Gangasudhan

I read with relative interest today of Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong’s comments that was reported in the Straits Times (Job market on students’ minds[1], 16th July 2009).

The minister was reported to have said  that ‘jobs could still be lost in the coming months’ and that ‘initiatives, like the Jobs Credit scheme, are fairly new and their impact not yet clear, “if necessary we will introduce new programmes”.

This seems to be an uncharacteristic shift away from the constant beating of the drums that the Jobs Credit Scheme (JBS) is the way forward and a huge success – the most recent example of this ‘orchestration’ being the CNA report on 14th July 2009 (CDCs see fewer people asking for employment, social assistance[2]), where a huge leap of judgement equated the drop in numbers of people seeking job assistance at CDCs around the island to ‘companies benefiting from various government programmes such as SPUR and the Jobs Credit Scheme’.

I thus wonder if the revelation in the ST report (it does seems that the point might have come out during a sideline interview by journalists) was a case of the good minister momentarily losing the plot or if the time has finally come for the government to slowly rescind its exaggeration regarding the success – potential or otherwise – of the JBS.

However, as the transcript of the minister’s speech[3] does not signal any allusion to changing the tune towards the JBS, it might possibly be an unintended slip of the tongue.

The speech on its own does highlight other matters of concern such as the reference to the people of Singapore as ‘they’ and the government as ‘we’. For example, whilst addressing our ‘good leadership’ the minister makes no implicit distinction between leaders and followers, but when highlighting the ‘strong people’, he implies that the government has done much for the people as follows (emphasis mine):

We provided world-class education to our people. We gave each of them an equal opportunity to develop and realise their potential. Recognising that not everyone learns the same way or has the same ability, we provided different education avenues and pathways. We created the Institute of Technical Education, polytechnics, and schools which specialise in Sports and Fine Arts as well as design and technology. We are now building our fourth university as well as the Singapore Institute of Applied Technology.”

– Gan Kim Yong, 15th July 2009

Another point of contention is in his selective championing of some enterprises – namely, Singapore Airlines, Singtel and Keppel, all of which fall under the Temasek Holdings group of companies (Temasek is an ‘independent’ entity whose sole ‘shareholder is the Singapore Ministry of Finance’[4]) – 54%, 55%, 21% investment respectively[5] (Note: DBS Nominees which is part of a major investment of Temasek Holdings has a further[6] 26% stake in Keppel).

In addition to these enterprises, Hyflux was highlighted as an example of an SME (Small to Medium Enterprise) but it is to be noted that its CEO is a former NMP (Nominated Member of Parliament) and the current director of Temasek Life Sciences Laboratory who holds 23% ownership, with DBS Holdings (which itself is a major investment of Temasek Holdings) having a further 11% stake[1].

Finally, Minister Gan also appealed in his speech to the youth he was addressing that ‘we should welcome foreigners in Singapore, just as how our own grandparents were welcomed when they came as immigrants into Singapore in search of a better life.’ However, he has failed to recognise the fact that our forefathers came with (more or less) equitable opportunity and potential to succeed generations ago and, in stark contrast, those who seek a life or living here today are either the highly-specialised experts in some field who, incidentally, take away the impetus for our local ‘best and the brightest’ to strive for new heights in their chosen fields, or the unskilled labourers who artificially depress wages for the rest of the general citizenry.

In all, the MOM minister’s words do not give me any comfort or reassurance as to where our economy – or the nation, for that matter – is heading and leaves much to be desired of our government.

Footnote:

Interestingly, on Temasek Holding’s website, there is absolutely no reference to its sole investor being the Ministry of Finance other than a single line in the FAQ.

—-

The writer also blogs at: http://gangasudhan.com/blog/

—-

[1] http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_403584.html

[1] http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/442359/1/.html

[1] http://www.mom.gov.sg/publish/momportal/en/press_room/mom_speeches/2009/20090715-speech_by.html

[1] Temasek Holdings FAQ (Q3) – http://www.temasekholdings.com.sg/media_centre_faq.htm

[1] http://www.temasekholdings.com.sg/our_portfolio_portfolio_highlights_major_investments.htm

[1] Keppel Corporation Summary Financial Report 2008 (page 21) – http://www.kepcorp.com/investorrelations/pdfs/2008_sfr.pdf

—-

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Freedom of expression: UN expert alarmed by sentencing of teenager blogger

GENEVA (8 July 2015) – The United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom…

Parcel Scam—Three Malaysians face heavier punishment if convicted

Three Malaysian nationals who were charged in connection with a parcel scam…

网民质问为何当初执意办妆艺大游行

昨日,新加坡卫生部发文告,确认本地再添两起新型冠状病毒病例,累计确诊病例已增至45起。 新病患包括一名37岁的新加坡公民,他也是策安(Certis Cisco)保安机构的职员,根据卫生部文告,在入院前他曾到策安机构位于惹兰亚菲菲(Jalan Afifi)的办公处上班、也曾在2020妆艺大游行值勤。 在出现症状前,还曾对两名武汉人发出隔离令。但后来这两人也被确诊患新冠。然而, 文告并没有说明他是在什么时候接触过上述两人。 “他在出现症状后,就没有发出隔离令,他住在三巴旺通道(Sembawang Drive)”他在上月31日开始出现症状,并于本月2日到诊所就医;6日前往邱德拔医院就诊并立即被隔离,于昨日中午确诊患新冠病毒。 陈国明:“未出现社区传播”  做足防范措施就不必取消妆艺 而今年的妆艺大游行,则是在1月31日至2月1日举行。而根据《联合早报》报导,人协总执行理事长陈国明曾指出,有公众担心新冠疫情会在妆艺等大型活动中扩散,但有鉴于本地并未出现社区传播,人协经过再三考虑后,决定只要做足预防措施,妆艺大游行不必取消。 本月1日,《联合早报》则报导,妆艺大游行无人因体温过高被拒入场,人协做足预防措施,而总理和夫人何晶都有出席。当局称有1万6000人出席。…

总统会见王瑞杰 评估国家长期投资预估回报

昨日(12月8日),新加坡总统哈莉玛在脸书分享一张照片,她与总统顾问理事会成员,正在会议上聆听副总理暨财政部长王瑞杰,向她汇报本届政府对于相关资产投资的长期实得回报推算。 哈莉玛解释在准备年度财政预算案上,这个环节十分重要,他们将审视有关回报预估,在国家储备净投资回报收益(NIR)框架下,预估回报用来决定政府可以动用多少储备。 与会者还包括金融管理局(MAS)、政府投资公司(GIC)和淡马锡控股的代表。 哈莉玛指出,他与财政部以及投资机构在宏观经济议题上有良好的讨论,并表示将在总统顾问理事会咨询下,检视政府的提案。 根据宪法,每一年预算案,政府对预期回报的预估,都要经过总统批准。 在每个财年开始前,GIC、金管局和淡马锡控股,将由内部投资专才,提出预期长期实得回报的预估,此外也会征询外部专才意见。 之后,财政部将检视有关预估回报率,并建议用在三个机构投资净资产。如果综合和政府对预期回报率存有异议,则将根据过去20年平均回报率,作为政府可支出金额的基准。 在财政部的官网,也有解释道,以20年平均历史回报率,作为避免总统与政府间分歧的中立和务实基础,避免现今政府瘫痪。 要知道,每届政府累积的盈余,都要纳入国家储备金,创造国家储备净投资回报贡献(Net Investment Returns Contributions,简称NIRC)。…