Rajiv Chaudhry

The two objectives, Singapore as a business and Singapore as a nation society appear to be on divergent paths.

With a general election due to be held in little over a year’s time (and possibly a lot earlier given the strong performance of the economy this year), it is not surprising that the government is finally taking notice of the rumblings which have been growing steadily louder among the people on a number of issues. Chief among these is the subject of the large numbers of foreigners that have been let into the country in the recent past. In his National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister (PM) Lee Hsien Loong devoted a considerable amount of time to this issue.

To many observers, however, the overall impression created by his speech was one of obfuscation, forced optimism and defensiveness at an issue that appears to be taking on a life of its own. In the words of the veteran journalist P N Balji in Today (31 August issue), the PM switched from  explaining to empathising to (finally) pleading.

Dr James Gomez of Monash University in an interview with TOC (13 July) identified the foreign workers issue as likely to be the single most important issue in the coming elections.

The total population of Singapore has grown from 3 million in 1990 to 5 million in 2010, an increase of 2 million people (or 66%), the bulk of which has come from abroad. The government has acknowledged that the fertility rate amongst Singaporeans is languishing below 1.3 which, after accounting for deaths, is well below replacement rate. The PM, in his speech, said, “For this kind of productivity, Singaporeans are not working hard enough” – to laughter.

More seriously, let us look at elements of the PM’s speech, to see whether the government’s arguments are valid and sound.

The government’s entire thesis for letting in large numbers of workers rests on the oft repeated mantra that foreigners are needed to grow the economy and create jobs for Singaporeans.

The PM said that immigration “is an issue everywhere,” citing Australia, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan and the US as examples. While it is true that in a world where workers are increasingly mobile, immigrants everywhere are facing a political backlash, to mention Singapore in the same breath as these countries is simply not comparing apples with apples.

The key point to bear in mind in any discussion on the subject of immigration into Singapore is the limitation of space in this country. Singapore is a country with a mere 710 sq km of land area with an outer limit of 800 sq km at most. It is the third most densely populated country in the world after Macau (China) and Monaco with a population density of over 7,000 people per sq km. Adding more people to this limited land area creates pressures quite unlike those at any of the larger countries  mentioned by the PM.

The government’s central argument that more foreigners are needed to grow the economy continues to have a circular ring to it (create more jobs for whom?). For example, the PM said that the integrated resorts (IRs) have created more than 20,000 jobs. What he did not say and what Singaporeans would be interested to know is how many of these went to Singaporeans who have had roots in the country for over two decades and how many of these jobs went to recent immigrants.

While it is also true that the IRs will generate substantial tax revenues for Singapore, this needs to be balanced against the social cost of creating a pressure-cooker society with large numbers of low-wage and less educated immigrants in our midst.

In support of his case to allow foreigners into the country, the PM cited the example of the Malaysia born couple which designed the Pinnacle@Duxton. This is obfuscation. Is the PM using this example to suggest that all foreigners who have been allowed to settle in the country are as talented as this couple?

The PM also cited the examples of Keppel and SembCorp, mentioning that three-quarters of the 20,000 workers in these two companies are foreigners.  I have suggested  in a  previous series of articles (here) that high-end manufacturing activities such as rig-building and oil refining where Singapore has a comparative advantage must be retained. In any case, most of these workers are migrant workers who, as the PM said, will not put long-term pressure on the country’s infrastructure.

What is putting (or has put in the past) a severe damper on wages and productivity is the easy availability of low-wage workers from abroad for non-critical manufacturing and service industries. In the 1970s labour-intensive industries were gradually phased out as the economy moved up the value scale; I suggest it is high time to restructure and re-orientate the economy once again to reduce our dependence on large numbers of low-skilled or low-wage foreign workers.

By continuing to allow businesses to freely employ such workers, the economy suffers twin disadvantages; first of not putting sufficient pressure on firms to innovate and raise productivity and more seriously, by placing a glass ceiling on the wages of the bottom 20% of Singaporean workers.

The government says there are some jobs Singaporeans will never do. I venture to suggest that if wages are high enough, Singaporeans will accept most jobs on offer.

The two objectives, Singapore as a business and Singapore as a nation society appear to be on divergent paths.

As a society evolves and moves up the development scale, it must carry all of its citizens with it. In this regard, the Scandinavian countries still remain the model for the rest of the world to follow. I believe it is still not too late and if Singapore changes course, it is possible, over a time-frame of, say, 30 years or so to raise the wages of the bottom of our society to developed country levels.

As far back as in 1994, Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Economics at Princeton University, pointed out that the growth of the East Asian “miracle” economies could not continue without an increase in productivity. The Economics Restructuring Committee recognized this fact and made it a key recommendation to the government. Yet, progress on productivity will be limited so long as companies are fed a diet of cheap and easy labour.

In the meantime, social pressures on housing, transportation and other services continue to mount. Yet, last week, the Minister of National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan said, “If the demand is there, in 2 years time, we are going to build a new Toa Payoh”. If we keep adding the equivalent of  a Toa Payoh every two years, the mind boggles as to where the process will eventually lead.

My vision for Singapore is a country that is small, manageable, comfortable, caring of the under-privileged, green and yes, SM Goh, gracious. It is not necessary to be the biggest and the best in everything. Luxembourg does not aspire to host the Olympic Games, yet its citizens enjoy one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. It is not crowded.

We continue to parrot the formula that worked well in the first 25 years: “grow or perish” (it seems to have become hard-wired in the nation’s operating system.) I suggest it is now time to think “grow too much and risk social atrophy”. We need a radical re-formulation of our national aspirations and goals. Although we are far down the road, it is still not too late to change course, or else SM Goh’s vision of a gracious society will recede until it is a mere speck on the horizon.

P N Balji concluded his commentary by saying, “What Singapore needs is a game changer …. that will redefine the country for the next 45 years”. Do we have that spark of talent in this government to provide that game changing inspiration? Will the new Population and Talent Division under the charge of the Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng be equal to the task? (DPM Wong looked rather tired when I last saw him on television.)

Before concluding, let me quote something Robert Kennedy had to say on the subject of the Gross National Product way back in 1968. It continues to be just as relevant today:

“Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things … Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

Let us learn to measure the worthwhile things in our life and manage our growth better by listening to the concerns of citizens who care about the quality of life in a country they and their parents built.

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

被谢健平不实指控 社运份子告状到总理处

记者韩俐颖、社运份子范国瀚和历史学者覃炳鑫,一同向人民行动党领导暨总理李显龙致投诉信,投诉该党马林百列集选区议员谢健平前几日在脸书作出不负责任的指控,把邀请马国首相敦马出席活动,曲解成“干预我国内政”。 有关投诉信也发到研究网络假消息特选委会主席张有福处。谢健平也是该特选委会成员。 三人在投诉信中指出,在本月1日,谢健平在脸书贴文称,覃炳鑫连同他的朋友(韩俐颖、刘敬贤和覃炳鑫)会见敦马,邀请后者把民主带来新加坡,并声称新加坡是马来亚的一部分。 ”谢健平的贴文污蔑覃炳鑫邀请敦马干预我国政治,很显然对新加坡不怀好意,暗示后者破坏新加坡主权。他还截图覃博士的脸书作为”证据“,有关贴文是覃炳鑫要求敦马在东南亚推动民主人权扮演引领角色,并希望新马人民有更密切关系。“ 投诉信指出,从以上文字中并没有要求把民主带来新加坡的字眼,也没有要求他人干预我国内政,至今谢健平都没有针对其指控提出有说服力的证明。 谢健平也针对覃炳鑫祝贺新加坡人民”非正式独立日快乐“,就是代表后者把新加坡视为马来西亚(马来亚)的一部分。 然而,事实上开国总理已故李光耀,确实在1963年8月31日,宣布新加坡脱离英殖民统治独立,因此将之理解为现今新加坡是马国一部分,是过度延伸。 更糟的是,谢健平的指控还被人民行动党官方脸书放大, 有数位该党领袖例如律政部长善穆根,也批评请敦马引领推动东南亚民主人权,形同要求马国首相干预我国内政,因为新加坡就处在东南亚中。 谢健平和善穆根的言论,也被本地主流媒体照单全收,大肆报道。 不靠领袖魅力,民主是不间断运动 ”令人失望的是,谢健平选择无视我们在社交媒体提出的反馈。不论是范国瀚还是韩俐颖,都针对与敦马会面表达了看法。…

PM Lee says that the Government will “do more if necessary” and continue to monitor the Wuhan virus situation in Singapore

On Tuesday (28 January), Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong took to his…

贝理安:政府开支应符合国家利益

在上月8日,教育部长王乙康透过书面回答,我国政府确实为国际学生提供少量奖学金,每年总支出高达1亿3000万新元。 相信是关心本地学生的权益是否受影响,昨日工人党非选区议员贝理安(Leon Perera)也继续在国会追问政府对国际学生开支的问题。 为解答议员提问,教育部长王乙康表示,第一点,我国教育体制核心目的是为国人服务,没有国人会因为国际学生而从高等教育学府中被排挤。 “真正的开支,我相信肯定少过1.3亿元。”至于国际学生的大学学费补贴预算,则为1亿800万元。 故此,加上奖学金和学费补贴,政府针对国际生的预算总开支,高达2亿3千800万新元。王乙康也强调,在过去10年,发给国际生的奖学金和津贴费用已减少一半。 今早贝理安在脸书分享,从教育部长口中得知上述数据,而后者也强调,上述开支也有利本国学生有机会和外籍学生建立友谊和联系,同时,也能吸引一些外国人最终在我国定居并做出贡献。 对此,贝理安提醒,在其他国家,这些对外籍学生提供的财务援助,都是大学自掏腰包的,而不是用纳税人的钱。 “我也询问有关在其他发达国家政府对外籍学生开支,与我国对比的数据,以及对这类援助有经济效益?” 贝理安指出,政府如何花钱,也反映我们的价值观、重心和目标。政府开支应依据国家利益作调整。 虽然她指出,一些对于外籍学生的开支是合理的,但他认为现在的开支仍然很高,政府仍必须能说服群众,何以对外籍学生每年总开支预算,高达2亿3800万元是合理。

Mobile network to be shut down at four stations for CCL testing

Mobile networks for Circle Line (CCL) will be momentarily shut down for…