said. Many are young and well-educated professionals.
The erosion of the middle class was first noticed three years ago in Japan, and to a lesser extent in Hong Kong and Taiwan before arriving here.
It was enunciated as the M-shaped society by Japanese strategist Kenichi Ohmae, who noticed that among middle-class workers in Japan only a “very few” made it to the rich, while a greater number actually sank to the lower classes.
For some middle-class Singaporeans, this sounds uncomfortably familiar.
The gap between rich and poor in Singapore is the second widest in the world, and the government has promised utmost efforts to put it right.
For the government any weakening of the middle class is bad news.
Who forms the middle class?
There is no universally accepted definition, but Singaporeans generally base it on earnings. People who earn S$4,000-S$7,000 (RM9,800-RM17,200) are considered middle and upper middle classes.
Former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew once said that any political party that wanted to win power in Singapore must win the middle class.
The mass arrival of foreign professionals into the marketplace is causing the government dearly in public support – as shown in last year’s general election.
Former Director of Internal Security Department (1971-74) Yoong Siew Wah wrote that “Singapore has 30,000 P-METs who have been unemployed for quite a long time, and we now have Chinese and Indian immigrants competing ... for the limited employment opportunities”.
What do the unemployed P-METs do? Many work as taxi drivers, property agents, insurance agents, financial advisers, remisiers, or tuition teachers, said a surfer.
In recent years, the Lee Hsien Loong government responded to the furore by cutting down the number of foreign PRs and raising the pay ceiling for foreign professionals.
He also pledged priority efforts to narrow the income gap between rich and poor.
Commentator Patrick Loh said: “If you look around, Singaporeans have lost many middle management and higher management jobs to foreigners for the past decade.
“They are still losing these to them. The painful part is losing these jobs to lesser qualified candidates, just because they appear to fit the role better with a cheaper pay package,” he added.
There is another compelling reason why the People’s Action party (PAP) wants to keep educated youths employed.
Former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew told accompanying journalists to India years ago that his government would want to avoid his host’s plight. Their universities were churning out too many unemployed graduates.
Recollecting from memory, I gather his rationale being: These unemployed graduates have the knowledge and free time to plan revolutions. They would hang around in coffee shops and talk politics, and soon a revolution brews.
Recently, an Education Ministry official was reported to have told a US diplomat (source: Wikileaks) that Singapore did not plan to encourage more students to study in university, and the campus enrolment rate would stay at 20%-25%.
I wonder, if this is true, is it connected to concerns about the possibility of unmanageable unemployment among graduates here?