Limiting influx of foreign talents may affect growth

‘For the past couple of weeks, I have been teaching my annual course in microeconomics in Singapore, a country whose remarkable growth owes a lot to the theory of incentives embedded in my course.

An independent country only since 1965, Singapore is now one of the wealthiest countries in the world in terms of per capita income. Visitors agree that it may be the cleanest and safest country, with remarkable racial harmony and city streets that can be driven at rush hour without the gridlock that you see in most of the rest of the world….

In response to a growing income gap between the many less-well-educated Singaporeans and the highly-skilled foreign workers who are well-paid in the country, the increasingly democratic government has begun to yield to populist pressure to greatly limit foreign workers. Even more so than the U.S., Singapore has benefited from the highly-educated, creative and hard-working expats who drive much of its economic growth.

By subverting the laws of supply and demand and deliberately not allowing the most talented workers to be hired at the going wage, Singapore may be relegating its miraculous growth to the past.’

Dr Lewis Mandell is a financial economist with a research specialization in financial literacy and a teaching specialization in investments and valuation at the graduate and undergraduate levels

The above is part of an article by Professor Lewis Mandell reprinted in the TRE with his permission. It was a nice piece of work praising the great achievements of the govt and what they have done to this island. As a Sinkie, reading it also makes me feel shiok. We are so damn good, but with a few drawbacks. The professor said Singapore must keep opening its door to let the ‘ highly-educated, creative and hard-working expats’ in or else  ‘Singapore may be relegating its miraculous growth to the past.’ I beg your pardon, when Singapore was rebuilding this country, were these foreign expats here and what were their contributions? Thought they were here only after everything has been built, the infrastructure, the industries, the big local banks and institutions?

The article has generated more than a hundred comments from netizens, 116 when I last read, mostly not too complimentary, and still adding. The daft Sinkies were just being disrespectful to this eminent professor. He is here to add value to our universities, teaching our young undergraduates about microeconomics. And he wrote such an enlightening piece on Singapore and even gave free advice to bring in more foreigners for Sinkies’ own good. How can our laypeople spoke so dismissively against this article and the professor without knowing their place? Boh tua boh suay.

No foreigners and dogs allowed

Below is a short paragraph posted in TRE by a blogger, pijitailai, in Mandarin.

新加坡可是越来越威风了，在洋人的地盘竟然不让洋人进入新加坡日的庆祝会。真想不到，新加坡政府在澳洲的一小片短暂的不到一天的租界，竟然表演出一幕《洋人与狗不准进入》的种族歧视风….

The gist of the article is about the Singapore Day in Sydney’s Botanic Garden. Let me try to translate. Singapore is getting more and more garang. In a foreign land Singapore refused to let foreigners enter to celebrate Singapore Day. Can’t believe it, the Singapore govt in a short span of time in Australia could demonstrate ‘foreigners and dogs not allowed in’ racist behavior.

Please regard this as a joke. Of course not, the foreigners could hang such a notice in Shanghai in those colonial days. Singapore would not do such a thing especially in Australia. Now that it has incurred an unfortunate racist protest, maybe to do some damage control and at the same time to advertise how happy we are to welcome foreigners to Sin, it can hold another Singapore Day for foreigners only to make amends and to soothe the nerves of the offended foreigners. It would be good PR and money well spent if more white Australians would visit Singapore and make it their home.

In job adverts in Sin, the foreigners are saying, No Sinkies and PRs needed. This one is true. No bluff.

Xenophobia frenzy in Singapore

The anti foreigner trend is gaining momentum in this city. The intolerance of foreigners is becoming second nature and openly flouted by the perpetrators in job advertisements. A few cases have been quoted with many violations sent to the MOM who are now investigating. The victims of this xenophobic outlash are furious and are standing up in protest and taking matters into their own hands. They are doing their own investigations and feeding the whistleblowing section of the MOM with more cases of outrageous and demeaning discriminations against the Sinkies. They know that if they don’t help themselves, they can only expect lip services and nothing will happen.

Yes, the victims of xenophobia in this city state are the citizens, the Sinkies. It is true, the citizens are quickly becoming an absolute minority if the trend is not stop or reverse. There will soon be more foreigners in the city state and they may think that the Sinkies are foreigners. The following are examples of job advertisements that have been posted in the social media and the respective CEOs have made apologies and retracted them. They are only the tip of the iceberg.

1. FST, a British firm, in its advert for an Art Director, ‘Must have Singapore residency(PR) status or PEP visa status.’

2. Randstad, a foreign recruitment company looking for a Merchandiser Planner, ‘The position is open to candidates who are not Singapore citizens or PRs.’

3. La Fondue Swiss Restaurant that wanted to recruit a Pinoy chef and proudly claimed to have a 100% Pinoy crew and Pinoy working environment.

What is happening? Sinkies are xenophobic or victims of xenophobia in their own country when discrimination against them is open and blatant, without the need to be polite and to disguise for fear of offending the Sinkies. Where is the sensitivity that is demanded from the Sinkies to be understanding and kind to the foreigners when the foreigners are bloody rude and abusive and discriminating against Sinkies?

Why like dat?

Thrift is not our national ideology

Just look at a few examples one would not fail to notice that thrift is not the ideology of this sinfully rich country called Sin City. The third world countries were once sneered at by the rich and matured countries of the first world for wasting money on grand projects like building mausoleums and palaces or anything that is good for nothing but costing a bomb. How much did it cost to build the artificial garden at Marina South, $1b? And much is needed to maintain it annually, another $300m? Anyone knows the actual figures?

And this is not the end. Another similar crown jewel is coming up in Changi to attract visitors to visit Sin City. Beg your pardon, is Singapore a destination or just a convenient gateway to the region? Like it or not, as long as the Airport is good enough, the people will come and go. But the Airport is never a destination. Neither is the artificial garden. The casinos maybe.

Then there is the F1 when everyone keeps telling that it is money well spent. Ngiam Tong Dow compared it like paying for the English boys to come and race their sports cars as a hobby. And we paid for it. How many hundreds of millions for playing host for the English boys to party?

And look at the money they are paying themselves. It is now a world record and would put Obama to same. Even a minor minister would have taken back more than the President of the USA, the Emperor of the American Empire. Thrift?

And what about the people? They are made to buy properties according to how much money they have. They cannot buy smaller properties from the govt if their income is more than the affordable formula. And if they are earning a bit more, they must squander their income, over 30 years, to buy private properties. Thrift? No, it is spend if you have it. Retirement no money? Who cares?

And the same formula applies to being warded in govt hospitals. The patients are frowned upon to ask for lower and cheaper class wards. There is also a mean testing to make sure they cannot get admitted to lower class wards. And if they do, the disincentive is that they will not get the same subsidies as the lower income, very meritocratic. And it is not the intent of the hospitals to build more lower and cheaper class wards with more beds to cater to the demand of those who do not want to splurge or squander their hard earned money away. Getting sick and admitted to hospital is a great opportunity to spend, to show how much money one can afford to spend. Spend until no money left for retirement or go bankrupt.

And the latest, spending millions on Sinkies living overseas. Some are questioning why the need to spend such money when the money can be put to better use at home, to feed the less fortunate. Is this about thrift? No, it is spending in style. We are the envy of even Europeans who insisted that they be invited into our eat all you can parties for free. My God, we are truly rich beyond the imaginations of the people of rich countries.

We have the money, we have a lot of money in our reserves, and we can afford to spend, to buy the latest and most expensive military toys at several hundred millions a pack. Who says the money is for rainy days? If the money is not spent, if people are thrifty, how can the economy expand, who is going to buy all the expensive homes and cars, how can the GDP keep growing?

Spending is good. Over spending is better. After all, money value shrinks quickly with the high inflation, and saving and not spending are as good as letting the money to rot away.

Affordable has destroyed our retirement plans

SG+ is a new programme very similar to Talking Point. Last week’s topic was about CPF and whether Sinkies have sufficient money left for retirement. After the two experts gone through with Melanie, the host, it was a glaring admission that many Sinkies will be in deep shit when they retire. The only hope to survive those greying years is to downgrade their homes, provided they have one and is down gradable.
 
The two were talking about having more savings and more schemes to bolster the existing schemes which would not be enough due to high inflation and the huge amount of money sucked into housing and medical insurance. The recommendations are something like another CPF to cover for the shortfalls in the current CPF and more insurance schemes to cover for the inadequate schemes that the people are paying now. 

The assumption is that the people have a lot of spare cash to pay and save. My ballpark figure to ensure that these people have enough to retire, to live well and to pay for their medical is to save 70% of their current income. Madness is another word.
Don’t blame the recommendations or the experts. Basically our retirement savings through the CPF are screwed. Despite being one of the biggest savers in the world, we don’t have enough for retirement. No joking. If the planners would have their full proof schemes, everyone must earn 3 times what they are earning today or save 2/3 of their incomes if they want to be safe.
 
What went wrong? Affordable is the word. By declaring everything is affordable or priced to be affordable, the savings of everyone is at risk, to be just enough for the day, for all the schemes, including housing and medical but somehow retirement was forgotten. They computed everything to be affordable, ‘gum gum ho’, and nothing left for retirement.
 
How did it start? It goes back many years ago when housing was priced to one income and to be paid off by 15 years. At this kind of affordability, many people’s savings started to grow. They genuinely smiled when they looked at their CPF statements, I mean the average workers. They would have paid up their housing loans and started to save everything they put into their CPF. And better still, if the spouse is also working, the whole CPF contribution would be in the CPF, and growing at 4 to 6% pa.
 
Then someone must have noticed the big and bigger savings in the people’s CPF. Heheh, they got plenty of money. Public housing prices must be made affordable to these people. They can afford to pay more. The prices became affordable for one income from 15 years to 25 years. Still got a lot of money leh. Make it even more affordable, with two incomes and 25 years. And then even more affordable to stretch it to 30 years or more. They called it market pricing or market subsidy or something like that, but very affordable.
 
Today, the first 30 years of CPF contributions by both spouses would be just enough for the affordable public housing. The real savings will come after 30 years of working, when both are about to retire or already retired. How to have enough for retirement? And there are the minimum sums to set aside, and now another great scheme, the Medishield Life is going to make retirement a less stressful time without the fear of big medical bill, but would tax on whatever is available in the CPF. The premium sure affordable, to who?