Many countries are obsessed with FDI to generate economic activities in
their countries. The more FDIs coming in, the more vibrant will be the
economy. The Philippines are getting something like $2b to $3b FDIs
annually while Singapore is getting something like $30b. No wonder
Singapore’s economy is so healthy.
Singapore also has a reserve, unofficially it is rumoured to be around
$1 trillion. Leaving this money idle is unsound as the money must
generate income to pay the real owners of the money even at 2.5% or 4%
pa.
I
ncidentally, how much of this reserve is being invested in Sin City and
how much is being invested as FDIs in other countries? If the reserve
were to be invested locally, would it mean that the $30b FDIs Singapore
is getting is really peanuts?
Instead, Singapore is pouring FDIs all over the world and begging
foreigners to invest here for a paltry $30b and so frightened that they
would not come. Even worse, Singapore is throwing the billions all over
without anyone begging for it but actually begging others to let
Singapore pour FDIs into their countries at their terms. Heheh, the
first thing that came to my mine is all the Free Trade Agreements like
CECA.
Would it not be a better idea to pump our billions and billions of
reserves back into our economy and no need to beg anyone to be here and
be threatened by them or for them to discriminate and fix up our PMEs?
Does it make sense? And from the reports and records, with so many
failures in the tune of hundreds of millions and billions, is
Singapore’s FDIs to other countries really profitable, nett nett of such
heavy losses and still making billions?
Would Singapore be a safer alternative for our own reserves? We are
trying so hard to sell Singapore to foreigners to invest here and have
to kow tow to their demands. Why don’t Singapore sell Singapore to GIC
and Temasek to attract their money to invest here as FDIs?
Does it sound funny?
"Would it not be a better idea to pump our billions and billions of reserves back into our economy and no need to beg anyone to be here and be threatened by them or for them to discriminate and fix up our PMEs?"
ReplyDeleteRB
No, it is not a better idea.
Why?
For the same reasons why it is not better idea to spend more on helping poor Sinkies but better to spend $4.3 billion on 5 km of road.
Hope this will help the daft Sinkies to understand better.
I believe only 40% or less of Sinkie PMEs lost their jobs to cheaper, faster foreigners.
ReplyDeleteI assume of course these PMEs are not happy and so did not vote PAP lah.
Is my assumption too simplistic? What do you think?
Mr RB, Investing overseas different.
ReplyDeleteWhere got investing- gambling a better word.
Like going to Genting, Macau casinos to pok it pok!!!
Adrenalin shoots up!!
So much thrill!!
Afterall, its also not our monies. No need to disclose what!
Pok it pok until go pok pok!!
Huat Ah!!!!!
No wonder we lose Hougang to Ah HUAT Ah!!!
A PAP government is unlikely to invest money in Singaporeans.
ReplyDeleteWhy?
Because daft Sinkies will always vote for PAP tio bo?
You invest and educate these daft Sinkies then how?
They become smart and start to blog & ask questions like redbean.
So is this statement true?
It is in the interest of the PAP gahmen to keep Singaporeans daft & poor. In order to secure more votes.
redbean:
ReplyDelete>> Would it not be a better idea to pump our billions and billions of reserves back into our economy and no need to beg anyone to be here and be threatened by them or for them to discriminate and fix up our PMEs?
No. Because the PME situation is basically a human behavioural problem. It cannot be fixed by just throwing money at it.
The actors in the so-called PME problem are:
1. Local PME's who are unwilling to drop their salary expectations and compete globally in a new globalised world
2. The few foreign PMEs who "game the system" by presenting fraudulent qualifications, and "racial collusion" to hire co-workers of similar ethnic backgrounds
3. Employers who also game the system by circumventing MoM's rules.
It is pure bad behavior from a variety of actors.
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is definitely the way to go -- if you know what you're doing. This is a very efficient way of allocating capital because it goes DIRECTLY into the said enterprise. There usually many incentives associated with FDI, and if not it is easy to "bargain" with the government for: tax breaks, lifting of capital controls on earned profits, govt subsidies for training, govt "assistance" in acquiring land for business.
In many cuntrees it is customary to "lubricate" officials to ease the processes of "getting a piece of the action". With FDI it is easy to fiddle with the accounting to make bribes appear to be a legitimate business expense.
absolutely agree that its a joke we are 'struggling" to attract investors into SG by our beloved EDB.
ReplyDeleteIf EDB had identified a particular company to come and setup shop in SG ; there is small chance of that not happening as all EDB has to do is make a call to either Temasek or GIC to buy out that company and fire the CEO who refused to comply.
His Dy would be so happy to move to Spore rite?
Matilah, you are making wild assumptions. Many local PMEs are willing to suffer pay cuts to land a job. Any job can be better than driving taxis.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is not a few foreigners that are cheating and gaming the system. It includes recruitment agencies, the employers, management and the foreign hires.
redbean:
ReplyDelete>> Matilah, you are making wild assumptions. <
How many time do I have to remind you that I write OPINION, not "truth"? One of my goals to to make assumptions more wild than the ones you make ;-) Will I succeed? I don't know.
>> Many local PMEs are willing to suffer pay cuts to land a job.
Not enough. More need to "moderate" their expectations if they are to get anywhere. But, it's not my call. I can only make "suggestions".
>> Any job can be better than driving taxis.
Now it is you who is making a wild assumption. Add to that the fact -- in writing no less -- that you've just dissed the entire vocation of professional driving.
You've shown yourself to be quite the bigoted elitist :-)
Even when you write opinions, they still must have some basis and reasonableness. Otherwise you are no different from those mad men that escaped from IMH.
ReplyDeleteYou would end up talking to yourself when people think you are mad.
Heheheh. Now I am seeing two mad men having a conversation. Nice, very nice. Common wavelength.
ReplyDeleteHi bru n sis uncle untie...
ReplyDeleteI hope jack neo or eric cool can go for this :
Showdown of comfort women n AV women on a foam party mess orgy ..pull hairs ..scratch faces...kick d belows ..spit at each other ...scream to kill ....swung each other upside down n inside out .....pump each others like mike tyson ...tear n torn all clothings like bras etc ...urinate n pumpsai if possible ..
Hmm .
.wat a fetish erotic exotic fantasy to have ..
.
@1228:
ReplyDeletewow, your parties must be quite awesome...probably illegal, but awesome nonetheless.
@ Blogger Matilah_Singapura said...
ReplyDelete@1228:
///wow, your parties must be quite awesome...probably illegal, but awesome nonetheless.
November 29, 2013 12:33 pm///
SinkieLand would be doomed if the real person of the pic and the self proclaimed IMH "escapee" commenter shared the same wavelength and frequency.
For obvious reasons, it is not!
the IMH patient can continue to live in fantasy illusion and self delusion .......................
everytime this mati guy comment appears, the only thing fingers of thinking readers would do would be to skip it as fast as the fingers and mousy can go. worst than seeing a haunted ghost!
ReplyDeleteHahah, almost thought you said he thinks with his fingers. And you may be right too.
ReplyDeleteIt is indeed very funny that the kopi seller chooses to drink all his kopi from other kopi sellers instead of his own kopi. People who bought his kopi must have been either conned or poisoned.
ReplyDeleteOverseas investment only makes sense if it will bring much higher return than investing locally. Overseas investment is also a way to divest away risks although it will also attract a substantial amount of risk.
ReplyDelete