Property price is coming down fast

[seletar]

http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...uture-20130207

Straits Times Forum
Published on Feb 07, 2013

Ingrates? We are just worried about our future


I WAS disconcerted to read Miss Tan Lin Neo's letter ("High cost of living comes with good quality of life"; Monday). Her argument appears flawed.

First, a high cost of living does not equate with a good quality of life. Just tell this to those who are struggling to make ends meet. In fact, life has become appreciably more hardscrabble in recent years for low-income earners, as even basic necessities have become less affordable due to inflation.

Second, I cannot help but feel there is a disconnect between Miss Tan's rarefied notions and what is happening on the ground. Perhaps the only ones truly enjoying an enhanced quality of life are those who have deep pockets and can thus indulge in the finer trappings that a First World country can offer.

I suspect that the broad swathe of Singapore's populace are people like me - who work hard for a living on a fixed income, snap up deals only because they translate into savings, regard housing as a necessity and not as an investment, and view increasing costs with alarm as they realise that whatever nest egg they are amassing is gradually being whittled away.

True, most Singaporeans do appreciate the improved public amenities and infrastructure that good governance has given us.

However, this must be balanced with the management of spiralling costs, especially of public goods and other essentials. This is an entirely reasonable expectation that we voters trust the Government to oversee. It is certainly not a "whim" of the electorate, as Miss Tan has so nonchalantly put it.

Our fears about our financial security and our children's future are very real. I therefore take umbrage at Miss Tan for suggesting that our laments about the high cost of living and for wanting the Government to do something about it are the trifling whinings of a bunch of ingrates.

Marietta Koh Ai-meng (Mrs)

[seletar]

http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...-life-20130207

Straits Times Forum
Published on Feb 07, 2013

Inflation doesn't lead to better quality of life


THE strata of Singaporeans most affected by the effects of inflation are not those who flock to condominium show-flats and travel fairs ("High cost of living comes with good quality of life" by Miss Tan Lin Neo; Monday).

For the relatively well-to-do, inflation is like a ringing at the back of the head - irritating and possibly a cause for concern, but never disabling as it invariably is for those who struggle to put food on the table or for newlyweds who need to shoulder a mountain of debt for a small matrimonial home.

Even in a "First World country with a good quality of life", income and purchasing power are not shared equally by all.

Life is hard enough as it is without falling real incomes, dwindling bank accounts and worries about the future. If not for ourselves, we should be worried, as a nation state, for our countrymen who, by one way or another, end up less fortunate than the rest.

And although the cost of living does rise as the standard of living goes up, inflation should not be mistakenly considered a precursor to a better quality of life; it is more accurately baggage that we have to carry as we progress, and it should rightfully be beaten down once it rears its ugly head.

For the record, the cost of living is also a relative concept, dependent on wages and the cost of basic necessities.

I suspect that Miss Tan, in comparing costs between countries, does so from her own perspective, without taking into consideration the effects of the exchange rate or variations between the costs of different kinds of goods. The relationship between living costs and development will likely be less pronounced than imagined.

Ngia Jin Wei

[teddybear]

Really, I don't understand what high costs of living they are talking about. They should just live in UK / US / Germany for a year and see for themselves what really are high costs of living + extremely high taxes!

They can have a property for $300k (4rm flat), eat a meal for $3 at hawker centre, take MRT to work at <$2 per trip, are all these high costs of living?

http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...uture-20130207

Straits Times Forum
Published on Feb 07, 2013

Ingrates? We are just worried about our future


I WAS disconcerted to read Miss Tan Lin Neo's letter ("High cost of living comes with good quality of life"; Monday). Her argument appears flawed.

First, a high cost of living does not equate with a good quality of life. Just tell this to those who are struggling to make ends meet. In fact, life has become appreciably more hardscrabble in recent years for low-income earners, as even basic necessities have become less affordable due to inflation.

Second, I cannot help but feel there is a disconnect between Miss Tan's rarefied notions and what is happening on the ground. Perhaps the only ones truly enjoying an enhanced quality of life are those who have deep pockets and can thus indulge in the finer trappings that a First World country can offer.

I suspect that the broad swathe of Singapore's populace are people like me - who work hard for a living on a fixed income, snap up deals only because they translate into savings, regard housing as a necessity and not as an investment, and view increasing costs with alarm as they realise that whatever nest egg they are amassing is gradually being whittled away.

True, most Singaporeans do appreciate the improved public amenities and infrastructure that good governance has given us.

However, this must be balanced with the management of spiralling costs, especially of public goods and other essentials. This is an entirely reasonable expectation that we voters trust the Government to oversee. It is certainly not a "whim" of the electorate, as Miss Tan has so nonchalantly put it.

Our fears about our financial security and our children's future are very real. I therefore take umbrage at Miss Tan for suggesting that our laments about the high cost of living and for wanting the Government to do something about it are the trifling whinings of a bunch of ingrates.

Marietta Koh Ai-meng (Mrs)

[seletar]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/pap’s-popul...GlvbnM-;_ylv=3

PAP’s population paper is an upside-down road map: Low Thia Khiang


By Elizabeth Soh Yahoo! Newsroom – 07 Feb 2013


Workers' Party secretary-general Low Thia Khiang took scathing shots at the population white paper in Parliament on Thursday, describing it as an "upside-down road map with no destination".

“As a rational and responsible co-driver, it is our duty to tell the driver that he is reading the road map upside down,” said the opposition leader.

Speaking strongly against the "worst-case scenario" of a 6.9 million population put forward by the paper, Low said that the government was attempting to use immigration as a short-term, easy solution to it’s bigger problems of a low fertility rate and a growing ageing population.

He dismissed recently enhanced baby-bonus incentives, saying that the PAP had missed the point.

“Why is the government continuing to use a method that has not worked?” asked Low, pointing out that the incentive method had been used – with little success – for the past 40years.

“Why does it not see that they are serious ‘road blocks’ such as high housing costs, lack of family and social support, lack of quality childcare options, and bad work life balance that are preventing young couples from marrying earlier and having more babies?”

Accusing the PAP of "kicking the can down the road" and refusing to deal properly with the falling fertility rate, Low described a possible scenario where there would soon be one new citizen for every baby born to existing Singaporeans.

“The solution must be focusing on promoting the quality of life for Singaporean families. By focusing on immigration the government is using the cause of the problems today as a solution for tomorrow. If you travel down this road map, Singaporeans will become a minority in their own country.” he said.

Low warned that Singapore’s fertility rate was a matter of national survival, He also said that the government had only an "ambiguous target with no specific time frame" to bring births up, and questioned if it would once again turn to more immigration if the problem was not solved by 2030.

This, he said, would lead to serious integration problems, going by the amount of friction and hostility towards new citizens and foreigners already happening in Singapore.

Low also said that the paper’s justification of increasing the immigrant population to support an ageing population reflected a wrong mindset.

“The government sees our senior citizens as fiscal and healthcare burdens,” said Low, adding that a serious mindset change was needed about the way the government perceived Singapore’s ageing population.

“Their solution is again immigration as though by increasing the support ratio, our senior citizens will be magically supported. Is the government admitting that the CPF scheme is causing insufficient savings and that our senior citizens will become a burden?”

Picking on the series of different terms which have been used to describe the 6.9 million population, from "parameters to "worst-case scenarios", Low said that that if the government was indeed taking the route to overprovide by 1 million, significant wastage could result.

“It would be a waste of our precious resources. The government holds the key to immigration, a tap that controls the water,” said Low, expressing doubt over the large margin of error that the paper provided for.

Finally, Low said that Singapore needed to cherish and protect what it had achieved, instead of focusing entirely on economic growth.

Warning that the paper was a road-map that would take Singapore on a "road of no return", Low concluded by stating the party's full opposition to the passing of the paper.

[Rysk]

Really, I don't understand what high costs of living they are talking about. They should just live in UK / US / Germany for a year and see for themselves what really are high costs of living + extremely high taxes!

They can have a property for $300k (4rm flat), eat a meal for $3 at hawker centre, take MRT to work at <$2 per trip, are all these high costs of living?

Haha.. In Australia, eat a simple Chinese meal costed me average SING Dollar $10.. eat till my pocket$$ cannot tahan
In hawker here, the same food cost less than $5

[thomastansb]

I used to work in Denmark (Copenhagen). 1 month, I earn about 10k S$ as an engineer. Mid level with 3 years experience. Housing provided so no need pay rental.

I paid 45% tax so my take home is 5.5k. 1 meal there is about S$30 so practically, I end up with nothing every month. A single storey house there (small one) about 300k S$. 2 bedrooms around 1000 sq ft.

So you all just go calculate how a normal danish worker will take home and pay for their mortgage. They don't have CPF and they pay their house in cash only. A basic KFC meal is about $15 and 10k is pretty a norm in Copenhagen.

I am back in Singapore after 1 year. So I don't know what crap high cost of living are Singaporeans complaining. They will truly repent when that day come and our wives are maid in other people's country.

Haha.. In Australia, eat a simple Chinese meal costed me average SING Dollar $10.. eat till my pocket$$ cannot tahan
In hawker here, the same food cost less than $5

[hopeful]

I used to work in Denmark (Copenhagen). 1 month, I earn about 10k S$ as an engineer. Mid level with 3 years experience. Housing provided so no need pay rental.

I paid 45% tax so my take home is 5.5k. 1 meal there is about S$30 so practically, I end up with nothing every month. A single storey house there (small one) about 300k S$. 2 bedrooms around 1000 sq ft.

So you all just go calculate how a normal danish worker will take home and pay for their mortgage. They don't have CPF and they pay their house in cash only. A basic KFC meal is about $15 and 10k is pretty a norm in Copenhagen.

I am back in Singapore after 1 year. So I don't know what crap high cost of living are Singaporeans complaining. They will truly repent when that day come and our wives are maid in other people's country.

with their high salary, how do you explain a house 1000sqft only 300k S$?
what is the rental for that house overthere?

[GIG]

Copenhagen is cheaper.

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living...ty2=Copenhagen

[DC33_2008]

Do you realise that why the tax is so high in Denmark? Pay for their medical and pension. Singapore has it but unfortunately not enough. They give you the state of the art system and ask old people to pay $$$$ to go through all the scans that will leave a pocket of an elderly.

I used to work in Denmark (Copenhagen). 1 month, I earn about 10k S$ as an engineer. Mid level with 3 years experience. Housing provided so no need pay rental.

I paid 45% tax so my take home is 5.5k. 1 meal there is about S$30 so practically, I end up with nothing every month. A single storey house there (small one) about 300k S$. 2 bedrooms around 1000 sq ft.

So you all just go calculate how a normal danish worker will take home and pay for their mortgage. They don't have CPF and they pay their house in cash only. A basic KFC meal is about $15 and 10k is pretty a norm in Copenhagen.

I am back in Singapore after 1 year. So I don't know what crap high cost of living are Singaporeans complaining. They will truly repent when that day come and our wives are maid in other people's country.

[DC33_2008]

My Danish and Swiss friends' kids does not want big house and nice car. They are happy biking around. But not young singaporeans.

with their high salary, how do you explain a house 1000sqft only 300k S$?
what is the rental for that house overthere?

[chanbi]

Why must we always compare to other countries? Esp those at ultra high cost of living? Shouldn't we compare to what used to be in Singapore 10 years back and now? Compare from both the cost of living and salary? Then maybe well to do people like some of you can better appreciate why so many Singaporeans are complaining? Just food for thoughts..

[Laguna]

Why must we always compare to other countries? Esp those at ultra high cost of living? Shouldn't we compare to what used to be in Singapore 10 years back and now? Compare from both the cost of living and salary? Then maybe well to do people like some of you can better appreciate why so many Singaporeans are complaining? Just food for thoughts..

no problem, ya, cost of living in My is so much lower than Sg, everything..so, if our people is not happy, just go there and stay.

[indomie]

Nowhere is cheap now. Not in malaysia, not in indonesia, not in vietnam. If u live in any of those country and u demand the same standard of health care, education, housing, safety, it might cost u more than sg.

[Laguna]

Nowhere is cheap now. Not in malaysia, not in indonesia, not in vietnam. If u live in any of those country and u demand the same standard of health care, education, housing, safety, it might cost u more than sg.

that is why, I fail badly in understanding why so people is so so so unhappy here.
This is not a Sg problem, this is a global issue....I just feel very lucky of where I am now..

[DC33_2008]

I was having lunch at JB citysquare a couple of days ago and had a set lunch (soup, main course and even ying-yang tea) at Gary Kim which only cost me $6. It would be double in Vivocity. Yusheng for 6 pax in Sakae Sushi in the same place only cost me $16 nett. I can see why people go over for there.

Nowhere is cheap now. Not in malaysia, not in indonesia, not in vietnam. If u live in any of those country and u demand the same standard of health care, education, housing, safety, it might cost u more than sg.

[hyenergix]

I was having lunch at JB citysquare a couple of days ago and had a set lunch (soup, main course and even ying-yang tea) at Gary Kim which only cost me $6. It would be double in Vivocity. Yusheng for 6 pax in Sakae Sushi in the same place only cost me $16 nett. I can see why people go over for there.

I had chicken rice at Tebrau Jusco for S$6 yesterday:

one plate of rice, one plate of generous servicing of steam chicken, one small bowl of coconut jelly dessert, two small crispy fried cup dessert with tapoica inside (dunno how to describe), one generous plate of beansprout and one cup of sprite, and free parking.

It would easily cost double in Vivo. What do you think? What I was doing there? Sign the purchase agreement for a house next to this Jusco mall loh...

[indomie]

I was having lunch at JB citysquare a couple of days ago and had a set lunch (soup, main course and even ying-yang tea) at Gary Kim which only cost me $6. It would be double in Vivocity. Yusheng for 6 pax in Sakae Sushi in the same place only cost me $16 nett. I can see why people go over for there.

Cheap food always has it reason to be cheap. In jakarta I try to avoid cheap food joint. Just go and see inside their kitchen u don't feel like eating anymore. Their food preparation staffs are not train properly, the usage of oil to fried is too repetitive, once u see how the meat processed from u will swear to be a vegetarian for life. In sg at least u can complain to health dept for food poisoning. In other countries u wouldn't know if such a department even exist.

[minority]

Do you realise that why the tax is so high in Denmark? Pay for their medical and pension. Singapore has it but unfortunately not enough. They give you the state of the art system and ask old people to pay $$$$ to go through all the scans that will leave a pocket of an elderly.

Well sgp give u a choice. Lower tax n u go plan for urself buy insurance to cover ur own .

Or u rather have a one off high tax n u live with the high cost?

I prefer to have choice n freedom to plan for my self.

Want state of art u have to pay for it. Don't want then can go basic class. I don't agree with a one size wack all model.

[DC33_2008]

ANOTHER MEGA PROJECT BY TEMASEK TO BE UNVEIL BY PM LEE IN MEDINI ISKANDAR

PETALING JAYA: A plot of land, measuring 5.9 ha, in Medini Iskandar which forms part of Iskandar Malaysia was sold to a Singaporean developer, who plans to turn it into a mixed development hub in five years. The gross development value (GDV) is estimated at RM2.5bil.

The deal comes hot on the heels of local property developer B&G Capital Resources Bhd snapping up a 3.4-ha site near this plot in Medini, just over a month ago.
However, the deal to really watch out for is likely to be sealed in a few weeks' time involving the sale of a man-made island in the eastern side of Johor Baru to an influential Singaporean party. The man-made island was created by Iskandar Waterfront Holdings Sdn Bhd (IWH) upon undertaking reclamation works.
The land is right smack in Danga Bay and is part of the fisherman's wharf, which is one of the 10 projects being undertaken at Danga Bay.
“The man-made island is going to be worth about a billion ringgit and its GDV will run into a couple of billions. The parties involved the Singaporean buyer and IWH are still haggling over the price,'' said a source.

But come Feb 19, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and his Singaporean counterpart, Lee Hsien Loong, will unveil two significant wellness developments urban wellness and resort wellness at a site in Medini.
The GDV of these two projects, which includes the development of a wellness centre, serviced residences, a corporate training centre, and commercial, retail, residential and wellness-related offerings, is said to be a whopping RM5.2bil.

[Rosy]

JB food is cheap only for foreigners like singaporeans after currency conversion.

The locals stay there and work there definitely do not find the food cheap.

[seletar]

http://www.todayonline.com/voices/wh...omy-not-babies
TODAYonline
Voices

White Paper is about the economy, not babies


From Corinna Lim - 08 Feb 2013


Both proponents and critics of the White Paper have the misconception that improving the total fertility rate (TFR) will reduce the need for migrants and enable Singapore to maintain a “strong Singaporean core”.

This notion must be disabused because it leads our parliamentarians and policymakers down the wrong track. Also, Singaporeans should not be made to feel that they should accept high levels of migration because it is their fault for not having more babies.

We should be clear about the two main justifications for migration: Long-term demographic challenges (low fertility and an ageing population) and short-term economic growth (to address labour shortage issues).

TFR is all about the former, which we should not conflate with the latter. We have let in so many people on our island in the last decade not to make up for Singaporeans not having babies but to address labour shortages to achieve our economic goals.

The Institute of Policy Studies paper, Scenarios of Future Population Growth and Change in Singapore (2011), showed that increasing TFR, even to 1.85, is not going to make much difference to the resident population.

In 2030, the difference in the citizen population between a TFR scenario of 1.24 and 1.85 is 110,000 persons (3 per cent). So, improving the TFR is not going to stop our Singapore core from shrinking or ageing.

This does not mean, though, that the State should not do its best to ensure that all families get as much support as possible to ensure high quality of life.

The Population White Paper states that to maintain the citizen population as though we had a TFR of 2.1, we need a maximum of 25,000 new citizens per year. It envisages that the Permanent Resident population would remain stable, even with an annual intake of 30,000.

The remaining migrants are allowed in purely for economic reasons, that is, for every person who comes here to replace our shrinking citizenship, more persons are allowed in as transient workers. This is what the debate should focus on instead of lumping economic and demographic issues together. The question should be: What are the alternatives to increasing the population with more transient workers than citizens?

For example, what can be done to get more people here into the workforce? After all, there is, at any one time, more than 30 per cent of women who are not doing paid work and many people above age 65 who want to continue working. Singapore students, too, can be encouraged to participate more actively in part-time work by further opening up the economy to them.

Second, how can we increase productivity of the workforce?

Letting in more transient workers is counterproductive, as cheap labour lessens the incentive for businesses to improve productivity.

These are not easy questions to answer. So, for starters, let us stop confusing workforce issues with babies. This would lead to a clearer debate on what strategies we should employ to address short-term economic issues and long-term demographic issues.

[seletar]

http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...gners-20130208
Straits Times Forum
Published on Feb 08, 2013

The four groups of foreigners


THE issue of foreigners in Singapore has been debated many times, and especially so in recent years.

We will have to continue bringing in foreigners in order to achieve our economic goals and ensure a sustainable population in future.

Our policies should be calibrated to ensure that we bring in the right kind of foreigners.

There are four categories of foreigners.

First, there are the investors and job creators. These are the high-fliers whom we should target and ensure they take up citizenship.

They bring in investments and help to create jobs for Singaporeans.

Usually, they will take up permanent residency and it is not easy to entice them to take up citizenship as they are highly mobile.

Second, there are the professionals, managers, executives and technicians. They can be found in almost every sector, working in factories, offices, restaurants and so on. They are mainly at the middle management level and hold employment passes or S-passes.

There is also a tendency for them to recruit their own countrymen when they are in a position to hire workers.

They come here mainly to make money and will return to their countries once they have earned enough.

Most grouses are directed at this group because they are taking up jobs that Singaporeans can do. They have also been blamed for the tight squeeze on public transport and the high prices of houses.

We should slow down the intake of this group.

Third, there are the low-end foreign workers. This group can be found mainly in the construction, shipyard, cleaning and hotel industries, in jobs that many Singaporeans shun.

We do not see them very much in our day-to-day commute because they are usually ferried by lorries between their dormitories and workplaces.

Once their contracts end, they will return to their countries.

Singaporeans do not see much problem with this group as they are needed to build our infrastructure.

Lastly, there are the foreign spouses of Singaporeans.

Some lower-income male Singaporeans marry women from the neighbouring countries. Despite settling down and having children here, these foreign wives do not qualify for citizenship because of their lack of qualifications.

They are given long-term visit passes that have to be renewed. This can potentially break up the family.

These foreign wives should be granted citizenship as their husbands and children are Singaporeans. They have also contributed by giving Singapore the babies it needs.

Goh Geok Teck

[seletar]

http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...reans-20130208
Straits Times Forum
Published on Feb 08, 2013

Revise foreign labour policy to help S'poreans


I WORK in a large multinational corporation (MNC) and have witnessed the waves of foreign executives relocating to Singapore ("Call to relook curbs on foreign worker inflow"; Monday).

These expatriates hold mainly top-level executive posts. In recent years, they have been bringing in mid-level executives from overseas, usually from their own countries.

I know of many Singaporean colleagues who vied for these posts but were not even considered.

We pride ourselves on having a world-class education system. Surely, after all the years of rigorous studying, our local talent is well-qualified to take up executive roles in these firms. But why is this not happening?

Simply put, there is no requirement for employers in MNCs to first look at the local talent pool.

At the ground level, these hiring managers are themselves foreigners, and they have no moral obligation to hire Singaporeans.

At the policy level, there is no incentive or regulation in place to make companies hire Singaporeans over foreigners.

I echo MP Foo Mee Har's comments in Parliament on Monday that "many consider the current employment pass system somewhat liberal in its assessment of foreigners vying for attractive PMET jobs" ("'Instil confidence that Govt is for the people'"; Tuesday).

I urge MPs who work in the private sector to speak up on behalf of local professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) who are facing intense job competition and unfair hiring practices.

As a young graduate applying for a job in the United States, I found that companies there had to prove they were unable to hire US citizens before they could recruit foreigners. Also, there was an annual quota on employment visas for foreigners.

In Australia, the authorities allow foreign professionals and executives to work there only if they possess the skills specified in the "skilled occupation list". This list is updated regularly, with skills added or removed depending on the needs of the country.

I urge the Government to revise our policy on employment pass holders to ensure that local fresh graduates are able to find jobs, and that there are opportunities for them to advance in their careers.

I am not against bringing in low- or semi-skilled foreigners to work in areas shunned by Singaporeans, but there should be tighter controls on the hiring of skilled foreign labour. These foreigners should be hired only in specific or niche industries where there is a true shortage of local talent.

Furthermore, MNCs and other companies that wish to employ foreigners on employment passes should pay some form of levy, just like employers of work permit and S-pass holders.

Bernard Chong Seow Ming

[seletar]

http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...abour-20130208
Straits Times Forum
Published on Feb 08, 2013

Adopt nuanced approach to foreign labour


THE Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (Asme) is spot-on in its comments on the loss of professional, manager, executive and technician (PMET) jobs to foreigners ("Call to relook curbs on foreign labour inflow"; Monday).

The Government adopts a broad-brush approach in dealing with foreign labour and applies the same yardstick when adjusting the inflow of PMETs and low-skilled workers.

In recent months, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has raised the salary criterion for allowing employers to hire foreign PMETs.

In spite of this, I see many young foreigners taking up PMET jobs in sectors such as financial services. Did the employers really try to fill these jobs with Singaporeans first?

The Government should use a calibrated approach to foreign labour as suggested by Asme. It should allow more low-skilled foreign workers, as they take up jobs that Singaporeans shun.

It should be mandatory for companies seeking to hire PMETs to look for Singaporean talent first. Only if they are unsuccessful in their search can they seek MOM approval to hire foreigners.

The MOM, for its part, should carefully examine the employers' claims before allowing them to hire foreigners.

If such a nuanced approach is not followed, Singaporeans have every reason to doubt the White Paper's projection that two-thirds of Singaporeans will be PMETs in 2030.

Of course, this proportion is possible if the PMET population in 2030 consists of a large number of new citizens. But it would still leave out the "core Singaporeans" who bear greater national responsibilities.

Hariharan Gangadharan

[seletar]

http://www.todayonline.com/voices/re...ork-not-wanted
TODAYonline
Voices

Retirees encouraged to work, but not wanted?


From Chen Sow Lin - 28 January


I am a 61-year-old who falls into the PMEB (professionals, managers, executives and businessmen) category, and who had worked in operations for 19 years.

Encouraged by the Government’s call for able and fit retirees to stay in or join the workforce, I applied for some jobs, as I am a workaholic. I also wanted to supplement the finances of my two daughters, who started their tertiary education last year.

I registered myself with the Workforce Development Agency and the officer on duty was even kind enough to help me register with an agency specialising in assisting PMEBs in looking for work.

When I saw three administrative positions listed on the Careers@Gov portal, I applied even though I am overqualified, as I know that I have limitations as a retiree and I was willing to settle for a clerical position.

When I was turned down, I assumed that the jobs went to someone else and I accepted that.

But, to my surprise, I found that the same positions later reappeared on the website.

I appealed to my Member of Parliament for help and received a vague reply saying that the North West Community Development Council would follow up with me, but until now no one has called me back.

Neither have I heard from any of the other government agencies I have applied to for jobs, even with my experience in a specialised field.

The implication is that retirees are not wanted and only those who have worked up until retirement have a chance to extend their employment.

Our Government is encouraging us to work but I am very disappointed that nobody seems to want us.

This is forcing me to consider social welfare when I do not want to live on charity and am still capable of working.

[seletar]

http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/08...he-foot-today/

Amy Khor, do you know you just shot yourself in the foot today?

February 8th, 2013


Taking issue with WP’s proposal to go for slower GDP growth during today’s Parliament session, you warned that this would mean a reduction in the corresponding total workforce growth of 0.5 per cent per annum for the next two decades.

This, you said, was drastic as businesses were already decrying the current restrictions imposed by the PAP Government.

You then went on to argue that raising productivity would not compensate for the reduction in manpower as there was a limit to its growth.

You said: “Whilst raising productivity through innovation, technology and process improvement can help reduce their dependence on labour. There is also a limit as to how far this can go. Already, the productivity targets of 2 to 3 per cent per annum till 2020 and then 1 to 2 per cent per annum after 2020 to 2030 are stretched targets.”

Referring to the past decade of declining productivity growth, you claimed that: “…we have, on average, only managed productivity growth of just 1.8 per cent per annum over the last decade. This is despite generous incentives for companies to take advantage of and numerous discussions with business groups and employers to refine the schemes and ease the path for firms to access them.”

Now let’s talk about productivity.

Your statement is as good an admission that the PAP’s productivity drive in the past decade has failed.

Indirectly, you would also arrive at the conclusion that this declining productivity can in fact be attributed in part to the foreign manpower policy of your Party.

As many analysts have observed, the widespread availability of cheap labour in the past decade has caused businesses to eschew productivity growth.

See: http://singaporemind.blogspot.sg/201...labor.html?m=1

Given this therefore, it is baffling that you are still relying on the obsolete and simplistic correlation between workforce, productivity and GDP growth, when the important byword today is Singaporeans’ welfare which is at the centre of WP’s proposal.

In rebutting the WP, you have also conveniently ignored its point about not viewing our senior citizens as a burden but as a precious resource we can tap on.

If you and your fellow rich elite comrades had spent some time listening to the ground, you would have realized that today, an oft-heard complaint is the lack of re-employment opportunities among Singaporeans above 40 years of age, as employers have a ready pool of cheaper foreign “talent” to draw from.

How can a 40 plus year old Singaporean with a family to feed compete against these foreigners who have little commitment and protection here and hence, can be made to work much longer hours? Between the two, who do you think an employer will choose, may I ask you?

Next, we go on to your point that local businesses are already decrying the reduced foreign labour quota which was set in relation to a productivity target.

You mentioned that the productivity range set by your Government is already “stretched”.

But have you and the PAP Government examined what underlies productivity growth, apart from throwing money at the problem – which the PAP always does in any case – through productivity grants?

Improving productivity goes beyond merely implementing automated solutions.

At the heart of productivity growth is human motivation. If you bothered to survey the literature on human motivation theory and productivity, you would have found out that a host of intangible factors underlie high productivity such as: employee recognition, happiness, job progression and a responsive, caring and consultative management.

Indeed, these are the factors that explain the success of German carmaker, BMW, in increasing productivity in spite of an ageing workforce.

If you are too lazy to search for the article, fret not, here’s the link:

http://www.leeftijdenwerk.be/html/pd..._time_bomb.pdf

And is it surprising that the most profitable companies in the world are also the most admired in terms of management and corporate culture?

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/most-admired/

So Dr Amy Khor: Has the PAP Government sat down and conducted a thorough review on local companies to examine if the aforementioned human motivational factors are lacking, thus explaining their difficulty in increasing productivity?

This brings me to my final point which links back to the issue of your Government’s ultra-liberal immigration and foreign labour policy.

Your PAP has opened the door to all manner of foreigners. Particularly in the PMET segment, we have seen a surfeit of foreigners taking up managerial posts.

These foreign managers, particularly the Non-Resident Indians – in turn have imposed a nationality-based hiring system, preferring their own nationals over Singaporeans.

This has created a glass ceiling for Singaporeans who face almost zero job progression prospects.

So now, Dr Amy Khor, under such circumstances, how do you expect Singaporeans to be motivated to work and increase productivity?

Finally, in the Parliament these two days, we have seen your comrades rising one after the other to criticize the Workers’ Party on its alternative proposal.

The conduct of MPs like yourself and Vikram Nair is shameful to say the least.

Just today, Vikram Nair asked Chen Show Mao if the AHTC hires foreign workers through its managing agent. What, may I know, is the value of this question?

Vikram Nair has deliberately fudged the issue. The Workers Party did not say it opposes foreign workers. Its position as laid out in its Manifesto is to have a targeted approach to foreign labour based on the needs of individual sectors, instead of the current broad-based approach undertaken by the PAP.

Hence, what we are seeing in the Parliament these days is not substantive, meaningful or constructive debate; but the conduct of a Party more interested in protecting its vested interests and rebutting suggestions than working together with the WP for the benefit of Singapore and Singaporeans.

So dear Amy Khor and your comrades, now who is opposing for the sake of opposing?

The Alternative View

[seletar]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/cost-of-liv...181457181.html

Cost of living was No.1 factor for Punggol East vote swing: survey



By Shah Salimat | Yahoo! Newsroom – 08 Feb 2013



The top reasons leading to WP's win in Punggol East. (Graphic: Blackbox Research)

Nearly 4 in 10 voters who cast their ballot at the recent Punggol East by-election said the cost of living was the top reason that determined their choice, says a new survey.

Conducted by independent local agency Blackbox Research, the survey also found the second most important reason for vote swing was attributed to “the government not listening to ordinary Singaporeans”.

Some 21 per cent swing voters aged under 40 identified this as the top factor in deciding their vote.

Workers’ Party candidate Lee Li Lian won the recent by-election by a landslide 54.5 per cent of the vote, beating her opponent Koh Poh Koon from the ruling People’s Action Party by a 10.8 per cent margin.

Lee’s vote increased by some 13 per cent from the 2011 general elections, when she previously contested in the same ward, losing out to PAP's candidate then, Michael Palmer.

Conducted over a three-day period last week, the phone survey interviewed 150 Punggol East residents who said they had switched votes in between the recent by-election and the 2011 General Election.

Commenting on the findings, Blackbox managing director David Black said, “It’s clear that younger voters in Punggol East felt emboldened and don’t believe they will lose out by opting against the status quo".

"As the Chinese saying goes, ‘their wings have hardened’ and if this phenomenon is repeated elsewhere, it could represent a real challenge for the Government in the run-up to the next General Election," he said.

Punggol East is largely made up of a young, middle-class electorate. Approximately 1 in 4 Punggol East residents are aged between 22 to 35.

No disadvantage in having opposition MP: survey

Other key reasons for the vote swing included housing affordability and public transport issues.

While education and childcare were important factors for voters aged under 40, a “stronger opposition presence in Parliament” was an important factor for women – four times a more likely reason than that of men.

Young voters were also far more receptive to having an opposition member of Parliament represent their ward.

73 per cent of voters under 40 felt so, as opposed to 48 per cent of voters above 40.

When the survey measured the impact of the by-election’s catalyst as a vote changer, results showed that Michael Palmer’s resignation as a factor only accounted for 1 per cent of the vote swing.

[seletar]

http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/09...7-votes-to-13/

Population White Paper bulldozed through Parliament by 77 votes to 13

February 9th, 2013


Not surprisingly, after five short days of “intense” debate, the PAP-dominated Parliament passed an amended motion to endorse the Population White Paper yesterday (8 Feb). The White Paper was drafted by the National Population And Talent Division (NPTD) under the Prime Minister’s Office. PAP has relied on its overwhelming majority in Parliament to bulldoze the White Paper through Parliament.

PAP MP Liang Eng Hwa had proposed amendments to the original motion. His proposed amendments, which were passed, include explicitly stating that the White Paper “supports maintaining a strong Singaporean core by encouraging more Singaporeans to get married and have children, supplemented by a calibrated pace of immigration to prevent the citizen population from shrinking”. However the term “Singaporean core” was not defined in the motion.

WP MP Low Thia Khiang specifically called for division on the amended motion. That is, the vote of each Member is collected and tabulated through an electronic voting system.

The eventual votes in Parliament were:

Number of ‘Ayes’ – 77
Number of ‘Nays’ – 13
Number of Abstentions – 1 (NMP Eugene Tan)

The 13 MPs who rejected the Population White Paper are:

• 7 elected opposition MPs: Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim, Pritam Singh, Chen Show Mao, Muhamad Faisal, Png Eng Huat, Lee Li Lian.
• 3 opposition NCMPs: Yee Jenn Jong, Gerald Giam, Lina Chiam.
• 3 NMPs: Faizah Jamal, Janice Koh, Laurence Lien.

All the PAP MPs present endorsed the White Paper. MP Inderjit Singh who spoke out against the White Paper was not present at the voting.

Sylvia Lim said, “Although the Amended Motion captures some of the Workers’ Party concerns about the White Paper, fundamentally the White Paper still forms the basis of the road-map forward to 2030, which the House was asked to endorse.”

She said that her party “believes that the path proposed by the White Paper will further dilute the Singaporean core and weaken our national identity” and lead Singapore to “require unsustainable population injections in the future”.

Ms Lim added that the party believes that the greater well-being of Singaporeans “lies in sustainable economic growth driven by increases in our productivity and in our resident workforce, rather than further increases in our dependency on imported foreign labour”.

She said the focus should be on increasing the nation’s total fertility rate and growing the resident labour force participation rate rather than on importing foreign labour.

PM Lee pledged that Singaporeans would not be “overwhelmed” by foreigners, not realizing that at the current population size of 5.3 million people, many Singaporeans are already feeling overwhelmed.

PM Lee claimed that the interest of Singaporeans lies at the centre of all the government’s plans, and that economic growth and population policies are just a means to ultimately improving citizens’ well-being.

PM Lee said that the conversation on population will continue, even after the endorsement of the White Paper. It is not known what the conversation hopes to achieve further given that the White Paper has already been endorsed by Parliament.

At the PAP Party Seminar on 24 November 2012, with regard to the National Conversation, PM Lee told party activists, “We are not just asking people, what are your views, and I will go and be your note taker and speak on your behalf.”

“I think we have ideals, we have ideas, we have policies, we have proposals. And it is our responsibility to lead that discussion together with the people in order to persuade people to see things more in the way we do and to be able to see things in a constructive way which makes sense for themselves and for Singapore.”

However, despite the negative sentiments on the ground towards the White Paper, PM Lee brought a bulldozer to the National CONversation and managed to “persuade people to see things more in the way” that he wanted it to be seen.

[seletar]

http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/09...n-white-paper/

NSP calls on PM & President to hold National Referendum

February 9th, 2013


The National Solidarity Party (NSP) has written to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and President Tony Tan to call for a National Referendum on the White Paper.

In the letters, NSP called attention to the fact that there is significant opposition to the Government’s White Paper on Population which was adopted by Parliament yesterday.

The party urged PM Lee and President Tan to call for a national referendum on the issue to avoid breaking faith with the people.

The letters are attached verbatim below:

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Mr Lee Hsien Loong
Prime Minister of Singapore


Dear Prime Minister

The Parliamentary Debate has now been concluded with the Population White Paper being endorsed by 77 to 13 with one abstention. However, it is clear to many that the vote does not reflect the views of Singaporeans because the PAP Members of Parliament clearly voted along Party lines.

The Population White Paper will affect Singaporeans – for better or worse – for the next 20 years and beyond. All Singaporeans have the right to decide how their future is shaped. The future of this country is something that all Singaporeans have a stake in. It is only right that they should have a say in it as well.

For this reason, we call on the Government to hold a National Referendum on the White Paper.

We hope that the Prime Minister recognizes that a mandate to lead the government and people of Singapore also encompasses the willingness to listen to the people whose lives will be irrevocably changed by the decisions that their elected leaders make on their behalf.

Thank you.
Hazel Poa
Secretary-General
National Solidarity Party

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Mr Tony Tan Keng Yam
President of Singapore


Dear President

The National Solidarity Party has written to the Prime Minister to urge that a National Referendum be called on the White Paper.

The Parliamentary Debate has now been concluded with the Population White Paper being endorsed by 77 to 13 with one abstention. However, it is clear to many that the vote does not reflect the views of Singaporeans because the PAP Members of Parliament clearly voted along Party lines.

The Population White Paper will affect Singaporeans – for better or worse – for the next 20 years and beyond. All Singaporeans have the right to decide how their future is shaped. The future of this country is something that all Singaporeans have a stake in. It is only right that they should have a say in it as well.

In announcing your intention to run in the last Presidential Election, you had said, ‘I believe that the next President of Singapore may have to make very significant decisions that will affect the security and well‐being of all Singaporeans.’ One very significant decision you could make with the well-being of the citizens of Singapore in mind would be to ask the Government of Singapore to hold a National Referendum on the White Paper.

We hope that the President will act in the interest of the citizens of Singapore and ask the Government of the People’s Action Party to listen to the people whose lives will be irrevocably changed by the decisions that their elected leaders make on their behalf.

Thank you.
Hazel Poa
Secretary-General
National Solidarity Party

[seletar]

http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/09...lation-debate/

Economics Myths in the Great Population Debate

February 9th, 2013


The great John Maynard Keynes famously said that “practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.”

The debate on the Population White Paper has surfaced a number of myths and fallacies that seem to dominate the current discussion on Singapore’s population policies. Economics provides us with a very useful set of analytical tools to clarify our thinking and to develop sensible, evidence-based policies. The purpose of this essay is to examine some of the ways these myths have inadvertently, or even subconsciously, been used to justify inaccurate thinking about policies.


Myth #1: If we don’t have sufficiently large injections of foreign labour, business costs will rise, some businesses will shut down or move out of Singapore, and Singaporean workers will be laid off.

The first fallacy is a version of the misguided economic reasoning behind protectionism. The (flawed) argument for protectionism is that because our local firms cannot compete globally, they need to be subsidised by the state. By lowering costs for our firms, protectionism helps them compete against more efficient and productive foreign firms, thereby creating employment for citizens. Economists know this reasoning to be intuitively appealing, but wrong. The protection that is given to local firms does not raise their productivity; indeed, it explains their very lack of competitiveness. Meanwhile, the processes of creative destruction – the main source of dynamism in capitalist economies – are impeded, and the signals for the economy to adapt, innovate and move up the value chain are muted.

The business case for a liberal foreign worker policy rests on similarly flawed arguments. Businesses that rely on cheap foreign labour receive an implicit subsidy from the government. The low cost of labour encourages them to persist with low value-added production and discourages them from upgrading and improving their business processes. Meanwhile, cheap foreign labour discourages automation and holds down wages for citizen workers doing the same job.

Economists also know that the danger of protectionist policies comes not just from the practice of it, but also from the failure to provide an exit strategy. Countries that have benefited from the practice of protectionism are those where governments were tough enough to end protectionist policies that have outlived their usefulness.

If the Singapore government were to tighten foreign worker policies over a sustained period, there is no doubt some businesses would not be able to adapt and would have to move out of Singapore or shut down. Is this a necessarily bad thing? No, in a vibrant capitalist economy, this is exactly what we would expect. Businesses which cannot adapt should and would exit the market; the state should not be propping them up with ever more inputs of cheap labour. Their exit also frees up labour and capital resources for the growing, more productive parts of the economy.

Such “creative destruction” is a necessary part of the economic restructuring process. In economic restructuring, there will always be some firms which are disadvantaged. The economically sensible decision is not to protect these firms in their existing labour-intensive state (which imposes high social costs) through easy access to cheap foreign labour. Instead, the government can help lessen the pain in this process. For instance, it can help local SMEs by ensuring that they have access to the cheap credit, new technologies and business restructuring expertise needed to adjust and adapt to the new environment.

What about workers who are laid off and who lack the skills to move to other industries (in the same way that getting rid of protectionist barriers might raise unemployment)? Again, the economically sound answer is not to artificially prop up employment, but for the state to intervene directly to help the workers whose livelihoods are affected – through unemployment protection, higher wage subsidies through the Workforce Income Supplement, skills retraining and upgrading programmes, and one-off social transfers. Public policy should be aimed at helping workers and local firms cope with economic restructuring, not at helping uncompetitive firms that rely on cheap foreign labour stay afloat.


Myth #2: Economic growth is a zero-sum game

A second fallacy is that with the emergence of fast-growing cities in Asia, Singapore will need to maintain a certain growth rate or else it would stagnate and eventually become irrelevant. This is the essence of the “competitiveness” argument. While competitiveness might be a useful concept at the firm level, its utility at the level of cities and countries is highly doubtful. To the extent that economists use the term at all, they use it to refer to attributes such as comparative advantage, total business environment, innovation, and the quality of a country’s policies and institutions. The rate of workforce growth, especially in cheap labour, is not considered a sustainable source of competitiveness.

The argument that Singapore will stagnate if other cities in the region rise also has little basis in economics. Growth in a fast-growing and increasingly interdependent region like Asia is not a zero-sum contest. Just because Jakarta, Bangkok and Shanghai grow at a rate much faster than Singapore does not make Singaporeans any worse off. It is not the case that there is a finite amount of GDP growth for the whole world (or the region) and we must grab as large a share of it as possible. Indeed, the opposite is true. The growth of other cities in our region is more likely to raise our growth rate. The larger markets that their growth generates and the higher incomes their citizens earn should be viewed as economic opportunities for Singapore, not as “competitive” threats.

Similarly, the pursuit of foreign direct investments is also not a zero-sum game. If as a result of a more modest increase in our workforce, Singapore “loses” some investments that it would have received had it continued to grow its workforce as rapidly as before, this is not necessarily a bad thing. First, the marginal investments that we lose would probably be of the type that requires cheap labour inputs. So such investments do not raise productivity, and therefore incomes, by much. Second, such investments in lower-cost locations benefit Singapore via the standard comparative advantage argument. That is, as these lower-cost countries raise their output and and incomes, they can better afford the higher value goods and services that Singapore produces. Economic growth, rather than being a zero-sum proposition, is a positive sum one – all the more so in a fast-growing region where the individual economies are at different (and therefore, complementary) stages of development.


Myth #3: Denser, larger populations create significant economic benefits for cities

This myth has a strong element of truth to it. It is true that rich cities with larger populations enjoy something called agglomeration effects. When skilled workers cluster together, their output increases by more than the increase in the number of workers. Knowledge expands and spreads more quickly in dense cities than they do in sparsely populated ones; innovation tends thrives in denser, more populous cities. Indeed, this should have been the main argument the government uses for increasing the population and density of Singapore. So why didn’t it?

The reason is that these agglomeration effects apply only in certain industries, namely those which require highly skilled knowledge workers whose concentration generates innovation. Industries such biomedical science research, higher education, and business services like legal and management consulting clearly fall into this category. The benefits of agglomeration do not apply to low-cost, labour-intensive industries like construction, cleaning or security services. In these industries, more workers do not lead to larger increases in output per worker.

In the context of the White Paper, much of the projected increase in our labour force would be to serve our lower-skilled industries. These are exactly the industries which do not benefit from agglomeration effects but contribute to the externalities such as congestion and wage stagnation. Consequently, the argument in favour of a denser city with a larger population because of agglomeration effects does not really apply in this context.


Myth #4: Spending on healthcare and social services are costs which have to be financed by higher taxes, and are therefore a drain on the economy

The final myth is that some parts of the economy – like healthcare and social services – are a drain on the economy, while others are productive, “value-creating”, and generate “exciting jobs.” This characterisation of the economy has no basis in economic theory or evidence, although it is true that some sectors of the economy experience persistently lower productivity growth than others.

In the popular imagination, healthcare and social services are a drain on the productive parts of the economy. They have to be funded by taxpayers and are therefore seen as a cost that reduces national output. This is bad economics. Healthcare and social services, like other industries such as manufacturing, financial services or construction, also contribute to national output (or GDP) growth. Your spending in healthcare and social services is someone else’s income and his spending boosts another person’s income. So raising our spending in these two areas is not different from increasing spending in other parts of the economy. There is no economic basis for the common intuition that some industries are a cost while others are a form of investment.

What about the fact that healthcare and social services have to be financed by taxation? Doesn’t that mean they are a drag on the economy? Again, there is little economic basis for that argument. Many other things are financed by taxation too – MRT lines, public housing, law and order, security – but we don’t view these as a drag on the economy. Indeed, we may even see these things as productive investments.

But won’t taxes have to rise sharply to finance our higher spending on healthcare and social services? Not necessarily. First, Singapore has large fiscal surpluses which can be used to finance a well-planned expansion of such services in a sustainable way. Second, if productivity increases and people’s incomes across-the-board rise, we should be able to afford the rising costs of healthcare.

The real issue in healthcare spending is how the risks of incurring high healthcare costs are allocated. Most economists argue that given the low-frequency, high-impact nature of many medical contingencies, the most efficient way of financing healthcare would be through some form of risk-pooling or social insurance. That Singapore lacks a comprehensive and universal health insurance programme, combined with the fact that the bulk of healthcare spending currently comes from out-of-pocket payments, suggests that we can have a more equitable healthcare financing system without compromising on its efficiency.

With an ageing population, won’t rising health and social care expenditures hurt our economic dynamism, as it has in Japan and other rapidly ageing societies? Perhaps, but not for the reasons that are commonly cited. Health and social care services tend to experience slower-than-average productivity growth. This is because they are more dependent on labour, and are much less amenable to automation and other labour-saving technological improvements. But despite productivity growth in healthcare and social services being lower than in other industries (such as manufacturing or ICT), wages in these “stagnant” sectors rise just as fast as they do in other sectors because if they did not, workers would leave these sectors. This means costs and prices rise in healthcare and social services rise faster than they do in other parts of the economy. Over time, healthcare and other social services will take up a larger share of our incomes – both individually and nationally. But this outcome does not spell doom. As long as we sustain labour productivity growth at historical rates of about 2%, we can afford more of everything even as the share of healthcare and social services in our total spending rises.

The real risk of the “cost disease” (a term coined by the economist, William Baumol) is not that health and social care costs are rising, but that policymakers misdiagnose the problem and deal with it in a kneejerk way. For instance, they may shift a larger share of the rising costs to citizens. This doesn’t solve the underlying problem and may, in fact, make the problem worse as privatised healthcare is likely to experience faster cost inflation than socialised healthcare.


Conclusion

These myths exist because they seem to be intuitively correct. They appeal to our everyday experiences, and are consistent with popular accounts of the economy. These popular accounts include the idea that cities or countries are locked in economic competition with one another, or that jobs must be protected in order for workers to be protected. Our experience with health and social care as costs we try to avoid also explains our intuition that at the national level, this must also apply. But these stories, although consistent and coherent to us, are neither correct nor valid. As cognitive psychologists have found, people tend to rely on explanations that are consistent with their own experiences or with conventional wisdom, rather than on careful deliberation and reasoned analysis.

Economics is not, and should not be, the only lens through which we examine, analyse and debate our country’s population policies. But when we do apply economics analysis, we should try to get it right.


Donald Low, Yeoh Lam Keong, Tan Kim Song, Manu Bhaskaran
* The authors, writing in their personal capacities, are vice-presidents of the Economic Society of Singapore.